Figleaf

Excellent point. 'War Czar' is a fictional position ... all it is, is they're looking for some poor fool to take some blame.

Great point. Day staying in that portfolio under these circumstances is nothing short of scandalous. I really don't understand why Steve doesn't just shuffle Stock to somewhere safe while this plays out. It would certainly smell a whole lot better.

Does Menard think selling exclusively to his committee of rubes will prevent him from getting charged with bootlegging? Go ahead :Menard, see what you get! is a peculiar statement. Do you know something about how police officers operate that we do not know? FTA is a criminal defence lawyer, so I'll bet Yes.

Scott, FYI the Forum Rules and Guidelines state:

That is inherently dubious. Also, should I take it you have conceded that you erred in describing the mufti of Jerusalem as the leader of all Levantine Arabs?

Lawyering isn't doctoring. Doctors work irregular hours, expose themselves to danger (viruses, crazy people) and write stuff down for you to take with you after a visit (perscriptions). The irrelevance of this portion of our response makes me think you're not grasping my point. Your prejudices are neither informative nor interesting. And you'll probably blame lawyers when you lose your case(s). It's not a perfect world, and we don't have a perfect legal system. Blah blah blah. Instead of all this blither, why don't you give us some hard facts? Sure. The existence of lawyers is a mere fluke. Crap. Why not hire anyold person to carve out your busted appendix then? Why should anyone care about your opinion on this point?

True. What makes you appear insensitve etc. is what your opinions are, not whether I agree with them. Are you really suggesting that the type of 'hug' you would give to a nice friendly child is the same type of hug you'd give to a kid who was trying to pull hair, kick, and do all sorts of other things? You got it. Oh my god! I didn't realize that's what we're talking about. Golly, a potentially destructive child! Imagine. How fearsome. Why am I reminded of the Seinfeld episode where Kramer is doing judo with children? Ummm ... did I mention the hockey gear? Yes, yes, I did. Are you a teacher? Ah, the claim of 'common sense'... the last refuge of people who lack evidence to support their positions. In this case it's the first refuge, as I haven't tendered any evidence that has been refuted yet. I'm not sure I'll bother. Anyway, whether the child is handcuffed or hugged, there will be a point where she is being manually/physically restrained. Therefore, both methods suffer equally from the risks of harm to the child. Reductionism. You have to factor in my police taxes too, and social costs of criminalizing children.

If it was a real story, you wouldn't keep going back to a news article that in one day will be a month old. You seem to think that media attention is what makes a story a story. My, how that rhymes with 'tory'. Get civics, integrity, Parliamentary propriety, the rule of law, and a life.

It's not cool to purposely upset people, no crap. Should it be a crime? From what I read this was not sufficient to constitute a crime. If anyone had been struck by the meat, it might have been an assault. If the pattern became repeating, it would be harassment. But neither appears to be the case. By hate crime, do you mean a crime motivated by hatred for a particular group? Technically, if there had been a crime here, it might well have fit that category. I think the answer to that question properly lies in what principle we apply to the larger question -- should motive be relevant in setting sentences?

You wish it has, but the thing is, this isn't simply an "issue", its a serious allegation of criminal wrongdoing, with strong prima facie evidence to support it. An "issue" may pass, but serious allegations of criminal wrongdoing with strong prima facie evidence to support them don't. ...can't even count straight! That IS the question.

You should by now know enough to provide a proper citation for materials you are purporting to quote. Get with the program. Without this information, there is no point in making any reply to these petty jabs at Mark Holland. BTW, it seems you must be imagining something, as there is no contradiction apparent in Hollands comments you've quoted. Anyway, the real story here, the one that citizens need to be concerned with, is the serious allegations that the Criminal Code political corruption provisions were breached ... See Criminal Code of Canada (especially sections 119-134): http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/C-...al=50&length=50 65% of MLW respondents believe this matter should be investigated and that Day should step aside, at least until the matter is cleared up. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=8647

Exactly. He merely used the Reform Party to boost his career. Harper was a rightwing idealogue and opportunist who had no interest in accountability, democratic reform or populism. His subsequent turn at the helm has shown no inclination toward empowering people at the grassroots, or improving governance and accountability, or anything Preston Manning stood for.

Not enough for Harper haters. They get a surge of delight i talking trash about Harper. Ummm ... this thread is about the possible involvement of Stockwell Day and people around him, not Harper.

Jeez, I hope you're not a teacher. Why, 'Cause of your seeming insensitivity to the relationships, obligations, expections, interests, relative capacities, and incentives at play in the situation. Nope, are you? Of course there is. Despite your unsupported and questionable parenthesis, I don't think A and B are necessarily incompatible. No, I have a common sense rebutable presumption, so what proof do you have to convince me otherwise? I'm looking forward to seeing your evidence for this. Being considered temporary guardians for children in their charge does not give them carte blanche authority to do anything they wish to the students, Obviously not, but your strawman argument is rather obvious. it doesn't take 'carte blanche' to hug an emotionally overcome child. No, the school board should cover them from lawsuits, or some kind of professional insurance, provided they act responsibly. Kudos to you. Many posters wouldn't make such effort. Well, those are somewhat informative. But I don't think the first one applies to this situation ... hugs are not hostile or aggressive, and mild, breif restraint is not corporal punishment. So, I've provided 2 examples (I can probably find more) where teachers are advised and/or prevented from physically interacting with a kid to prevent at least some types of damage. I don't know what the rules were for the classroom where this particular incident occured, but its certainly reasonable to assume they had similar restrictions... How nice. I prefer to hear about 1,000,000,000 where children were hugged and calmed down that 1 student who in an attempted police takedown manages to squirm away, grab weapons, slaughter dozens of cops, eat their brains, and escape to Brazil, since we're in the realm of making up scenarios.

I don't give a crap what their reason (or lack thereof) is for not liking pork. They could be vegetarians, or just people who don't like red meat, or who simply aren't hungry. It's not cool to fling meat at people for the sole purpose of upsetting them. And it's not cool to try to mischaracterize the issue by pretending it was about eating pork, when in fact is was about a calculated effort to use pork to harass someone.

Dude, you said 'the levant'. There were leaders in Syria and Jordan as well. Easy, boy. Who? WTF are you talking about? Are you trying to justify something? It sure sounds like you are you trying to justify something. What could you be trying to justify, I wonder?

I would bloody well hope so. If not what's all that training and education in aid of? D'jever watch "Pros vs. Joes" on Spike TV? Sometimes a Joe gives a good account of himself, but generally there's no denying the Pros are dominant. Naturally. That's the nature of professionalism (ANY professionalism)-- the Pros are Pros and that means something. You'd never expect some shmoe to pick up a scalpel and save lives, but guys like the Freemen can't make that connection about professions they don't properly understand. Menard would probably never think, as an amateur, of bidding for a bridgebuilding contract, but because he can't understand law he doesn't realize he can't do it.

Oh spare us, already.You're always right there promoting 'rough and ready' ... whenever it's not you or your pet causes doing the suffering.

It is you who is sidestepping. You said he was the leader of the Levantine Arabs, when in fact he was one leader among many.

No doubt he had all sorts of interesting credentials, but what makes you think he was the leader of all levantine Arabs leading up to WWII. In particular, I suggest you must be overlooking the territories outside of the Jerusalem region, where other leaders held sway.

1. Scott said EATING was the issue. Odd that you have no issue with that utterly wrongheaded characterization whilst you are splitting hairs with me about the meaning of 'throw' vs. 'fling'. 2. Students were having lunch and someone threw pork on their table. Please explain what specific complaint you have to make about my characterization that someone flung pork at them? 3. Before you bother reporting something, I suggest you read the forum rules.

Oh really? And what rationale leads you to characterize him as the leader of all levantine Arabs leading up to WWII?

Maybe you should reread the story one more time. It clearly said the sandwich in question was placed on the table. To so badly misrepresent the truth when it is right there in black and white at the top of the page is just begging for a good reporting young man!! lol STRANGE. Both you and Dancer have got the odd idea that I somehow failed to understand the article. But is seems rather that you didn't understand it... "One boy came near, began laughing and threw a bag on the table while other students laughed and said, 'Good job.'"

Reported. In its formal usage, "goy" means "nation" or "people". Colloquially, "goy" and "goyim" are used by Jews to refer to non-Jews. What's to report? What's your source for these desciptions? In my understanding, 'Goyim' is the Hebrew word for non-Jews. 'Goy' is a derivation of 'Goyim' used in English pejoratively.

All the more reason to throw the book at the tyke! SLAMMER TIME!!!