noahbody

Here's an experiment for you: Throw an ice cube in an olympic size pool and see if how much it changes the temperature.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Scie...0571/story.html I would like to see one politician point to this and say, "WTF are we doing here?"

It's about a likely to occur as Michael Ignatieff putting a video of himself dressed up as Count Floyd on youtube. I'm sure he takes pride in what our soldiers have done. As a politician, I imagine he takes pride that he was able to extend the mission as long as politically possible and still enable Canada to continue to contribute in a different role. I don't believe there is any pleasure in acting cowardly, but that's a better question for Jack and company. Harper has said military leaders have told him a decade is enough. Now that a date has been given, it would be unfair to our soldiers and their families to flip flop for no reason. So don't lose any sleep worrying about it.

A majority isn't going to influence Harper's decision on Afghanistan. Are there circumstances that could change our involvement in the future? I would say yes. For example if there was a terrorist attack on Canadian soil I would expect that could impact our role, whether we have a minority government or a Liberal or Conservative majority government. Do you honestly think after all the statements he's made following the deaths of Canadian soldiers that he takes pleasure in being bold?

Do you check under your bed at night for Stephen Harper? How about Ignatieff? Do you wonder if he'll have Canada participating in targeted assassinations? He did muse about the idea in 2004.

But they shouldn't change things for the sake of changing them. That's the case here.

For the record, I'm not in favour of any hair-brained scheme, but if I was representing Canada, my position would be that targets should be based on surface area and not per capita. Does that make more sense?

Glad she moved. Maybe you weren't watching the same stories I saw, but she was definitely partisan. I got worried that my eyes would permanently stay rolled back, so I had to change the channel.

This guy's articles read like a Garth Turner Blog. He's either got an axe to grind or someone's kidnapped his wife and he's being forced to write trashy articles. I'd put him on my list right under K. Horn from Mohawk Nation News. I'm also not a fan of reporters who try to create news (Graham Richardson and Robert Fife are two I'd call Investigative Journalist wannabe hacks) or put a partisan slant on it (Susan Bonner). I still will judge each of their stories on their own merit. I never really watched Wallin's show, but as an anchor she was excellent. The interviewer I respect the most is Peter Mansbridge. I'm not a fan of Duffy. I would agree. If I was ethics commissioner I'd specifically inquire about the "we can't stop now" message. On the surface, this appears to be partisan and against advertising rules. As far as the website goes, if it said "Harper's government" this is wrong too. As for using pictures one website, I haven't seen any indication that this is a violation. It's not advertising, so I'm not sure of the rules. I personally don't have a problem with pictures of the PM on a government website. Neither do other countries. whitehouse.gov I routinely criticize the government for wasteful advertising. Aside from the "we can't stop now" message though, this campaign does have some merit and shouldn't be characterized solely as an election campaign. Aside from promoting the reno credit, it's promoting action and attempting to restore confidence during the recession. People don't spend when they're scared. Though Harper was criticized for his comments on "cheering for a recession," his comments were dead on. I often wonder how many people were laid off and how much of our deficit increase was do to that campaign. Unfortunately, politicians are in a recession-proof business. They'll do just fine no matter the state of our economy.

The problem is drag it and discount it. Historically, Canada has been a country in which the people have wanted to be tough on crime. When Mulroney held a vote in the House, what the majority of people wanted was the death penalty.

Obama's adviser on the subject is a global warming freak, but Obama isn't a fool.

More vindictive journalism by Bruce Cheadle? This guy is off the deep end. Quotes from article: Someone should point out to him that news is supposed to be unbiased. He was informed in January about what 'misgivings'? The extra work? The idea of a site promoting what the government was doing to combat the recession? I assume Bruce wants me to assume they were objecting to all those pictures of Harper. The problem there is that they didn't exist at that time. The January comment does clarify that this wasn't part of an election campaign. Good one Bruce. Can't wait until his next article.

http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTV...hub=TorontoHome

I wonder if this video would help bin Laden buy into the concept of "Make love, not war."

That's because at the same time I was tying to make a Spiderman web formula in my mother's bathroom. Your contributions were pretty lame compared to that. Signed, Your friendly neighbourhood poster

This has more to do with the ego of Senators, IMO. A few Senators on the news last night were making comments such as "we won't be whipped," "we're not politicians;" "we're here for sober second thought." Again, politically, this is like Ignatieff deciding to take a stand on the EI issue. It's a bad move. The government and those who support the bill, including Ignatieff, are trying to pass the bill because of sober second thought. It encourages guilty people to play games with the legal system and be rewarded for it. It's a bad idea that's got to go. This has nothing to do with getting tough on crime. It has to do with giving away time and abuse of the system. Secondly anything can be argued, just not successfully. Crime rates have fallen to to the aging of our population. Guess what, there are going to be more cases of cancer in Canada too as boomers get older. Then a sharp decrease. Youth violence is actually on the rise by the way, but again this isn't about getting tough.

Tomorrow, every trucker should pull over at 10:30 for a 15 minute smoke break. The law would be changed by noon.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/70...man-experts-sayTo paraphrase her defense: "I'm not committing fraud now, I just lied on my immigration application." LMAO. The government should offer a reward of $10,000 for anyone who can prove her sister exists.

Don't forget the guy down the hall who thinks he's Ethel Merman.

My suggestion would be to change your title to "Alcohol Jesus."

I agree.

This isn't about any one person though. This is about what the people of Canada want. The show of power in this case is coming from the Senate. I've never seen reason for giving credit in the first place. Shouldn't two people who commit the same crime serve the same amount of time?

Good for him. The Liberal Party really needs to dump Rae.

This sounds like the senate taking a stand on an issue to say to Canadians, "see, we do serve a purpose." But they picked the wrong issue.

She was only in jail for 8 or 9 days and spent the rest of the time in a motel. It doesn't shorten your height does it?