noahbody

You'll have to explain that one and provide a citation.

I've never read anything less than a promise of $25 million. http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/guncontrol/Or maybe that was a cap on reporting costs: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories Even at $25 million, it's spending over $2 million per registered long gun homicide to do nothing more than keep statistics. If you can't ascertain that it's not money well spent, you shouldn't be in Ottawa. It frightens me that people can't grasp that.

This took 3 seconds to google. http://www.cdnshootingsports.org/2009/04/w...n_registry.html

Maybe it was a staffer impersonating him.

Signing onto that would have been about as bright as signing onto Kyoto. Or should we just ignore the consequences and sign onto all agreements that make us feel warm and fuzzy for the moment? New Zealand, Australia and the US also rejected it.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/09/...ylum/index.htmlSo, you're proud of the government appealing the decision (for which they were not responsible) right?

It has to do about the comment on our international reputation and that Canadians are embarrassed because of it. This, at a time when our men and women are fighting and dying in Afghanistan. Saying you're embarrassed to identify yourself as a Canadian when abroad is a slap in the face to their sacrifice.

Weren't you trying to justify this election push because you knew Harper was going to call an election after the Olympics?

— Michael Ignatieff . - Michael Ignatieffhttp://www2.macleans.ca/2009/08/30/cheney-...heikh-mohammed/

An ad like this reinforces the Liberals as the party of arrogance. It still will likely strike a chord with the far left who believe Canada is peacekeepers not fighters and kyoto was a good idea. In reality, Harper has restored funding to the military, giving our armed forced the equipment they need to do their jobs. The underfunding of previous governments was embarrassing. There was nothing to be proud of when an aging Sea King would go down. How embarrassing was it when our soldiers were sent to Afghanistan wearing the wrong camouflage? As far as Kyoto goes, it was Canada who stood up and pointed out that without China, India and the US, the whole thing was pointless - as it was. That, to me, was something to be proud of. Standing up to the world and taking a stance. It's a stance that Obama and the US are now following. Someone should ask Hedy Fry why she thinks her leader stopped wearing his backpack when the Liberals were in power and even called the US his country.

What exactly did you say? I could see the guy taking issue if you said, "Hey Saddam, do you know what day it is?" Or, "I thought you'd be flying a plane into a building today." If you only mentioned it was the anniversary or 911 and got shit on for that, you have a grievance.

Age alone doesn't qualify him as a child soldier. He is child terrorist. He was not forced to be in a war zone. He requested it. He had been staying with his mother, but because he missed his father and brothers, he was permitted to go. His brother was 14 when he was shot. Omar was 15. ]He wasn't swept up and brainwashed. He was raised to be a good muslim in his parent's eyes. Agreed. By international law, minors can be in a war zone. So they aren't defending that. That horrible treatment is what Michael Ignatieff was advocating in 2004. He even went beyond that. Make sure you're sitting down.

Canada was involved at the time Khadr was captured. The Taliban were also no longer in power. I'm not sure you could prove Omar had personal knowledge of Canada's involvement. You could make a strong case for charging the mother with treason though.

He did hit the nail on the head. I'll give him that.

Give him a break, he's doing better.

I mentioned this earlier, but, on top of a relocation fee, I'd support the government buying them a home as it would save millions in security costs. Charge the mother with treason and child abuse and agree to drop the charges if they'll give up their citizenship. Abduraham could keep his.

Iggy, Dion and Rae ran as a team.

Yes, what happened in the past isn't speculation. Ignatieff did support the coalition. If I apply your way of thinking, it is a certainty he will again. Can we do better with Jack Layton in Cabinet? I don't think so.

How fitting.

And that's speculation. So it that.

What part of "Not saying the war room won't go for it," did you not understand? From his secretly recorded words, it's clear he doesn't want an election. From the Liberal response, it's clear they don't have a good reason to force one. Being the self-proclaimed natural governing party, doesn't cut it. As far as making parliament work, the surplus package and everything the Liberals have supported are examples. It's hard for Ignatieff to make the case parliament isn't working when he's been supporting bills left and right.

Something said to rally supporters at an event closed to the media, doesn't exactly mean it will be the main theme of the campaign. So, it is speculation at this point. It's a pretty weak appeal in my eyes and would likely help Ignatieff more than the Conservatives. Not saying the war room won't go for it, just that it is speculation. From the same article: With comments like that, I think the Liberal war room isn't exactly full of geniuses either.

The article does say: This article is likely a way to test market possible themes outside a focus group. I personally think they're missing the boat again. Their war department is run by morons.

And he told Gabby, "Just don't tell your brother."

My favourite jewel of the Gomery Inquiry was when a party fundraiser was asked about meetings in the PMO and she couldn't remember who she met with. Couldn't find a citation on that, but here's a few for you to jog your memory: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories