Dithers

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. For the record, freedoms are not guaranteed when they unreasonably infringe upon the rights and freedoms of others. What you call "riled up", most would call advocating violence against distinct minorities. Again, a rather moot point given that she decided to duck and run of her own accord.

I haven't heard any advocating for mass murder of Taliban or Al Queda, so I am not entirely sure what you are on about. Those two entities you mentioned are political/terrorist organizations as well.

If that's the case, then it would seem that this classy lady simply can't handle her viewpoints being challenged. Who is it that doesn't value freedom of speech?

The argument being put forward that France had nothin to do with the building of Canada is idiotic. Why did the building of Canada begin the moment they were driven out? Because it suits the OP's deluded point of view? Pointless thread, pointless argument.

It makes me happy to hear about this. I am not well versed on the issue. It is one I expected the Tories to deal with, and it seems they are.

I am opposed to anything that even gives the impression of disenfranchising voters. This does, in my opinion. This is a partisan move, as the OP demonstrated by parading how it is designed to cripple the other parties. This is not what I want to see our government wasting time on.

That was the thrust of my argument to be honest. I do, however, believe that statements made by foreign officials should serve notice as to how certain other nations see artic development panning out.

For one, do not discount a future Russian threat. While it will not equate to anything near the ominous threat the Soviets once generated, their energy extortion policies should have anybody concerned. Ideally, in my opinion, NATO would have evolved to suit the needs of our times. I personally believe there are still enough shared values and interests between Europe and North America to maintain the treaty. But that only works if all parties are sincerely interested. It certainly appears as though the likes of France and Germany are not.

Did Arctic sovereignty come up at all? That is an issue we really do need to firm up on. The United States is doing their level best to undermine our territorial integrity.

I believe that may well be the case.

The left comprises of more than 5% of the Canadian vote, therefore they too clearly support the general intent of this bill/motion. Keep doing what you're doing though. 9/10 for entertainment value.

Granted, but the Soviets collapsed and NATO remained, with active European sponsorship. It only follows that they should be willing to defend their allies interests as well as their own. (Especially given the historical role said ally played in preserving their independence)

Trudeau was a statesman the likes of which we haven't seen since.

All of this is valid. Our allies in NATO have no honored their end of the alliances, which makes me question the relevence of NATO as anything other than a potential firewall against an surging Russia. It is clear that Most of European NATO is unwilling to define interests beyond their Eastern frontier.

Not allowing her to spew her venom is not a sign of our rights being stripped from us. It's a sign that we will not allow our minorities to be vicmitized by those who would advocate harm against them.

I don't get the opposition to our role in Afghanistan. We have honored our treaties with an ally that was attacked.

I have to admit this story surprised me. I could not imagine that kind of barbarism up here. Perhaps I am naive.

We'll see how this plays out. Republicans have an impressive wave of opposition to ride, but it feels as though it may have already crested. Republicans may need another crisis to maintain this favorable outlook.

All this talk on the legitimacy and success of the "emerging democracy in Iraq" has me wondering whether it is generally accepted that placing agreeable, democratic governments in foreign nations is a valid casus belli for war. If so, the United States has alot of crusading ahead to do.

Meanwhile ... back in reality land ... the coalition was formed with the sole objective of blocking a measure, introduced by Harper, designed to bankrupt the opposition parties. Don't worry, I completely get your need to construct pleasurable little fantasies.

Unfortunately, I tend to agree. Perhaps a conservative majority would find the impetus to do it, but recent senate appointments have destroyed any credibility Harper has on the matter.

Pathetic is proroguing parliament rather than face crisis of his own government's making. Not once, but twice. Pathetic

I find it remarkable that there is a vestige of intentionally ignorant who cling to old propaganda surrounding climate change. It is beyond any doubt that it is a current phenomenon. It remains to be seen what effects there will be, but anybody who outright denies the existence of a scientifically verified concept is immune to reason and logic. Blows my mind.

On the whole, I agree. Our system functions better than most. I am certainly thankful nto to have the ultra-partisan nonsense that we witness in the United States. That said, our senate is pathetic in every way. They do not fulfill the limited function they were intended to carry.

This thread is ridiculous. You're bouncing from one idea to the next all in the name of taking a potshot at Stephen Harper.