DrGreenthumb

The only problem I see here is that the Liberals like to run on an NDP platform and then once elected govern pretty much like the Conservatives would, minus the religious fundamentalism.

LMFAO! If Mr Canada gets publicly facialed while filming his dorkumentry it will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there is in fact a God.

No it isn't. What's being suggested is that they be denied medical services and an education unless they submit to authority and remove their covering the whole time they are recieving those services. That is a LOT different and a lot more intrusive than what is required to verify one's identity.

This is a ridiculous intrusion of the government into people`s lives. Maybe when the government attacks Christianity the bigots will wake up and respect people`s freedom. If these women want to wear a burka they have a right to dress however they damn well choose. I can understand a requirement to remove the head covering temporarily for identification purposes when required by law enforcement or security, for voting, driver liscening or border crossing,etc but other than for public safety reasons this is just an outright attack on personal freedom.

It absolutely IS enough proof. Regardless of what happened previously, when the guy stopped resisting, the cop had no right to assault him. The guy getting kicked has a right to a trial before the officer takes it upon himself to be judge jury and `punisher`. The video clearly shows the man complying with officer`s orders, and then the cop rewards him for his compliance by brutally assaulting him.

We don't need to abolish the commissions, there should just be a healthy penalty for frivolous complaints like Anne Coulter's. The law was not designed to protect bigots like her and her supporters.

Nope, I can quite easily afford to pay for all my habits myself thanks. I just think they should F@ck off and not try to imprison me for them. My body my choice. Don't give me the health care bullshit either. Fat people, alcoholics and cigarette smokers all cost the health care system far more than my pot consumption does.

No by all means intervene to break up the fights using only as much force as necessary. That's the law, even if you are defending yourself. You are not allowed to lay a beating on the person after the fact of continue to kick them once they have been neutralized. I'm definitely not ok with the cops administering a beating to someone who is no longer a threat.

I can't believe that anyone is actually defending these PIGS. You'll notice it is the same posters who defended Dziekansksi's executioners. The guy was obviously complying with the cops orders, and was not threatening them at all. He sat down as to be LESS threatening for God's sake. You expose yourselves as the police state loving fascist goons that you are.

Bang on nicky, and the same bible-thumping agenda drives this government's drug policyy as well. Ideology over scientific fact everytime for these socially regressive Cons.

The woman is a bigot and a boor. I have no use for people like her. I say let her speak tho, so she can prove what an ass she is to everybody who doesn't already know. The people who flock to her and cheer her on will expose themselves as bigots, and idiots too so there is always that side benefit.

Me either, that's why I cannot support a party that advocates prohibition.

No but in this country they can arbitrarily take even your house and children if you get caught with a couple of pot plants in it. I'm not so concerned with them taking a bottle booze from an asshole at an airport until this much larger injustice is dealt with.

They should never have let this racist cow into the country in the first place. She said that muslim's should not be allowed on airplanes, that they should use their "magic carpets" instead. When asked about the quote she said alternatively they should ride their camels. If anyone should be charged with a hate crime it is coulter herself.

Make it vodka and you're on, lol. I have an overabundance of tequila in my personal wet bar because I've "stolen" a lot from the local teenagers. Got plenty of Lemon Gin and sour puss too, lol. Maybe I should stop pretending not to see their bags of weed, and steal that too, pot's pretty expensive these days.

"confiscate" or give over willingly, you are just nitpicking at words. It ammounts to the same thing. I say you can't come in to this social unless you turn over the bottle. I add that if I catch you drinking inside the social I will ban you from the venue for the next 2 months, and 6 months for the person that provided you with the drink. They want to come in so they turn over the bottle, or allow me to "confiscate it". They are still free to say no you can't check my coat, and then I tell them to run along and do not come back to the event. Its not theft, because they consent to it. If a minor gets caught drinking at a social it is the permit holder's problem, not mine. That is probably why the permit holder likes that I run a tight ship. YOU might not be able to control a crowd of 500, but I do it all the time. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. All it takes is to make fairly certain that nobody gets overly intoxicated, when someone starts to get too drunk you remove them, its simple. Only drunks become belligerant assholes at these events and if you follow the alcohol regulations and do not over serve, crowd control is usually NOT a problem. The kid could try and complain to the cops about losing their alcohol but something tells me that they won't. The cops would either laugh at them or charge them with drinking underage, open liquor in a public place, since the report would ammount to a full confession. 5 years, not one complaint. I think I know what I'm doing.

Are you calling the Tory base the loudest 2%??

He DID have the right to confiscate the bottle if the minister wanted to proceed through the security check. Alternatively the minister could have obeyed the rules not to try and take prohibited items onto an airplane.

I havn't backpedaled on anything. Your assumptions just got the better of you. I have been doing security for events up to 500 people on my own for over 5 years and have not had a single complaint of over stepping my authority. That says a lot in itself. I very rarely have to "confiscate" any alcohol anymore anyway because the word has gotten out that trying to smuggle it into venues that I supervise is pretty much doomed to fail. There have been far less incidents of violence since I took over, and far less cases of underage girls being plied with alcohol by unscrupulous older men. People know that I will not turn a blind eye to this shit and have adjusted their behaviours accordingly. The parents and cops in my community have expressed their gratitude to me on several occasions. I have not had to physically restrain or remove anyone from an event for at least the last 3 year years, because I make sure that all the alcohol regulations are followed and that nobody is allowed to get overly drunk. If the permit holders break the rules by serving more than 2 drinks at a time, they know I will shut down their bar and they will lose money on their event, so they comply. I am not a fan of authority, so I am very careful how I exercise mine.

I'm pretty sure the minister could have chosen to keep his tequila, as long as he turned around and did not get on the plane. The security guard pointed out the options, voluntarily turn over the bottle or keep it, and find another way to travel. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. That's the way it works, if you want in you follow the rules or else you can turn around and go do what you want.

Don't you know that ALL use is abuse Eyeball? There is no such thing as safe ingestion. These drug addicts should be thrown in jail for their own safety and the safety of the community.

Thirded.

Conservative supporters tend to come from the highest income groups, who have the most cash to donate, and the most incentive to be looking for tax deductions. Most NDP supporters are from lower income to middle class working families who are basically living paycheque to paycheque and do not have any extra money for donations. So the per vote subsidy is the most fair and democratic way of financing political parties. The party you support recieves financial support from your vote regardless of your financial situation. Everyone's has an equal opportunity to support any particular party. It also gives a little extra incentive to get off your ass and go vote, which is a very positive side effect. The 75% donation tax deuction is the most unfair, and also the most costly to taxpayers, because it favours the rich who can afford to make the maximum allowable donation.

which is exactly what I do. You can consent to having your jackets and bags checked for alcohol or you can leave. pretty simple. Alcohol we find is not given back, because the only ones sneaking in bottles are the ones who are underage and can't buy drinks at the bar. If we gave it back to them we could be charged with providing alcohol to a minor. We don't let the few people over 18 caught with a bottle in their coat into the event either unless they turn it over. If we let them come in after they go put it in their car or something, they will just drink in the parking lot and then we are back to the problem of over-consumption again.(and also the distinct possibility that that person will provide alcohol to minors in attendance)I certainly do not let the little punks give me orders about what to do with the booze I find. You have to always at least give the appearance of being firmly in control or the drunks will walk all over you. When you are trying to control a crowd of 4 or 5 hundred people on your own, you have to do something to ensure that things do not get out of hand, because once they do, you are screwed. Alcohol over-consumption makes people dangerous to others, not only to themselves.

They are free to not come in if they don't want to take off their jacket so it can be patted down for micky.. Same with the girls with purses large enough to conceal bottles. They can turn it over and still be allowed in or keep it but not be allowed in for the evening. The police are happy that less 16 yoear olds are cruising around drunk because of lax enforcement of alcohol regulations. Famiilies are happy that less of their daughters are getting taken advantage of when they have been allowed to get drunk. The people holding the liquor liscence can be held responsible if there is an alcohol related incident. That's the main difference between pot and alcohol's users. Large crowds of stoned people aren't dangerous like drunk crowds are. Alcohol abusers are a danger to OTHERS.