YEGmann

That's you. Because you have brain. Liberal hecks have rudiments of brain too. That is why they squeeze their political points now. They suspect that the probability of the AG to accept the cost is high. The best example is the "fake lake for 2 (or whatever) million dollars". In their race to embarass the government they neglect the truth.

Please, do not confuse voters in Canada with people answering the poll. I mean numerically. You simply cannot draw conclusions with accuracy of 0.1% for the country based on opinion of 1725 people.

Hardly I can educate you in this forum. Just do not judge about what you have no knowledge. Jet aircraft do not need hangars for parking and routine maintenance. They are designed to stay outside for years. Rain, snow and ice is not a problem at all. Hurricane winds and sand can be a challenge. Hangars are required only for so called heavy maintenance, once in several years. By the time our C-17 will require this maintenance a suitable hangar will be built or found.

Why do you want a hangar for new C-17 for the first five years of their operation? Do you have any idea about modern aircraft? I do not think so.

You are dead wrong. Making a backup copy (copies), including a different media for personal use does not criminalize you according to the new law. You are just twisting the facts to push your agenda.

When you are buying a DVD with a movie, you are well aware that it has a digital lock. The company tells you in advance that you are buying a right to see with certain restrictions, not a right to reproduce the movie. Buying the DVD you agree with the company conditions. Otherwise it would not sell the disk to you. Once bought you are changing the condition of the purchase contract. The company has all rights to go after you. If you do not like the condition, then do not buy this product. If everybody will do that the companies would not have profits. If they are proprerous this means many people are satisfied with the condition. You are outlaw. You blame shark capitalism but you want to enjoy a capitalist product for free. I think the new law is better than the old one. Now we have a simple principle. Copy what you easily can and copy not what you cannot. I think this is the situation lile we had have with vynil disk. Now it is even better. If you somehow damage your favourite DVD, chances are very high you can get another one for 5 - 6 - 7 dollars. I do not think it is a big deal. Do not forget, like before, you still can copy any product without tampering the digital lock (with lost of quality, of course).

I see. You have no idea what mortgage is if you compare a mortgage on a house to the price of a car. By the way, even not touching such thing as house evaluation, downpayment, appreciation/depreciation, the banking business is not to sell mortgages like car manufacturers sell cars. It is their business to keep morgages with themselves and have their 4 - 5 - 6% for many years, often returning twice as much as was originally lended. Any car manufacturer can only dream about this situation.

Ha-ha-ha! Banks all over the world for centuries have been making big money from mortgages (do you know what mortagage is?). As smalc has already pointed out these are good - insured - mortgages. Why in your head did a golden egg turn into a rusty bucket at the instance of changing hands? Or may be you are just from kindergaden if you compare value of a house to your candy... Have you found a Canadian bank being on a brink of bancrupcy?

Unfortunately you are not the only one spreading this nonsense. The money was not GIVEN to the banks (like it was in the USA). The government BOUGHT a very good product from the banks. The banks got money but gave an equivalent amount of valuable assets. In no way this can be call a bailout. Yes, this helped the banks with continuing crediting. There is a huge difference from what happend in the USA. Our banking sector was not "failing." Can you name a Canadian bank that announced bankrupcy those days?

Very bad idea! The difference is huge. The army exist to fight wars for the country against external enemies. Soldiers are trained to fight and kill and are ready to be killed. This is their spirit. Using them against their own families will put their morale down. Especially as you say them you use them because they are (you think so) cheap. How would you react if somebody called you are the cheapest junk? For them it would be a spit in the face. Plus police are simply much better trained for these particular purposes. With army guys you take a risk to screw the business up.

What is left for you if you cannot substantiate your point as an adult...

I am glad we both came to the conclusion that the canwest is heavily biased and cannot be considered as an example of high-standard journalism. So I think you will agree that it is a good idea to try finding an independent confirmation of canwest reports.

I thought, a citation means the citing of an original source. You referenced one sentence by a second hand source, where the original context is not known and cannot be verified, at least I did not find any records of Mr. Harper's speech or an article, or an interview on October 12, 2008. This gave me a basis for doubts about authenticity of the cited words. However, it is not my major point. By the balance of probabilities, I can accept Harper did say that. It is important though to follow the context. Yes, you are, and I appreciate that. I see. You are playing childish games. Yes, in the single sentence canwest and you torn out of context, which nobody can verify, there is no mention of majority or minority government. However even in that phrase, he says a great "if": vote for the Conservative party. I think it is obvious that voters can rely on pre-election promises (at least in theory) only if the party can implement those promises, i.e., to have a majority. Pretending that a party in the minority situation can be held responsible for all its promises is at least naive. In your case, I suspect it is a deliberate game pretending ignorant. You think you are smart at it, I think it is simply dishonest. To simlify for you, by child words: Mr. Harper said: "No deficit if you elect Conservatives to majority power. If you do not elect conservatives to the majority power you get a deficit." Of course I did, because I asked for something verifiable. I am not sure if you know the old joke about "singing Caruso". This is exactly the case. My point is not justifying the government running a deficit now. My point is that Harper never promised unconditionally there would not be any deficit. What he actually said was the conservative party policy would be not running a deficit. And he fought to the end, up to the constitutional crisis. But his words were readily distorted by left-leaning media and imprinted in the brains of of the opposition supporters. You are the very clear example how the opposition is crying a broken promise where there is no one. No, I have not gotten what I asked for. Even the ersatz you provided confirms my point. Otherwise you have to select your stand: either you insist Harper put conditions when he said no deficit and those conditions were not met, thus no broken promises - and I agree with you - or he promised deficit unconditionally, therefore he broke his promise - and here you are helpless to substantiate your claim. But you cannot have it both ways.

You certainly did not read the link provided. "Since Israel Asper's leadership of the Manitoba Liberal Party, the Asper family has been identified with Liberal politics and politicians. In July 2001, Southam national affairs columnist Lawrence Martin was fired after a column of his critical of Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chrétien was not published. Russell Mills, longtime publisher of The Ottawa Citizen, was fired in June 2002 after the newspaper called on Chrétien to resign." This is not a fact, this is your dream.

Sorry, I asked for an original Harper's statement, not what the partisan anticonservative Canwest implies. The Canwest is known for its liberal bias http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canwest Do you have an independent source of this quotation? Was it written? Where was this said? However its just technicality. It is not important. Let me repeat it (i.e. dumb it down) for you). Slowly. Before October 15, the only way to ensure that Canada would not have a carbon tax, tax increases, deficit and recession was to vote the Conservative party. Lots of stupid people did not do that. I do not blame them - it is democracy. But now to blame the minorty government that cannot fulfil its promises exactly because the three opposition parties united and demanded for the huge deficit, is at least dishonest. You cannot blame a person for the events that are beyond his control. So you can honestly claim only what Harper said after the election, i.e. after October 14, 2008. Do you get it?

OK, now it is not Harper, well, let's assume the finance minister is almost the same. But again, there is no unconditional statement. Please read the Flaherty words. He said "if" and that "if" has been imposed on him by the opposition.

Where do you see a promise? Harper was describing the situation at the moment. They were not going into deficit. Before the 2008 election. What he did promise that the conservative party policy would be not running a deficit. But three amigos forced him to spend in the end of 2008 - early 2009. Against the party policy. Thus FY 2008 ended with a deficit.

No "come on". Citation please what Harder did really say. Harper never promissed there never would be a deficit.

This is internal party business. This has nothing to do with any legal aspects. If party decides she has to go so be it. And we have heard the opposition crying bloody murder when there was nothing to charge her "legally".

Citation please.

Wow! It seems we have a literate specialist in security of information here! Can you prove your post? Or your fantasies do not require any proof? As to to the subject, Members of Parliament are not mentioned in the Security of Information Act, contrary to several departments and four persons who has a special access to secret information. According to the Act, an MP will require to pass the general process for the access, similarly to a common Joe. That's what actually happened in the HoC. The opposition parties agreed that they do not have a free access and the law must be obeyed.

What about looking at youself? Slowly for you: Releasing secret information to Members of Parliament in legal terms is equivalent to releasing the information to public. Trully, there is no any specific considerations for MPs. What you are propagating is putting the MPs above the law.

The liberal followers plainly do not get it. Shory is a victim here (kind of). The BMO is going after his lawyer's insurance to recover their own - and only their own - lack of due dilligence.

I can imagine that. Your problem though is the time. How long did it take for Mr. Apps to realize that Mr. Gilani is a fraudster? In my imagination two years seems little bit too long.

It can be so, it can be not. There can be a field for the SC. The opposition appeals to old rules, like you said 1689. The conservatives appeals to newer rules about security. It is not a business of the Parliament to interpret laws and the Constitution. It is a judicial "domain". My understanding is that Members of Parliament are citizens of Canada and must obey Canadian laws unless specifically stated otherwise. Nevertherless I think it is better to reach a compromise. If Harper could find a trick to secure confidenciality of the documents, I think, the best move for him would be to show the documents to the opposition. However, he cannot trust the opposition. They would continue the smearing campaign, now under the umbrella of non-disclosing the content, thus being unchallenged.