Bob Macadoo

What does "it just assess intent" mean.......let me guess its too subjective to discuss? I've read stacks of case law on this, the bar is quite low; contribute to common household expenses, provide any string of decision making without the proponent, and/or show a positive relationship with the child.My query would be to those who say "well you should expect these things when moving in with someone", how many people get married before living together to assess the relationship first nowadays? So there are different expectations for relationships when children are involved? Is that the consensus?

Harper's a born-again not a lax catholic would be my response to that. I would believe more in the convictions to non-drinking from an AA member rather than a someone going cold turkey alone.

Thats been my argument all along, its too vague.....freakin lawyers. Define cruel and unusual.......and no "it depends.....or its too varied" is not a legal term. If sentencing beyond Cdn precedence is cruel and unusual...fine...incorporate that into the Immigration Act and move on. I'm willing to bet most of those saying "good job IRB" wouldn`t agree.....too subjective a topic for objectivity.

Hmmmmm. Sorry I missed that. Then why would the appeal judge say there was no basis made in "exceeding norms" by the IRB, you may or may not agree with their evaluation but one was made.

Hey does anyone else feel that chill by the obvious disappearance of a certain member in this thread? Not a Cdn comparison sleight to be had......quick someone check the thermometer in hell.

Depends is the ultimate cop out to meaningful discussion.....what makes them unique, what are the boundaries, did you just compare family court rulings to criminal sentences? Reality cannot be critiqued in your world as its too varied to describe......interesting. I'll keep that in mind in the next topic you post.

.......or are forced to work excessive overtime working in the red tape the previous government incarnations created and due to the inefficient allocation of resources by gov't political appointees. Tom-ay-to/Tom-ah-to.

You believe Floridians don't yet know they live in an judicially messed up state? Too busy watching Honey Boo Boo I guess.

Good overview of the debate for newcomers and those repeating mantras. I'm not with mass murderers running for the border, thats a bit of a strawman......except for Rue maybe. I was not aware the IRB did a relative comparison of sentencing.....was that in the 2nd ruling? Interesting. This is what I was looking for in the first ruling. I wouldn't say never, unless we reject consecutive sentencing as a judicial concept. If you accept it for murderers then you must accept for all or none. Is only 1 appeal, to the lowest district, enough to say you tried the US judicial system and failed? I'd say no others say yes. Again a bit excessive itself, "whatever" presupposes that it is already excessive. This negates the argument. I would say if we, as a general rule, agree with the judicial system and the protections that are in place for its citizens (eg appeals, attorney representation, torture, starving, etc.) then we shouldn't dispute their particular statutes as they did indeed choose (key: choose) to live in that state as its citizen reaping the benefits of that life. Sorry karma sucks.

What is the definition of best interest of the child? As rich as they can get, as rich as they were during marriage, as rich as an "average 2 parent" child. Its a platitude unless there is context and definition......just saying something to mean actually I don't know but it sounds good is dishonest discussion.

Sorry Guyser mixing up you and Cyber. I can't stay in threads with "He Who Shall Never Stop Typing" My bypass scroll finger gets cramped.

Then as a general consecutive sentencing is cruel and unusual? It seems the argument point is simply numbers and not legislative ideas. Would 5 consecutive terms of 1 year have been OK for a crime that is a non-crime here.....it would seem any sentencing for a non-crime should be construed as cruel and unusual.

Go get your own thread drifters. Where is his omniprescence when we actually need him? Wait I know.......USA sucks......there that should draw the proper attention to this.

The argument isn't ridiculous, both sides are making valid statements. I find it peculiar that you are incensed that your argument in the abortion thread is being dismissed as ridiculous, yet your statement has the same smell. The question is the broadening definition of "need protection". Does this need to be more explicit/restricted or open/broad?The argument that logistics are a definitive barrier to alleviate the need for legislation has no basis in logic. I wouldn't have thought she could've crossed the border with a sexual conviction, yet here she is.

Source?

Hey if Hudak can make up his 8 zillion jobs plan without checking in with reality......the largest liability to the PC gov't since......well the last time he opened his mouth in a campaign.A sock with googly eyes glued on it could win this election......and this goof isn't even going to get a minority status......unbelievable.

Source.....cite? Ignored and reported

Sometimes pure logic fails and blinders must be worn "for the children".

Do you think you've paid more than salary COL adjustment, population growth, and infrastructure status quo maintenance (ie. Failures accelerate faster each year) each year in tax increases? "Why am I not getting a Cadillac for the price of a Chevette?" The cost of a Chevette goes up every year too. I don't want to pay more taxes but I sure as hell don't have high expectations of the taxes I do pay.

????Is Rod Serling about to start a narrative? There has been an "anti-" term you use quite regularly regardless of the point being made. I do applaud you though to recognize the distinction between criticisms of a religion and criticisms of people saying they act in the name of religion. I think most should bookmark this quote for further discussions.

Incorrect. You heard, you ride the "ohhh" rollercoaster, be prepared for the sudden stop at the end.

I thought the PBO only does analysis on the request of Parliament. Who requested this and what is the next cost analysis? Maybe now Harper can get the "analysis" he wants of military purchases.

Not a whiner but a debater. You have never actually addressed Cyber's argument, just repeated your "wrap your rascal" mantra. Ideology is not debate.

......now the logic further confuses me. As he plead down to 14 years instead of being convicted for life for aborting a fetus (non-crime), that makes it not cruel and unusual whereas she did NOT plead out, even though if she did she would've most likely had a much reduced sentence as to the circumstances, her punishment is cruel and unusual. So if he received life for assault (the actual crime) would that constitute cruel and unusual?

Glad to see the PMO won't be vilifying the PBO this year......wonder if Ferguson will get more vitriol in lieu.