OddSox

Perhaps it's against the law (is it, or is that American TV?) to comment on a case that is before the courts?

(is this the wrong forum area?) Was he the guy who said "I'm entitled to my entitlements"? Regardless, it's hard to understand why some of these people get paid at all. Apparently he doesn't know how to balance a credit card, let alone a chequebook. He also seems to have trouble running his office - the only way to get "15 minutes uninterrupted" is to go out for a 3-hour lunch meeting to the most expensive place in town...

People might be "planning" this, but I can't see how it could be effective. The pollsters only call a couple of hundred at a time and it's random - how many on here have actually been asked the question during this election?

It should also be considered that a proportional system would end up with a political landscape that looks nothing like the current one. Not only would there be Greens looking for their piece of the pie, but Reds and Blues and all sorts of colours. Instead of 2 (ok maybe 3) major parties we would have 10 or more - the bickering in parliament would mean that nothing at all would get done (which might not be a bad thing).

Hmm, alarming headline, rather banal story. A couple of economists are worried about their jobs and figure they better make a name for themselves while they still can...

40 year low? I don't think so. http://www.ottawasun.com/News/Columnists/G...313646-sun.html

Except the taxpayer?

"if their estimates are correct" - LOL Good One!

Keep in mind that at least 20% of the people charged under this law have been found _innocent_ - but they still have to deal with the financial and insurance repercussions. And those figures are from a while ago... http://autos.canada.com/news/story.html?id...83-e1109a950a70 "A spokesman for the attorney general yesterday said of the 1,500 cases that had been processed, about 500 resulted in convictions. Brendan Crawley said 314 cases were either stayed, dismissed or there was an acquittal."

The GST cut may or may not have been a good idea. But it was a promise made during an election campaign and presumably some people voted in favour of it. The promise was kept - and the opposition parties had the option of defeating the motion if they felt that it was that horrible a move. And, as I understood it at the time, the cut to the gasoline excise tax was 'replaced' by the GST cut promise because it would be a wider-based cut that would benefit more people...