On Guard for Thee

Which is perhaps why his party has ruled more than the other two.

John Maynard Keynes for one.

The mess was caused by putting troops in in the first place. At least the current mess will put a lot less US troops in harms way. As pointed out, the ACA has actually brought costs down, and the initial computer glitch with online sign up has long since been repaired. Job creation in the US has been rising while ours has been falling. The divide between the left/right in the US has always been there but is perhaps deepening due to the total wing nuts the right seems to be attracting. But the thread is supposed to be about our UN connection.

I certainly didn't say we have a seat, but I was a bit sloppy saying we were getting one. But in fact I may be proved correct anyway, Trudeau in his welcoming speech with Ban mentioned his wish to seek a seat, which was warmly welcomed. I suspect Harper's snubbing of the UN would have kept the possibility out of all likelihood. I don't recall any such high level meetings during Harper's time.

Sorry, I'm afraid I still don't see anything there but name calling. He has returned around 120,000 troops from two wars he inherited. His ACA plan has increased the number of people insured while bringing costs down. And the economy seems to be doing reasonably well. Checked what their dollar is worth against ours lately?

And you are talking about a permanent seat. Some influence at that table would be better than none, which we have now.

I assume you're now name calling the POTUS because he wouldn't approve things YOU would have wanted. And, a seat comes vacant on the council every two years.

But find them he did, and even they snubbed his attempts to override the charter.

So that would be the population of the earth not convicted of anything.

Harper said something to the tune of "you won't recognize Canada when I'm through with it", and by golly at least he was right about that. Now I'm starting to see the Canada I recognize. For instance, we're getting pats on the back from our allies in a conflict zone, and seats both on the UN Security Council and at the WH dinner table. Sunny ways seems to be working not too bad.

It has nothing to do with easing what a complainant is going through. If they are going through something perhaps that speaks to the guilt of the accused. Your statement is simply a general one that is rather clumsy. What is a "potential innocent" for instance?.More specifically, a long time ago it was understood that in these types of cases, complainants were at an extreme disadvantage due to the opportunity for completely unfair and biased cross examination from the defense, which is why the Rape Shield law was introduced. But it is often breached still. I expect we will see these type cases moving more and more into civil courts.

Well the so called "simple deduction" you have so awkwardly tried to discuss, is not one anyone I have read here has arrived at. But yes Ghomeshi will in all likelihood go free, for the simple reason that the burden of proof is on the crown, and it's unlikely they have achieved that.

Apparently you haven't been following Rona Ambrose very closely. She whines incessantly with talking points about F 18's that are so similar to the cookie cutter stuff she was supposed to be getting beyond in the wake of how poorly that approach worked for Harper.

I wonder where the hell you came up with that idea. However you do seem to like wild assumptions. Would you care to try to back this one up?

Based on the number of times the Harper stacked SCC ruled against Harper, I'd have to agree.

And who do you propose is suggesting such a thing?

I refer you to post 962.

I am saying what is now happening at trial, should have happened pre trial. The crown obviously determined there was enough evidence to go to trial.

Already been corrected, thanks.

Actually in Canada it's known as the "balance of probability", but I suspect they very well may.

That's fine, as long as it starts, and remains consensual. Stop, at any point, means stop, according to the law.

Um, my post sums up what you have just pointed out, but simply a shorter version.

No, the policy was designed to help win the election. And boy, did it ever work!

You actually think Chretien started the invasion in Afghanistan?

Actually that is fairly close to the point I have been trying to make. Had the crown done a proper job in prepping these women, they would have uncovered the discrepancies prior to going to court. A discrepancy doesn't automatically translate to a lie, but if you are aware they exist, you can deal with them much better when they appear under cross examination. And I don't know why you have come to the conclusion that the police automatically accept every witness' story.