Bryan

These are pretty good suggestions. Considering the strides we've taken with safety in other areas (despite protestations regarding the cost), making serious efforts to make the actual guns themselves safer seems like a smart avenue to explore.

That almost seems to be the opposite with Airplay/AppleTV. It works absolutely flawlessly when you use an iPad or iPhone to do it, but it's kind of choppy when I use my newer (much higher-end) MacBook Pro. I don't know what it is about the hardware in the iPads, but it's obviously very specifically designed for this function. It was probably a reluctant add-on to the MBP. One of the better sports streaming experiences I've been using lately is UFC.tv. It not only has access to live events, but also the full library of events going back to the early 90's. You can search by fighter's name, and choose to watch either the whole event, or just their fights, and most of the videos are interactive in that you can change camera angles, hear the instructions from the cornermen, etc. You can jump to specific spots in the fight too, because significant action is tagged -- the timeline shows takedowns, flurries, submission attempts, etc. I really wish I could watch ALL sports like this.

If the teachers think the general public supports strike action, they are the ones who have badly miscalculated. People do not appreciate this kind of extortion. They are going to sour whatever good will they still have with the working taxpayers who pay the teachers' salaries.

...because they ASKED him to.

As BC pointed out, not only is it not acceptable, it's illegal. My personal issue with requiring vaccinations is that they are not all created equal. Some have stood the test of time for efficacy and safety, others are questionable.

As far as having outsiders who are not even from the party coming and hijack the process (which is what happened to Anders), yes, it's happened a few times. The ones I'm familiar with are similar: people who are NOT Conservative, who knew they would not win under their real banner, but also knew the Conservative seat would most likely win no matter what, marched in a pile of people no one in the riding had ever seen before to nominate and vote for them. I wish I could recall specifically which ridings they were, but I'm drawing a blank right now. I want to say lower mainland in BC, but my Google-fu is failing me to find it so far. I'll keep looking.

Better yet, stop being so anal about thread drift. It's an organic conversation, things can and will go off topic from time to time. In the Anders thread, when I joined in, the topic has already very naturally transitioned to comparing the NDP and CPC nomination processes. The communism angle was already in progress as well -- I only replied to posts that were already there. Only a complete asshole would even consider suspending someone for that.

Have you ever been to one of those places? I've been to a few, one particular one in Cuba several times. Those animals are happy and very well cared for. The relationship is very much like a dog. They love being around the humans.

You're absolutely right, WWWTT, I should not have jumped into the thread drift. My apologies. If you wish, I can go back and delete those posts. Back on topic: Harper had no intention of booting Anders. He's an original Reformer, and a loyal party soldier. There are other nominations to come, and the election is a long way off. By the time the election does come around, Anders will most likely have a nomination in another riding, and Liepert will probably have already been booted from the party.

I think it's funny that you're offended by the communist label. It's not said to malign anyone, only to make a factual assessment of the party's principles. I'm not saying that's a bad thing if that's what floats your boat. I have some great friends who are communists.

It's their core self-stated founding principle. Nobody here has fascism as a principle, stated or otherwise.

All nine suggestions are very minor tweaks. Some of them actually strengthen the intent of the bill (like adding braille and pictures of the candidates to ballots). No one is suggesting that Elections Canada keep the same powers they have now. There are some differences of opinion as to how much their powers need to be pulled back, and how much of the same effect can be had by just having outside oversight. Maintaining communication between EC and their overseers is certainly the most important thing -- the original bill wasn't as clear on how that would work specifically. The actual Senate report is here: http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/412/lcjc/rep/rep06apr14-e.htm The biggest change is the one regarding exempting expenses to chase after new donations from previous donors. I strongly agree with that suggestion. Strict limits need to be enforced, but they also have to be very clearly written so that you don't have a difference of opinion as to what is and is not allowed.

"one wonders" Did you actually read the article I linked to? The NDP pulled the official document from their website when the CBC started investigating it, and later replaced it with the text you posted -- one the expunged the words "socialism" and "social democrat" entirely. So, does that mean that the NDP no longer believes in their founding principles?

I'm paid nothing. Sheila Fraser, on the other hand, absolutely is being paid by Elections Canada to represent them.

The letter of attestation provision was already in the original bill.

The Senate's proposed changes to the bill are quite minor, none even remotely enter the realm of "heavily altered", and they most certainly are not suggesting dumping it. They emphatically rejected the idea of reinstating vouching.

What resistance? A bunch of paid parrots continually repeating the same left-wing talking points that have already been completely debunked. Sheila Fraser? When she calls this bill "an attack on democracy", yes, she is lying. You don't see her publicly railing against Quebec and Ontario who already don't allow vouching in provincial elections.

How is he being put in his place? He's got a right to have an attitude about this with all of the outright lies coming from the left over what's actually in the bill.

http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/politics/inside-politics-blog/2011/04/the-ndps-missing-constitution.html That's lifted directly from the Communist Manifesto, AND it reads exactly like a Fidel Castro speech.

The SCC seems to have a passion for ruling "unconstitutional" things that are not stated in the constitution.

I missed that specific word… where does it say that other than in your own post? Besides, Is it actually offensive to NDPers to be identified with Communists? Last I checked, their constitution seems to imply that's what they align themselves with.

I don't think so. The comment was "confiscate your corduroy clothing", seems equally benign as "confiscate your blue suit" to refer to kicking someone out of the CPC.

Much ado about nothing. It's all part of the process. Polievre himself asked the Senate to propose amendments to the bill. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/proposed-changes-to-election-rules-not-a-rebuke-of-tories-senator-says/article18005444/

I said that from the beginning. Regardless of how you felt about Duffy, calling the repayment of his expenses fraud was ridiculous to the extreme. Let's see if the vindication will get anywhere near the same airtime that the initial slander did.

It says that democracy is not nearly as sacrosanct as people try to pretend it is. MOST people will bitch about what they get, but won't actually do anything about it.