Bryan

Nothing at all wrong with what Sona did in Guelph. He had every right and duty to stop the illegal voting. I wouldn't hesitate to do the same thing.

That's mostly how our healthcare works now.

PUNDITS, yes. Voters on the other hand saw it for what it really was, a cheap stunt, and punished the opposition for pulling it.

Again, all you've demonstrated is that you do not understand what the term shill means. Shills GET paid. By definition they are NOT believers in a given cause, just guns for hire. Professional activists, for instance, are shills. No, I won't report you (I've never reported anyone). You're perfectly entitled to be as ignorant as you want.

I felt the same way you did back in the last 80's/early 90's. A lot of people did. We hated the parties being presented to us, and we thought the system that entrenched them wasn't fair. So we did something about it. That's a big reason why so many CPC supporters are such die-hards: we worked very hard to replace the established right of centre party. Then we worked even harder to replace the 'natural ruling party' in government. It took a lot of people a lot of hours and a lot of money to get it done, but we did it. If enough people of other political persuasions had similar ideas, and a similar work ethic, they could do it too.

You're talking about a bunch of fake scandals that don't mean anything, that when presented with the "evidence", voters supported the CPC even more. Your feigned outrage doesn't exactly have alot of credibility on the matter...

It's just as likely that they'd increase their seat count if any of the robo-called riding are ones that the CPC didn't win.

If the hypocrisy didn't keep on coming, there'd be no need to point it out.

The only reason people know about all these tiny faux scandals is because the CPC is significantly more transparent than governments before. They aren't as good at hiding things, because they aren't trying to hide anything.

If anything it's the opposite: anyone who believes the party had anything to do with this is just flat out crazy. There's no chance they'd approve of anything like this. It's only specifically because it was one guy working alone who told no one that it was possible to happen. Besides that, only a lone young staffer who wasn't thinking things through would think to use a burner cell phone, but wouldn't think to use a different calling service than the one the party was already using.

Lefties in this country have been saying that for years. The louder they cry foul, the stronger the CPC support gets. An election with Nycole Turmel and Bob Rae as the opposition leaders? YES PLEASE!!!

As usual, your post is completely dishonest. I'm not pissed about registering firearms, I don't even own any. I would be equally as harsh on anyone selling guns to kids as I would be them selling drugs. I don't have any problem with an adult using whatever they want.

I'm not blaming anyone, just noticing that Toews' bill was not terribly original, large sections of it were copied verbatim from the previous one. Who wrote the other one is not nearly as important to me as the fact that Toews clearly did not. He's a busy man, this theatrical BS is not worth his time. Choosing to frame the question that way says a lot more about you than it does about him.

If someone is selling banned junk-food through a network of organized crime, I've yet to hear about it.

They definitely are getting the material for this and the copyright bills directly from Martin's bills. If the original source is the US, then that's where Martin got it from.

For recreational personal use, no. Trafficking on the other hand, sounds like a really good idea. Especially if they're selling to kids? Yes, we absolutely should execute those people.

I agree that the Conservatives made a mistake with C-30, but IMO, it's not the one most people are criticizing. In fact it's the CPCs odd attempts to defend the bill that exposed their big faux pas. It's actually the same problem there was with the failed copyright reform bill(s). That is, the reason they weren't even sure what was actually in the bills was because they didn't write them. What I think actually happened was they got caught plagiarizing some-one else's work. They copied and pasted huge sections from previous (unsuccessful) bills proposed by the previous government.

If sentences that were thought to be stiff were not deterring crime, they clearly aren't stiff enough. Besides, people claiming that stiff sentences don't deter crime are flat-out lying. You can cherry pick all the stats you want, but the fact remains that you can't re-offend when you're not on the street. The longer an offender is off the street, the longer we don't have to worry about that guy. I know people working in social services who have clients on their case-loads with HUNDREDS of convictions and counting. You can't re-offend hundreds of times if you aren't out on the street to do it. Not only is C-10 a good thing, it's only real problem is it doesn't go far enough.

The only ignorance in this thread is yours.

It absolutely does violate their rights. Freedom of religion also means freedom from it. The school has no right to make such a topic part of a mandatory curriculum.

Awesome, more activist judges. I'll admit right off the bat that I'm generally somewhat hostile when it comes to catholicism, but this decision really disturbs me. There is no way this case should ever have gone to court. If someone doesn't want to take a course about religion, they should be politely excused from it. The Supreme Court absolutely does not have the authority to make such a ruling in this country. The very fact that they even heard the case is a violation of the charter of rights and freedoms. If a court can tell you that you have to take a course about religion, then we do not have freedom of religion. That it come out of Quebec does not surprise me though. Just like their language laws, this country has two distinct ways to read the constitution depending on what province you're from.

I hope not. Those kinds of numbers require a "grand coalition" of parties that don't really agree on much. Remember, when Mulroney-era PC support fell apart, it went to both the Reform AND the Bloc.

There's no doubt that is the largest part of the problem, coupled with the left's insatiable insistence on flat-out lying about anything the Conservatives are doing. That having been said, I still think the bill goes too far. Without a warrant, no government or police agency should have any right to ANY information about me beyond what I decide to give them. That includes linking a name/email/IP/etc to my internet traffic. If they really do have sufficient reason to suspect that I'm doing something wrong, they should have no trouble convincing a judge to issue a warrant. If there's not enough there for a judge to issue that warrant, then they really don't have any legitimate reason for keeping any kind of tabs on me.

It really is a beautiful place. I've gone there three times now, and I love it more each time I go. The people are simply amazing, and the whole island is just gorgeous. Our family has several Cuban friends (both in Canada and in Cuba). It's really neat to see where they grew up, and the culture the grew up with.

No. You are not going to find very many Conservatives who agree with Toews on this issue. Not here, not in the EDA's, not on Blogging Tories. CPC MPs are getting a lot of backlash right now from even their most dedicated supporters.