Bryan

Despite the poor optics of the situation, Harper has no choice but to fire Shapiro. It's the right thing to do. I'm left wondering if anyone in Canada is so stupid as to believe a word of the political posturing coming from the opposition. It's the hieght of hypocrisy, and anyone with a brain can see it. The NDP and the LIbs are only making htemselves look worse by whining about nothing.

That his first choice was former NDP leader ED Broadbent is sufficient evidence that Harper's motives on this move are to end the appearance of conflicting ethics. Unfortunately, since Ed cannot accept at this time due to his wife's health, the NDP will likely try to paint this as an UNethical move by Harper.

Agreed. The fact that this kid had the gall to challenge his school's decision to the courts is in itself almost more offensive than the Supreme Court's decision itself. How dare he challenge the safety considerations of not just his school, but now all Canadians, just so he can carry his precious dagger around? Somebody needs to teach that punk a lesson about minding his own business instead of making his business everyone else's.

Too dangerous, the Liberals would have a ticket to the minority population next election. Elections aside, we should just treat everyone equally and ban all religious items and symbols from school. I disagree. I think Harper could make some serious political hay by pointing out that if the Liberals had their way, the not-withstanding clause would have been eliminated, and the Prime Minister would no longer have the ability to protect school kids from this outrageous decision. People would be thanking their lucky stars that the Liberals didn't get in. The polls I've seen show 95-99% of respondants are opposed to the Supreme Court's decision. That means a LOT of Liberal voters are not happy with this, and would probably welcome some way to reverse it.

Whether they have been used as a weapon or not is irrelevant. They CAN be, and have no place in schools. Even if the person wearing the Kirpan would never use it, some other kid might take it from them and use it. Here is a case where I definitely think the Prime Minister SHOULD use the not-withstanding clause to overturn this ridiculous decision.

Two people have the same income. One has a huge house, and a huge mortgage. The other has a modest home, but it's paid for. The one living large appears to be very well off, while the other appears to be a pauper. That's smoke and mirrors. When you have a country like the US where they owe trillions to foreign interests (and continue mounting 70% of their accruing deficits from foreign investors), the only investment benefit is to the out of country lender. To the US, it's just debt, yet that spending gets counted as a positive with regard to GDP when it should be counted as a negative. The ratio of debt to GDP tells you a lot more about the health of a country's economy than the absolute GDP does. In moderation, a certain measure of debt can make sense.The dose makes the poison. If you don't produce anything of value, and you insist on living beyond your means (like the US), debt is pretty much your only option if you want more stuff. It doesn't make you more well off. On the other hand, Alberta is now debt free, and their standard of living is pretty good. Besides, mounting debt is a huge reason why many third world countries remain where they are (of course social and political turmoil certainlt hasn't helped). It's to the point where it's literally impossible for some of them to pay even the interest, let alone the principle. What would you have them do, borrow MORE to solve that problem? Like Preston Manning used to say, "if you find yourself in a hole, the first thing you have to do is stop digging."

The only problem I have with the GDP is it counts both gains and losses as an increase in the GDP. It needs to be adjusted according to debt (personal, business, and government) to really mean anything. You can see billions of dollars moving through an economy, but if it was all borrowed, it's just smoke and mirrors.

On this I strongly disagree. I WANT my daughter's childcare giver to be unlicenced. How I want my children being cared for and how the Government might want are not necessarily the same thing. I need to know that if/when the two might conflict, it is MY wishes that will be heeded, not the Government's.

Harper said he felt betrayed by Belinda when she left, he didn't say she shouldn't have been able to leave. Big difference. In fact, during the election cmapaign, Harper made it very clear that he would oppose a motion to stop floor crossing. He felt an MP has to have the ability to move with their conscience, and that a party leader should not be able to hold an MPs seat over their heads to make them tow the party line. There's nothing remotely unethical about either the Emmerson or Fortier appointments. They were done with full disclosure, and in accordance with parliamentary procedure. It's hypocrisy of epic proportions for Liberals to cry foul about these appointments. Vic Toews? Fantastic choice for justice minister. He was a great justice minister here in Manitoba, and he'll do a great job federally too. The only appointment that irks me is Flaherty as finance minister. If ever there was a specific portfolio to make SURE to reward your Calgary roots with, its finance.

Absolutely. In fact, a large part of why I voted Conservative is because I EXPECT them to drop the Liberal's daycare plan. I much prefer to be given the choice of how I raise my children, and to be given a little help financially is good too. IMO, all funding to daycare institutions should be stopped. Not one dime. If the government is going to put any money at all into childcare, give it directly to the parents and let THEM decide how the kid is going to be raised.

As someone who lives in Winnipeg, I read the Free Press almost everyday throughout the campaign. Without question, the paper has a decidedly left-wing slant. They really did try to favor the Liberals wherever they could, but there just wasn't much nice to say. The last 10 days of the campaign, the headlines were consistantly of the "Tory lead continues to shrink" variety.

What part of the Arctic waters are we talking about? Beaufort Sea? Baffin Bay? Arctic Ocean? Within the 200 mile EEZ? The Nole Pole?

The National Post is to the right of the Globe and Mail, but that doesn't take much. Socially at least, the Globe and Mail has been moving more and more to the left every year.

People are entitled to their opinions. To label others with an emotionally charged slur just because they don't agree with you is every bit the bigotry to pretend to oppose.

What are you confused about?

Free Dominion has the early numbers posted.

There's nothing controversial or offensive about what he the Mayor said. He speaks the truth. Equality of all includes equality for those who already have established traditions. Trying for force people to change Christmas (for any reason), now THAT is offensive.

Anyone other than the Liberals. I sincerely hope for the good of the country that they fall to at least third party status, if not fourth.

Funny. A lot of women I know are far more impressed with the Conservative plan.. I know as a parent of 2 children, I definitely do not like the Liberal plan.

I don't see in that article where it states how many of those MRIs the Liberal Federal Government specifically bought, and how many were purchased by other means.

Fletcher did nothing that he needed to apologize for. He was clearly speaking specifically of the Japanese army's actions during WWII, and made no other implication. To infer that he had any racist intent is patently dishonest.

They shouldn't even be an available option at this point. The Liberal Party should be suspended for their corruption, and not even be allowed to run in the next election.

It's never been a secret that the Conservative party was not pleased that the nomination process was hijacked in Cadman's riding, and that they wanted him back from day one.

Harper by far has the most integrity of any of the leaders. Why do people think he's mean spirited or has a 'secret agenda'? Because the Liberals, who have a proven track record of being pathological liars, said so. That fact that the Liberals hate harper so much is reason enough to vote him in as PM. If a party so corrupt hates him that much, he must be exactly what the country really needs.

Funniest thing I've read in a long while. Thanks for the chuckle. If anything, the NDPs tenuous support is now going to be lessened. They basically held the Government for ransom, and demanded billions of dollars in foolish spending. Nobody wanted an election now, but nobody wanted to have even more of their hard earned money to be taken from them in such an irresponsible way. The NDP forced MPs to hold their noses and vote for it in order to stave off an election.