Bryan

Washington state did not legalize marijuana. It's still a controlled substance, under the same authority that polices alcohol. Only businesses licensed and regulated by the Washington State Liquor Control Board can sell pot, and only under the conditions dictated by the board. Possession of pot not obtained according to the regulations is still prohibited, as is smoking weed in any public space. http://time.com/2955024/washington-where-to-buy-pot/

"Decriminalization. Regulated industry. Fines for unlicensed sale and production. Free possession." Seems to me to be the only workable balance between allowing adults to make their own decisions about these kinds of things, and keeping them out of the hands of children.

It's what happened and you know it. Claiming otherwise that is partisan garbage. I've seen first hand how Elections Canada plays their dirty "gotcha" games. But only if you're a Conservative. Liberals do the same thing, they just get a finger wag.

Innocent people plead guilty all of the time when the benefits of getting the whole thing over are greater than the risks of dragging things out. Elections Canada routinely threatens extra sanctions against people if they choose to exert their constitutional rights.

They were the only ones forced to admit guilt for something that wasn't illegal at the time and that had been standard practice for all parties for many years. Partisan smear job, nothing else.

You can blame the partisan BS that Elections Canada pulled with the "in-and-out" smear job for that. Instead of efficiently making one ad and allowing the local candidates top buy local time to run it, now the local candidate has to appear in the ad.

Clark was a liberal who liked blue suits. He flatly and openly rejected conservatism. He was and still is a moderate left-winger.

No, and he should sue them if they even suggest that they might.

Absolutely not. Clark rejected the conservative movement in its entirety, and he did not join the Reform Party/Canadian Alliance.

I know three of our local CPC MPs fairly well, two of them go to my church. The idea that any of them are muzzled is ludicrous. They stay on and (for the most part) go along with what the party says, for the same reason they joined the party in the fist place. They share the many of same values. Not all the same values though. One of these MPs in particular has been a thorn in PM Harper's side bringing forward several private members bills and attending rallies for things the party does not endorse and wishes he would not do. Has Harper told him that he doesn't like it? Absolutely. But he kept doing it, and there absolutely were no consequences.

Anyone can change their party affiliation any time they want right now. It happens all the time.

What you said was: Which he never was. No he didn't. Clark is a Red Tory. The "Progressive" in Progressive Conservative. He was always on the far left edge of a party that was already centre-left. He very openly rejected any and all efforts of the conservative movement in Canada whether within or outside of the PCs.

There is no "Canadian branch of the neoconservative movement".

Not only was Joe Clark NOT a "Conservative Prime Minister", he has never even been a member of the Conservative party. He was vehemently opposed to the formation of the party, despite over 90% of his fellow PCs jumping ship to the new party. Clark still sat in the house as a PC even after the Conservative party was formed. Agreed. Neocon refers very specifically to a subset of the Republican party. The term bares no relation to Canadian Conservatives, who in most cases would be considered pretty far left of the Democrats in the US.

"Gets them"??? You think mothers should be forced to not stay home to take care of their own kids? Besides, Moms can work without state run daycare.

Clearly not a bribe of any sort, regardless of who knew what.

No they don't.

Still waiting for any evidence of bribery whatsoever.

Yep. He got a "now, now, we won't have any of that" and a deal to pay it back over time. No record, and he still gets to run. Elections Canada, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Liberal Party of Canada.

Exactly. This government is so clean, that a few people spending their own money is what passes for "corruption". http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/election/liberal-candidate-admits-he-broke-spending-laws-to-win-nomination-1.2528103 When a Conservative does it, he gets a perp walk in chains. When a Liberal does it -- they just make an arrangement for him.

Some of them have no set denomination. You can also reload them. With cash.

I was at the event in Winnipeg last week. There was no "vetting". If you've ever entered your name on the CPC web site expressing interest in the party, you got an invite. There was no gag order either.

I've done the same. You can enter any information you want on those cards.

I never said or implied there was any frame up of any kind. What I said was, none of it makes any sense.

What is the point you think I'm arguing?