Bryan

I didn't think there was a more biased talking head on TV than Solomon, but you're right, she'd probably be worse. What they should do is use the opportunity to put someone who at least tries to act neutral in the chair. See if Steve Paikin wants the job.

As has already been pointed out, his actions very specifically fit exactly the definition of the word: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/traitor?s=t

Let's remember that the next time you disagree with the position of one of the posters here. He tried to break up the country. It's the most clear-cut definition of a traitor as it gets.

None of those things happened. It really is that simple. Multiple agencies and jurisdictions were responsible for overlapping tasks, and a some of that overlap was reduced. That is it.

Your link is from an activist site. They are deliberately misrepresenting the situation and so are you.

One could even say he's plugged a hole in his tax plan.

I grew up in one of those northern communities. Very few people watched CBC. The closest affiliate was over 500 miles away, so not much of anything they broadcast "connected" us in any way. The CTV signal came in stronger anyway.

Then you should stop, because what you're writing here is nonsense.

Federal laws and regulations that had needless bureaucracy, layers of red tape, and multiple agencies doing the same job. Now they are more streamlined and much better able to respond where needed.

Redundancies were reduced. That's a good thing.

The other one? The cop's behaviour is unacceptable too, just to a much lesser degree. If he gets fired, that would suffice for me.

You're pretty new here, so your frame of reference is pretty limited. It was not always like this. There was much more participation, a lot more leeway with the conversation, and a lot less interference by the moderators. I've been a member here since 2004. For ten years, I never got a single warning, in the last year I've had three. Never once was there an indication that I was operating outside the rules, now all of a sudden I supposedly am. My posting content and style has not changed in that time, but the moderation certainly has. It WASN'T broke before, but now they are tryng to fix it. What they are doing is screwing it up. The "don't like it, move on" part is the most contentious issue, because the membership here is a small fraction of what it was just a few years ago, and the moderation appears to be determined to get that number as close to zero as possible as fast as they can.

"Agitating"? The kid is dead. The cop murdered him in cold blood with no provocation.

As well they should have. It's not as if the UN has any credibility on these issues. There's no reason whatsoever to bow to their hyperbolic rhetoric.

If that was my kid, I absolutely would kill that cop. As long as it took for me to corner him alone I would stalk him and take him down.

I agree. The moderation here is getting out of hand. It really seems like their objective is to stop people from posting at all. What improvement would I like to see in this forum? I'd like to see the moderators stop going out of their way to shut down organic conversation every time it happens. "Drift" is a normal conversation. When you keep trying to shut that down, you're just being an jerk. Reminding people of what your point was, and adding context, is part of having a productive conversation. When you try to shut that down, you're being ridiculous.

Awesome!

Legal fees are accounted in AANDC spending reports. It's a single digit percentage of the total funding. https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1359569904612/1359569939970 Between $46.7 and $105.8 million a year out of an $8 billion a year budget

Chretien cut over $400 million from CBC. He also cut healthcare, education, environment, fisheries, defence, science and technology, foreign affairs, natural resources, and others. Many of those cuts were in the 30-40% range. And they did all that while raising taxes.

Generally not. The bureaucracy usually makes the services more expensive and less effective.

I'm a founding member of the Reform party, and this is the first I've ever heard anyone say that about Deborah Grey. It certainly goes against the party's core principles -- Reform was formed as an alternative to the Western Independence Movement that was starting to gain steam in Alberta at the time. Do you have a cite for when she ever advocated such a thing? How far back are you thinking that this might have happened? Even if she had ever discussed the concept, she certainly never campaigned on it, and never actively tried to make it happen. No referendums were held, etc.

And I'm not.

Which particular statement of mine are you asking me to back up?

The majority of this forum are people other than the small group who keep arguing with things that people never said.

You posted them.