Queenmandy85

If this happened to an Israeli settlement in the occupied West Bank and the settlers opened fire on a unit of armed Palestinians coming to attack them, would you see it the same way?

He was a child doing what his idiot father told him when they went to the Middle East.

I'll give you that. How many Canadians have been killed by muslim terrorists and how many have been killed by sikhs? The worst terrorist attack in Canadian history was perpetrated by Sikh fundamentalists. Why do we not fear Sikhs? Because, just like Muslims, the violence is perpetrated by a few idiots. The Catholic Church did not condone the attacks on Protestants in Ulster, the greater Islamic community condemns violence by extremists, as does the Sikh, Jewish and Buddhist community.

No, I said they attacked the neighbourhood he was living in. A group of armed men attacked the village and killed every one there except one kid who was badly wounded. As they approached him, presumably to finish him off (he would be justified in believing) he defended himself and managed to kill one of the men who he believed were going to kill him. If he were a Canadian kid living in Israel and the attackers were Palestinians, would you still call him a terrorist? If these Palestinians then tortured him and the Canadian Government collaborated with the Palestinians in the torture, don't you think he should receive compensation?

No, he was born in Canada. I don't get what you are saying.

The attacks on termination clinics?

The real concern is not the label, it is fundamentalism. Whether it is Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, or Sikh, all have their militant fundamentalists. Look at the Buddhist attacks on Muslims in Burma, Jews and Muslims attacking each other in Israel / Palestine, or the Hindu attacks on Muslims in India. The majority of members of all these religions just want to get along. Islam is very similar to the Roman Catholic church. Both have a very positive effect on society but I can make the argument that shows the RC's as anti-women, anti-semetic, with its own record of terrorism. The RC Church actively campaigns to void assimilation. You can argue that it is a tiny minority but the same is true of Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism. Side note: regarding your "Muslim terrorists $10.5 million", if a gang invaded your neighbourhood and killed everyone except one badly wounded teenager, who defended himself by killing one of the invaders, you would call it self-defence. Try substituting Palestinians for the Americans and Israeli for the "Muslim Terrorist" and you can see what I mean.

Sounds like you think it is a good gig. Why don't you run and get paid for doing nothing?

In answer to the OP, the worst Prime Ministers since Pierre Trudeau was Prime minister were John Turner and Kim Campbell. PET was not a bad PM, but Standfield would have been far better. I would include in the worst Prime Ministers Mike Pearson, but he doesn't fall in the arbitrary time frame allotted.

I never met Kim Campbell.

I forgot Bert Herridge. Would you consider him to have been sordid and self-serving?

I'll concede your salary estimate. I confess I don't know what top lawyers and doctors earn in Canada, but I would have thought 600K-700K is not out of reason. I never got to know Jim MacFarlane when I worked in his campaign office. I was only 14 years old. I did get to know Don Munro, Allan MacKinnon, Don Ravis, Fr. Bob Ogilvy, Erik Neilsen, David Anderson, Bill McKnight, Scott Wallace, and Darril Warren. I worked on Joe Clark's Leadership campaign. Every one of these people were hard working and dedicated. Were Bob Stanfield, Ed Broadbent, Joe Clark, Jim Gillies, Davie Fulton, or Frank Howard self-serving? We have all heard of the few bad ones but I've yet to meet one.

Definitely not. MP's work hard, many for a quarter of the income they received in the private sector. I'm not sure how many you know personally, but I suspect, from what you say, not many.

Those backbenchers hold the power of confidence, without which, the cabinet cannot govern. If the MP's are not up to scratch, it is the fault of the voters. It is a thankless job. How many jobs require you to exhaust your savings in the application process, cost more money to serve than it pays and your boss, the voters, all presume you are a liar and a thief, that you are the lowest form of life, all without even knowing anything about you. You work 70 - 100 hours a week, spend a horrendous amount of time away from your family, and every voter has their hand out. These are very special people who serve in spite of the abuse they are subjected to by the voters.

True, but Singh won't be around very long. Each MP represents all Canadians, not just those in her riding.

Yes. Prime Minister Harper brought that legislation in and then promptly broke it by calling a snap election. The real disadvantage is it greatly extends the unofficial election campaign.

A classmate of mine at UVic had a theory claiming every hair on a national party leader's head was worth 10,000 votes.

1. What Argus said. 2. The Prime Minister exists by convention. Officially, like all ministers, the PM is appointed by the Queen, but by convention, this is carried out by the GG who, by convention, appoints the leader of the party with the most seats in the House of Commons. 3. The Feds have the most power, but the power balance is somewhat fluid. We have a traditional problem with national unity and the Feds have to get the provinces on board for things.(Pipelines, for instance). 4. Each Province is different. Some have counties, some have regional districts.

Trudeau seems to get the blame for issues over which he has no control. The NAFTA talks were complicated by a US government without a coherent policy. His attempt at electoral reform was blocked by the NDP. His attempt to expand the pipeline carrying Alberta's bitumen to the coast has been blocked by the government of BC. The on going tensions with China over the extradition of a powerful Chinese business woman is an issue over which he is not allowed to intervene. He was the only leader in the last election who promised a deficit. That it is much larger than anticipated is due to the contradiction that people wanted to have more services but refuse to pay taxes to pay for them. (Just like President Trump?) He is also faced with a lot of push-back from climate change deniers. He has created some of his own problems. He had a disastrous trade mission to India. He occasionally makes flippant remarks that don't come across as humorous as he expected. So far, most of the people he has offended are people who never liked him in the first place and look for any reason to confirm it. Most hated his father as well. I don't dislike Trudeau, but there are people who could do better. I'm still on the fence with Sheer. I think Lisa Raitt would do better, but she did poorly in the leadership race.

In political terms, so was Mr. O'Leary. Andrew Sheer has surprised me. He seems to have the discipline to avoid the kind of off-the-cuff remarks that hurt the Prime Minister. He also has the sense to realize a leader should facilitate the will of the voters over his own. My only worry is that he will not be any better at dealing with climate change than the Prime Minister is. The longer we ignore it, the more draconian the measures will be required in the near future. We have already lost 40 years. (In global terms) We should have begun taking action in the 1970's when solving the crisis would have been easier.

BC voters just rejected PR for the third and Hopefully final time.

It was the Chinese government even then. The probes were in the thousands.

For a couple of years 15 years ago, I was tasked with logging cyber probes against the University where I worked. The volume even then was incredible.

Of our last 42 Heads of State, we have had about four who were sub-par. Our current leader was trained for the job as a teenager. We should remove the constraints put in place in the last 50 years and let the Head of State select people of merit just as we used to do.

Further to your point, I cannot fathom why any Canadian would still be in China or why would someone would go to Iran.