fellowtraveller

They really do not need another small forward. By trading down one or two spots they can get the #2 pick(a very good D) and a roster player. I guess you didn't see them play this year. They get pushed around badly by large fast teams, never get the chance to use their skill. Their defence as a group are horrible. At the beginning of the year they had no future goalie, now it looks like Dubnyk might do the job. That leaves size and D. Getting first pair D via free agency cannot happen, and they dfont want to give anybody one of their top six forwards. That leaves the draft, or trading down at the draft to fill the chasm on defence. They had top three power play this year, they don't need a forward. The KHL, where he can earn three times the money immediately and stiull come back to the NHL. He is under zero obligation to report to or sign with any NHL teram.. Until the NHL has an agreement with the Russkis, it is really risky to invest big in a young Russian.

Tax the rich? Let's eat the rich. Their flesh is nicely marbled.....and I have room in the freezer. Wealthy people don't work for large corporations, with the exception of a few execs at the helm of a few corporations.Wealthy people in my experience are most often business owners, small to medium business owners. They work all the time. They employ people. They get rich by taking risks with their money. You don't get rich working for a salary, working for a company.

yes, of course, to both questions. Duh. Do you think the Broadbent Institute would waste money on asking questions randomly and hope the result worked in their favour? It would like a lawyer asking a question in court to which he did not already know the answer. Not gonna happen. But back to the OP... Public pensions are mentioned as social programs. When did the CPP become a s social programs, I get back more or less what I put into CPP. If I put in nothing , I get nothing. OAS is welfare for seniors, a social program, but CPP is not

I wonder if the Oilers will trade down to #2 pick and take Murray, the best defenceman avaialble? They do not really need another small gifted forward, in fact they need size desperately. Picking any Russian high in the draft is really really risky too. Nothing prevents Yakupov from going back to Russia for a few years at $5 million per, instead of taking a rookie contract at a couple million at most. I also wonder if Tambellini will even be aroubnd for the draft, his record in the last three years has not been very good. A turnip could have picked Hall and Hopkins as #1s the last two years, and he has mostly failed in getting a supporting cast. His contract is up in a few weeks, no hint of extension yet. Same for Tom Renney.

People don't vote because they don't give a shit about any of it.

No, her official party policy has been to hold referendums on the topic. Referendums take years to put together. In the meantime, Wildrose will delist it from public funding, which requires no legislation. Of late, Smith has had nothing to say on the topic because she knows it can hurt her. To get elected, she really needs to attract some centrist votes and beaking off about abortion Make no mistake, Wildrose is heavily backed by the social conservatioves- and by that I mean the Church groups, ProLifers and hard right- that left the PCs as they became more centrist. They also left the PCs because with the smackdown of Morton(twice) they recognized that their dinosaur thinking had no voice left in Alberta. Hence, Wildrose Party. Make no mistake, Smith is a social conservative and she will do what she can to help a notable chunk of her party, which is the ProLife contingent.

When specifically did the NDP endorse the purchase of new jets for Canada?

Is this going to be a cage match?

You must be new to this politics game. What is really, really dumb is getting this topic on the agenda at all. Smith does not come out and say she is prochoice, that would be idiotic given it would get her absolutley zero votes amongst the social cons, because she already has all the social cons in AB as the basis of her own party. It would also be untrue, given her background and previous statements and the polciy of her party until the last few minutes when they realized the very thin ice they were on. Abortion rights are a really polarizing issue, and Smith can ill afford to alienate anybody in the social middle because..... this is the only area where she can possibly mine new votes. Danielle wants this to go bye-bye for a long time. It is more Eastern perception bullshit anyway, people in AB are the same as they are elsewhere: the majority support the right of women to choose. Harper knows it, and has kept his head firmly down on this. Smith is trying to do that now too, no joy anywhere by speaking on either side.

Punked and some others like whathisname above are convinced that polls should get you extra seats right now. The blubbering and outrage will be epic.... I can hardly wait....

to get elected. Duh.

Danielle Smith did not say she would ban abortion, but her party spokesman implied they'd delist it. That means people have to pay for it themselves. Smith has been clear she would not introduce legislation to ban abortion because in her view uit is a federal repsonisibility. It isn't of course in Canada, since abortion is considered a medical procedure and thus a provinical responsibility. And of course Smith is weaseling bigtime, since legislation is not required to delist anything, the govt can list and delist whatever they wish, more or less, without legislative change.

Yeah, idiots and political losers trumpet that tired old tune all the time. In reality, people like what they have in AB. That's why they come from all over the world to get it. Duh.Next idiot ccmment: if the 50% who don't vote went to the polls, they'd all vote NDP or Liberal.

Baloney. Smith is pro-life.You don't want libertarians and social cons deciding that in Alberta, be careful what you wish for. Despite what The Grope and Flail says, there are not enough of either in AB to carry any new prolife initiative.

Mark this thread and bring it back in 2015, we'll see some fearsome NDP blubbering then. I'll ask again, how does Mulcair plan to dazzle Quebec with his ability to bring it riches beyond their share from Ottawa?

It would be much smarter for some NDP MPs to think about crossing the floor to join the Liberals before the next election.

No, poll numbers don't win or lose seats. Candidates win or lose seats. You are dead wrong about 7-9% not winning seats of course, look at E. May(7%)and Ralph Goodale(8%) for recent examples. Even Linda Duncan who won her seat with the NDP getting 12% in 2008...... Why would anybody cross the floor to join a party that is likely to plummet in their seat count next election? What possible reason would he have for risking what has been a Liberal riding(except once) for about 50 years? Trudeau is already a semi-iconic player with the Liberals, what would he gain by becoming an untrustworthy minnow in the NDP? The future of the NDP in Quebec depends on the party delivering the gravy to the province while in Opposition for the next three years. Has Mulcair explained how he plans to actually do this? (Hint: just whining won't be enough).

The only possible reason Trudeau would join the NDP is if they were forming a govt and he was at minimum Deputy PM with the promise of the big chair soon after.Mulcair can recognize that Trudeau just is not smart enough to manage either job, and is not a huge asset in a province that essentially loathed his father.. In any case, Trudeau has a gravy position in the Liberal caucus as long as he wishes, so there is no reason for him to leave one for the other. Non starter from both sides.

The CBC will have an even greater challenge in selling more ads with the pile of smelly crap they air that few people watch now. It's a death spiral.

This is so ridden with error I don't know where to start.Forcing working people to contribute to CPP for a retirement income is not the essence of taxation. It is the opposite, the avoidance of taxation that would be required if those funds were not available at retirement age, to keep seniors from starving. You cannot equate welgfare(available to anybody in need) with EI or CPP(insurance /pension schemes available only to those who contributed). The State does not make critical investment choices, they establish investment guidelines and the CPPIB makes their own decisions. The Caisse effectively does not give a shit about the quality of investment since they know the Canadian govt will have to bail out their contributors no matter what. We are talking about Quebec here.

I doubt that Winnipeg has more Ukrainians than Edmonchuk and eastern Alberta. Saskatachewan also has Norwegians, a town/area called Birch Hills north of Saskatoon still has a substantial popualtion. I don't care at all how many Muslims there are in Canada, as long as: ) they work and pay taxes b)obey the law Just like everybody else.......

Agreed. I'm rooting for the NDP. Every time the NDP gets elected, skilled unemployed workers flee the province in search of a crust of bread as the economy shrinks. We can use them in Alberta, they are welcome here.

lloks like the OP question is answered. Pop! Tebow traded for a fourth round draft pick.

No, it is the role of the judiciary to determine an appropriate sentence for James. They failed in this, twice. He was in a position of trust for a long time, and used that position to sexually assault minors many, many times over a long period of time. This was not an occasional lapse of judgement but a long term pattern of behaviour that deserves a much stronger penalty.The cases before the court have had several books written about them and have been played out in public for 15 years. It is one of the highest profile cases in the history of this country. If you have no knowledge of the situation, blame yourself. No, I didn't say that.What I did say is that incarceration is the only way to keep James from reoffending, for the period of the incarceration. In this type of crime, there is nobody in jail that he has an opportunity to have a dominant authority relationship. There is supposedly a panel of experts stating that James won't reoffend. There is no guarantee he won't, but that is not relevant to the case, obviously you cannot convict and jail anybody on the possibility of future crime. What is relevant is a) a longterm pattern of serious offences his conviction for those crimes . That warrants a longer sentence. The judge has failed .

THanks for the snot, I needed that. Unlike you, I have little faith in the experts you assure me that James is rehabilatated. Pedophiles are very likely to do it again. It does not matter anyway, he richly deserves a much longer sentence for the crimes he has been convicted for. I don't want to incarcerate everybody, just have appropriate sentences for those that commit the worst of crimes. Like James.