Scotty

Being a beautiful democratic country has nothing to do with being punished for breaking the law. What Manning and Snowden did was criminal in every respect. They might think themselves justified, but most of their fellow citizens disagree, and so do the laws.

Were any of the other eight Canadian former astronauts invited?

You're ignoring the fact this was an entirely legal program which he had no right to out. No one was breaking any laws, and it isn't clear that there was any public interest in him exposing the program as he did. Most people with more than half a brain were well aware the US government was involved in a lot of on-line electronic monitoring. We didn't need to know the intimate details. Who has he helped by his disclosure other than the Russians, the Chinese, and the terrorists who have now become more familiar with how to avoid electronic monitoring? What Snowden did was to decide that even though several presidents and the leaders of both parties in both houses of congress had decided this program was necessary and must be kept secret, his judgement outweighed theirs. This in spite of the fact federal judges were overseeing the constitutionality and legality of what was happening. Sheer arrogance born out of a smug sense of superiority and immaturity.

This illustrates exactly what I've been saying. The reason police acted up here is that they had the assumption that everyone must do whatever the police tell them. It didn't matter that the individuals weren't breaking any laws. The police ordered them to get off the street. As was their right, they didn't, so got beat up. The second guy was taking videos and wouldn't go away, so half the Omaha police force showed up to punish him for refusing to obey. Instead of such things as Serve and Protect, a better motto for police cars would be "Obey me or else'.

My point is what you posted was hardly routine. You couldn't find another like it in the last decade. The number of cops being killed and wounded is not going up but down. And as has always been the case, the vast majority of cops go through their entire careers without ever being shot at or having to shoot at anyone else. And I'm not objecting to the existence of SWAT teams, but to the militarization of the entire police force and the commensurate change in police personalities and how they deal with the population at large.

That is, in fact, just about the ONLY example. Furthermore, bank robbers commonly used tommy guns in the thirties too.

Sheer irony....

Once again, as I stated, you are not understanding the role of resettlement. Yes, we have a government sponsored resettlement program which selects refugees who are generally in UN recognized refugee camps abroad, for resettlement to Canada. Individuals can also apply from abroad for resettlement. This is one aspect of our refugee system. The other is when applicants come here on their own and apply for refugee status from within Canada. Examine the following CIC site. Note that it is divided into two distinct areas. The first is the Refugee and Humanitarian Resettlement Program, which will resettle, as you said, 14,500 refugees. Then, below that is the "In-Canada Asylum Program" which has no set numbers. http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/refugees/canada.asp

The problem is it's very hard to get anything done in the short term, especially when the country was a basket case to begin with. Did Obama do anything in his first year that seemed to be helping the economy?

The congressional oversight committees were well aware of what was going on, as were the special federal judges involved, and the president. This contrasts to France, where no one has any idea what they're doing, there is no oversight, and, if according to the media, there are no laws which actually allow it. Their whole surveillance setup is illegal. If Snowden really believed what they were doing was illegal he could have gone to a lawyer and the media, not the Chinese and Russians.

This guy is amazing. I have all his albums.

Could you illustrate the advancement in 'perps' since bugsy malone? As far as I can see they tend to be less well-armed than they used to be. Certainly the police rarely come across groups of them with fully automatic weapons such as the mob used to use in the thirties. I don't think most of today's criminals are even as advanced as they were back then. The mob is a shadow of itself, and its members no longer zip their lips but blab freely for deals, and the street gangs are just vicious scruff. I'm not saying the police shouldn't have stronger weapons available, but only, as in some of the cites I've posted, seem to be relying on it much more often, for routine jobs, and seem to be taking up the mentality, to some degree, of an army of occupation which doesn't trust anyone as opposed to the old beat cops.

You did edit it to make it seem like I was stating a fact and not suggesting what is likely to happen in future. That is not only pretty damned dishonest but a violation of the rules.

Seems to me the last Liberal government also lacked support of key regions in a federal Canada. That didn't seem to bother them much.

If you think my text was unimpressive to read you can only imagine how much contempt I feel reading the dreck you are attempting to pass off as clever repartee. However, since life is short, and I don't come here to deal with unpleasant people who don't even have the most rudimentary social skills, I will simply dump you into the ignore file.

In order to be able to say that is true, the government would have to have some means to refuse to accept refugees who arrive here, and who the refugee board grants asylum. It does not, to my knowledge, have any such means. Ie, if there were already 14,500 refugees accepted, and someone gets off a plane and has his case accepted by the refugee board, what does the government do? It can hardly refuse.

Honestly? I really don't care. Like I said, it's just not very important to me.

That presumes the Liberals and NDP have superior moral values, and would thus be the proper choice for people who cared about such things. I believe that is a rather shockingly naive presumption.

I have no idea why you chose to edit my post in a way to deliberately mislead people into thinking I said something I didn't but it wasn't far enough back for you to get away with it.

I don't see it that way. I see the $90,000 as an attempt to make the press go away, as if to say Wether it was right or wrong we'll pay it back and then maybe the press will move on to other things. We've wasted enough time on this crap. As for Duffy being told to shut his yap, it seems to me the PMO and party whip give similar instructions to MPs and senators basically every day (as do the other party leaderships). No bribe or money was really required there. Nor is there any evidence either Duffy or Wright misled the RCMP, though it wouldn't surprise me if Duffy did, on his own.

I don't know a lot of conservatives. Mostly the people I know are middle of the road, with a few liberals thrown in. Most of them don't pay a lot of attention to politics at all. Like I said, they think the Senate is a joke and Duffy is a crook, but they're not all hepped up over the PMO trying to pay the money back. Nobody ever really mentions that aspect of the story.

And what type of people hang around local coffee shops? Sorry, but where I live and work nobody cares any more. Sure, they all roll their eyes at the Senate. And sure, everyone is ticked off, but not surprised to find out senators faked their expenses. As for the PMO, that's a big shrug. Nobody I know is terribly upset the Tories tried to pay back the money. We only wish other parties would do the same when their members steal from us. But the amounts here are chicken feed, and it reflects on the lack of rules in the Senate not the government as a whole.

Really? What's the difference? Especially today, when police have tanks, wear military gear, have military weapons and perform all the functions of a military unit? There weren't even many 'police' back then. So I don't think those who wrote that little item would, upon looking at today's police, make much of a distinction between them and soldiers. Tell me these guys don't look and act like soldiers. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article34671.htm

Oh hardly. In a couple of years they'll be forbidden to work outside the house again as girls are banned from attending schools.

Which is why they require a warrant to do so. But the bulk of what is being done does not amount to wiretapping. It concerns metadata which shows who is communicating with who, not the contents of that communication. To put it another way, the government can't search your house without a warrant, but it doesn't need a warrant to know you HAVE a house, and where it is. Likewise it can't search your car without a warrant but it can certainly follow you around.