Mark H.

It's not an unheard of political strategy, but to do it based on that particular issue is despicable.

You keep quoting the phrase 'vast majority of Canadians.' Some links to support that would be good.

I dare say there's more relevance here than you'll find in most of the leaders' debates.

Okay, so let's say one views the niqab as a symbol of oppression. If they allow it, the concern would be that judges might also allow some people to beat their wives - or some other extreme action. That's where the reasonable limits clause applies. A niqab is reasonable, obviously beatings are not, regardless of what anyone's personal beliefs are.

What pisses me off is Harper will spend millions of tax-payers money fighting this in the courts. It's a non-issue, so stop wasting my frickin' money!!! No problem - he can just take some of the 15 billion from the Saudi arms deal. But never mind all that, we're still protected from terrorism and Comrade Harper is always right. The fact that this is an election issue that is actually shifting the polls is disturbing to say the least.

Since when do a few polls represent the vast majority of Canadians?

Oh it's silly all right - but somehow its been spun into an election issue. Two women. And all the have to do is swear the oath to a female official. Why is this even news?

We farm, here's my take on the wheat board: 1. It handled only spring wheat and little bit of malting barley. All other crops were marketed without the aid of a board. Canola, winter wheat, oats, beans et al 2. The board existed only in the prairie provinces, all other farmers were exempt from the act. 3. Australia had removed their wheat board with very few Ill effects 4. The wheat board didn't actually own any infrastructure. Because they had a monopoly, they didn't have to; no one else could touch spring wheat. 5. Farmers with some entrepreneurial spirit (eg. a flour mill) had to sell their wheat to the board and then buy it back. The wheat never actually left their farm.

Sold the wheat board? The wheat board never even had any infrastructure

Where does one find parlour coffee?

This morning I heard the president of the CBC say they provide fair and unbiased election coverage. Just to be clear, my vote is undecided at this point. But I must have been in a different universe when said coverage occurred

After the Civic election i dont quite trust polls as much. Well the polls thus far have said it's pretty much a 3 way tie so anything can happen. I'd trust that to be honest. Chances are between now and election day there is going to be one thing that is the tipping point giving a party the win. The 2011 majority was not predicted by the polls

There is plenty of blame to be placed on both sides. To say that Israel is either the 'good guy' or the 'bad guy' is over-simplifying the situation.

Rebel blogger eh - I could think of some 'choicer' adjectives. The refugee crisis is a side show? Maybe the rebel blogger should move there - and then decide. Harper will reduce the size of government? In which universe? We've been hearing that promise since '06 - it hasn't happened. The best Harper will do is win a minority. That's clear - and the reasons are well founded.

Like, Denmark scored a TD on a hitch last year. Like you know, it's bound to work again some day, really,

Capital Punishment does not save money. Evidence proves, absolutely certain, if there are one or two mistakes along the way - those things don't fit together, you can't have it both ways.

The brother of a guy I worked with axe-murdered his girlfriend back in 1998. He of course swore he didn't do it. The cops knew that he did do it. They brought him in for questioning and told him that NASA had supplied satellite imagery of him leaving the house holding an axe. At that point he said that since they had the photos he might as well admit that yes, he did axe murder his girlfriend. And of course he did. Did the RCMP have the photos? No. Did they use trickery? Yes. Am I glad that they did? Yes. Because at least an axe murderer didn't get away with axe murder. BTW - he's already out of jail. I would assume he was found guilty of second degree murder. That would have made him eligible for parole in 2013 or 2014 (15 years after sentencing). There's definitely some room for stiffer sentences there.

Ask any lawyer or judge who practices criminal law, or any criminal psychologist. People who are innocent will often confess to being guilty due to the stress of the situation. I've had lawyers as guest speakers in my highschool classes. They will always tell you that they have seen both scenarios: someone who was guilty as sin saying they are innocent, or the flip side, a person who was completely innocent saying they are guilty. Stress makes people do and say strange things. Also, 90% of criminals are repeat offenders who know the system. None of them are going to confess, unless they are mentally ill. But a first time offender (or non-offender) often sees confessing the crime as being the right thing to do. Morally it may very well be the right thing to do, but legally it's foolish. Being civilized does not mean we are perfect. If Canada isn't a civilized country, then quite frankly, there are no civilized countries. I'm sorry, but I don't buy the argument that we need the death penalty because we're not a civilized country. Which country would meet the criteria for 'not needing' it?

I'm happy that penalty wasn't called. I don't mind the non-call, it didn't effect the outcome of the play, but next one they'll call.

A few thoughts: Liberal / NDP: this actually worked when Martin was PM, but Harper had a little more political savvy and orchestrated the non-confidence vote. But the current NDP with Mulclair as leader, no bloody way do I want to see them prop up a minority. Conservative / Liberal: this is probably the most likely outcome. Question is, will Harper extend an olive branch, or will we immediately see a Liberal MP cross the floor? (Emerson: 2006) Capital Punishment: guilty people don't usually confess. Innocent people are far more likely to confess. My suggestion would be to raise parole eligibility for 1st degree murder up the to 40 years, 2nd degree murder up the 25 years. Capital punishment will never happen in a civilized country. My Saturday morning 0.02

Watching the BC / Cal highlights this morning. There was a blatant block from behind on the Rainey kick return touchdown, literally shoving the Calgary player to the turf. Yes, it was behind the returner, but that kind of stuff has been called this year.

I missed the debate last night as the Broncos game was far more interesting. I did turn over to CPAC at half time, and caught part of Mulcair's interview (I can only watch about 30 seconds of that clown before my gag reflex starts kicking in) after the debate. He was asked why the NDP used $67 a barrel for oil in his platform rather than $45. You could tell he had no clue, and didn't know what to say, so he did the usual Mulcair thing and just channeled Pat Martin, getting annoyed and angry that anyone would dare question anything the NDP would say, instead of giving an actual answer. But what else is new. All three leaders in my opinion are pretty weak, but they are trying to govern a pretty schizo country in my opinion. If you pander to the West you piss off Quebec and Ontario. If you pander to Quebec you piss off Ontario and the west. There is no answer that will please everyone. But it was a good question in my view - why is the NDP using $67 a barrel? I think I know why. Because their total bullshit platform that is "costed and accounted for" is total bullshit. If they used actual oil prices they wouldn't even come close to a balanced budget. So they have to lie to try and make it look like they will. I think promising balanced budgets was a huge mistake. I didn't even hear that much. It was just a bunch of noise that distracted me from my marking and prep.

Trudeau: 43 Harper: 56 Mulclair: 60 According to Con logic, we should all vote NDP. Just sick and tired of this 3rd grade logic they keep throwing at us.

Just to clarify: there are Bible verses that are interpreted as being in favour of capital punishment, especially by fundamentalist Christians. That's what I was referring to.

Not if you really believe in it. It's not emotional for me. If that was my child would I want to rip his throat out? Ofcourse. But unemotionally and taking God out of the debate we can't have a death penalty when we've convicted innocent people. Period. Why is God part of the debate? Piece of advice: just ignore the fundamentalists