StevetheClub

Why should there be an accommodation if Mrs Trudeau chooses to work or engage in diplomatic functions rather than be a stay at home mom? Im ofcourse making no argument that she should choose either. But as far as I know, the PM's wife has no formal role and could certainly choose a schedule that allows her to be home. And if she cant, well, they can pay for their own child care. No one makes allowances for less wealthy parents to get taxpayer funded nannys. The choice is not that simple and I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say we both know it. The role of the PM's spouse, though not formal, has certainly evolved and comes with great expectations. It's essentially a more than full-time volunteer position. Lets also keep in mind, they had these two nanny's before taking office, before whatever informal role Mrs Trudeau was expected to take and they paid for it. Its not like winning the election suddenly meant they needed more child care. Actually, it does, I have no doubt that they now have much more on their plate. And none of that changes the fact the PM campaigned on the idea that the Conservative's child benefit was not needed for people of their means. "We dont need the $3000 we qualify for" was what he essentially said. Well, certainly not when the whole thing is covered by taxpayers. I'm on the fence about this. It does seem like it was more for optics than anything that he so publicly rejected the benefit, which I'm not a huge fan of. He was trying to make a point at the time and it has certainly come back to bite him in the butt. Chatelaine is irresponsible and fully exposed when trying to frame this as an attack on Mrs Trudeau when it clearly is not. And their reasoning that groundskeepers etc are all funded makes little sense when those people tend to assets owned by the taxpayer. If the government saddled the Trudeau's with some kids, I could see it.... While I do think framing it as attack is extreme and I don't think her parenting ability, nor those of anyone else who rely on outside childcare, should be judged I think it's quite a narrow view that does not include her and her role in the discussion. As for how they are paid, it's my understanding that their salaries come out of the same budget that past PMs have used for the same expense. In my opinion, and apparently in those of previous PMs, childcare is just as necessary a household expense as all of the other professionals mentioned. You're wearing very Liberal-coloured shades my friend. You're acting as though Mrs Trudeau had the role of Wife-of-PM thrust upon her. It was a choice. As a public figure, some spouses will, from time to time, participate in various ceremonial, diplomatic, or partisan activities, alongside the prime minister. Most seem to engage in charitable causes and occasionally play host to functions involving dignitaries. None of this, ofcourse, precludes the spouse from taking an active role in parenting. But that's not the point. The Trudeau's had two nannies before taking office as PM. You say they have much more on their plate. So why not hire more help? Two is enough I guess. The same two they paid before taking office. So why cant they pay now? Are you suggesting they had two nannies before taking office that they didnt need but now they do need them as a result of all the work we force them to do so we should pay? Keep in mind, this was Trudeau's position during the campaign: The Liberal leader maintains it’s wrong to give the benefit to wealthy families that don’t need help raising their kids. And to underscore that point, he’s going to give his own family’s windfall to charity. With three young children, one under the age of 6, Trudeau is entitled to collect annual UCCB payments of about $3,400. In an interview Tuesday, he said he’ll give that money to La Maison Bleue, a charitable group in his Montreal riding devoted to helping vulnerable women during pregnancy and the early days of motherhood. Child-care benefits should go to families who need the help, “not families like mine or Mr. (Prime Minister Stephen) Harper’s,” Trudeau told The Canadian Press. Your argument that its the same as previous PM's is moot. No PM should get taxpayer funded child care. Also, it would seem (though cant say for sure with malicious intent) that this was hidden under the guise of "Special Assistant". So if you're saying well previous PM's had special assistants, is this what your money should be paying for: One of the women hired was with the Trudeaus this past week on the prime minister’s foreign trip that wrapped up Monday at the UN climate change conference in Paris. She posted photos online of the couple’s two children who came on the trip. There were also shots of her with the Trudeaus’ youngest child on Facebook visiting museums and at the hotel where they stayed in Paris. Your final point is child care is as neccesary a household expense as others mentioned. The professions mentioned are: cooks and cleaners and snow shovelers and gardeners and drivers and security guards. You think child care is the same? The difference is that those other professions are for upkeep and service of the asset (ie. grounds/buildings) owned by Canadians and have no bearing on the person in office (whether the PM is there, the grass still needs to be mowed) or are non-negotiable in the sense they are for the safety and security of the position (ie. PM). We dont own his kids. They arent serving Canada. Its fair to provide security for them. Its not fair to pay for their nannies. But dont worry, Chatelaine helpfully provides an alternative to taxpayer funded nannies: There is another option, of course: When he’s working, the prime minister could bring his children to the House of Commons and let them run around during Question Period. There you have it. Either we pay for this rich family's nannies or they must run around the House of Commons. Makes sense. Every other two-career family in Canada has to take their kids to work. They cant manage without free nannies. Nowhere did I say or imply that the role was "thrust upon her" I said that "the choice is not that simple", thereby acknowledging that it was a choice. It's my opinion that your statements on the role of the PM's spouse completely minimize it and the need for support in fulfilling it. Yes, I think childcare is the same and based on how that budget has been reportedly been used in the past I'm not the only one. I also didn't say they were't able to pay for it now, and given Trudeau's ill-conceived past statements on the issue he might just end up paying for them, which I would be fine with. I would just also be fine with him not. As for Chatelaine's final response, just like yours it's said for effect and not something I'm particularly interested in responding to other than to say I agree it's ridiculous.

It doesn't have to.

Why should there be an accommodation if Mrs Trudeau chooses to work or engage in diplomatic functions rather than be a stay at home mom? Im ofcourse making no argument that she should choose either. But as far as I know, the PM's wife has no formal role and could certainly choose a schedule that allows her to be home. And if she cant, well, they can pay for their own child care. No one makes allowances for less wealthy parents to get taxpayer funded nannys. The choice is not that simple and I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say we both know it. The role of the PM's spouse, though not formal, has certainly evolved and comes with great expectations. It's essentially a more than full-time volunteer position. Lets also keep in mind, they had these two nanny's before taking office, before whatever informal role Mrs Trudeau was expected to take and they paid for it. Its not like winning the election suddenly meant they needed more child care. Actually, it does, I have no doubt that they now have much more on their plate. And none of that changes the fact the PM campaigned on the idea that the Conservative's child benefit was not needed for people of their means. "We dont need the $3000 we qualify for" was what he essentially said. Well, certainly not when the whole thing is covered by taxpayers. I'm on the fence about this. It does seem like it was more for optics than anything that he so publicly rejected the benefit, which I'm not a huge fan of. He was trying to make a point at the time and it has certainly come back to bite him in the butt. Chatelaine is irresponsible and fully exposed when trying to frame this as an attack on Mrs Trudeau when it clearly is not. And their reasoning that groundskeepers etc are all funded makes little sense when those people tend to assets owned by the taxpayer. If the government saddled the Trudeau's with some kids, I could see it.... While I do think framing it as attack is extreme and I don't think her parenting ability, nor those of anyone else who rely on outside childcare, should be judged I think it's quite a narrow view that does not include her and her role in the discussion. As for how they are paid, it's my understanding that their salaries come out of the same budget that past PMs have used for the same expense. In my opinion, and apparently in those of previous PMs, childcare is just as necessary a household expense as all of the other professionals mentioned.

Something that isn't being said (as far as I know) that should be is how much Sophie Grégoire-Trudeau makes. My guess, and I could be wrong on this, is somewhere in the neighborhood of $0. If she's not able to attend to her children full-time and not make an income because of her role I don't see why there shouldn't be some accommodations. I don't see anything wrong with Chatelaine's response. *edit I see this has already been brought up. Regardless of how it might "play", it's still valid.

From the article: "The Niagara Falls, Ont., native went unselected in the 2014 CFL Draft largely because he wasn’t back to 100 percent after suffering a freak ACL injury in practice halfway through his 2013 season. That made Rush a free agent and he turned a spectacular final season at Guelph into a pro contract."

You mean the yolk or do they actually eat eggs that have been fertilized by the male? Science burn. Actually I believe they're fertilized. I worked in a boarding school for a few years and often talked with our Asian students about this dish. I think it's traditionally (or is it authentically?) duck eggs though.

I wonder if his time on TV has shaped his approach at all. I'm not excited about same old same old but for now I'm going to hope he's grown since we last saw him.

And I find it offensive that I'm not able to feel that some things are weird. Perhaps if we both learned to manage our own emotions better we'd be more ok with those of others. You're welcome to find it weird. Just as I can find that a bit disrespectful. I think there's room for both of us to have our opinions. I find it surprising and unappealing to eat chicken fetus in the egg. I am friends with people that do and I attempted to try it..... the result was unsuccessful Absolutely (and I edited my original post to not sound so much like I was attacking you), it's when people are shamed for their opinions (like the first example)and when programming and policy decisions are influenced (like the second) when it becomes a problem.

And I find it offensive that I'm not able to feel that some things are weird. Perhaps if we both learned to manage our own emotions better we'd be more ok with those of others. I don't mean for this to sound like an attack on you, I'm just using your post as an example. While I do think that there are lines out there that should not be crossed and I recognize that those lines are often blurry and hard to pin down, there are many, many situations in which people just need to learn to tolerate and accept their own feelings rather than deny or attack someone else for theirs.

The problem with saying "who cares?" is that by trying to sound accepting and tolerant (which I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming this is what you mean) what you're actually doing is at best minimizing and at worst disregarding a very real struggle for many people. Yes, we should live in a world in which we are all so accepting and tolerant that sexual preference is a non issue but the reality is that we don't. Like it or not, this is an issue. If you want that to change, ignoring it isn't the answer.

"Then, Burke said, there's the question of hockey culture itself. "Hockey is all about the team. Hockey culture hates individualism," said Burke. "Whether that's right or wrong, hockey culture is that you do not stand out. You do not make yourself different from the team. We've had players in our league that have been yelled at for high-fiving too aggressively. So I do wonder from talking to a bunch of different players in the league that this is a team sport and almost an obsessively team culture and I think there are guys out there that are nervous about the idea that them coming out would somehow be going against that."" I thought this was really interesting. Whether it's positive or negative attention, coming out will draw a lot of attention and there are probably many locker rooms that just don't want the media circus.

I think it's a great idea and would be entertaining but I do wonder if security would be an issue.

I don't believe it's a double standard at all, truthfully. Iso has very strong opinions. There is nothing wrong with that. But those strong opinions are far more likely to generate strong responses. I hate to pull somebody else into this but I'll give you a guy like TBURGESS as an example. He's another very strongly opinionated person who generates a lot of heated debate, arguments and strong responses. But he is also willing to engage in those heated debates and respond back to those strong responses without getting upset. TB and I have had plenty of heated debates over the years due to difference in strong opinions, but I have a ton of respect for the fact that he's always willing to discuss things without getting emotional about it. There are TONS of strongly opinionated folks around this forum. Tons of ongoing heated debates about a number of discussion points. Tons of people being asked to explain their thoughts or rationale behind what they've said. Tons of opinions that are scrutinized and questioned on a daily basis. There are only a handful of people who seem to get upset about it. Absolutely true. However it's been my observation, and maybe I'm wrong on this, that Iso's opinion routinely gets far more scrutiny than many people's; often it seems like no degree of explanation is enough and that's not fair.

If everyone's opinion got the same scrutiny than Iso's does there'd be a hell of a lot more people angry. This talk of being an adult and just dealing with it because it's an internet forum would make a lot more sense if there wasn't such a double standard.

In the articles I read I didn't see anything to indicate there is any truth to this.

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? In addition to confessions, eyewitness testimony is also highly problematic and has no doubt put many innocent people behind bars and I'm sure even on death row.

That makes more sense. Fundamentalism in any religion is dangerous, for sure.

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 If your faith is important to you, why wouldn't God be part of the debate? And what does that have to do with fundamentalism? God is important to me. my point was to say, Im against the death penalty for reasons that have nothing to do with faith. Because if the debate centers on religion, then you start entering territory that a lot of people cant buy into. I've always been against capital punishment. Im not sure I'd be in favour if justice was perfect either...for example we know Paul Bernardo did it. Thats usually the response from the other side "well what about Paul Bernardo". I hear you and I think you make sense. I wasn't responding to you, I was responding to Mark H.

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 If your faith is important to you, why wouldn't God be part of the debate? And what does that have to do with fundamentalism?

It's interesting because I would assume (I haven't checked) that a lot of Esks fans are happy to get something for somebody they were likely going to lose for nothing, though they might not have wanted to lose him until the off-season. It seems to be a win-win trade.

You're arguing the extreme of the other position and using the exception to prove the rule. Outside of the pass and run to Marshall vs Toronto, Marve has 3 passes over 10 yards in the last two games, with his longest being 19. You're right, he should be allowed to make mistakes sometimes and occasionally throw into double coverage, but he should also sometimes show he can throw a deep ball (20+ yards) and so far he hasn't. Like 17to85 said, he needs to show that soon.

And it wasn't just his accuracy, but also his decision making when he finally did attempt to throw deep. I don't recall him throwing to somebody who was actually open once.

If you were glad I asked, then why didn't you answer the question? Why are the other two guys better options? Instead of just cutting and pasting rhetoric prepared for you by union-sponsored NDP propaganda arms, why not give me positive reasons why the other guys are better? Starting off your entire post with more blarney about Harper being the worst prime minister ever just guarantees I am going to tune out whatever you have to say, as it is going to just be more biased left-wing crap. When Harper goes on a train trip across Canada with his family, and is greeted at every whistle stop with people throwing eggs and yelling **** YOU!! at the train, like people did in 1982 with Pierre Trudeau, then I'd agree, Harper is in the same area code as Trudeau was in terms of being the worst. Right now, he's not even in the same solar system as the suckage experienced by Canada under Trudeau. And anyone who says otherwise is just wearing partisan blinders. Geez man, it seems sometimes, not always, that anytime a person posts something that runs counter to what you believe, you respond with these type statements. The hypocrisy is dripping here. I think some of of us take more of an eclectic approach to politics and sensitive issues by not branding our ideologies as left, center or right. We take it issue by issue using the best facts available to form our perspectives. We sometimes don't get it right but always try to take an evidence-informed approach, identifying any bias's we may have a long the way. We can't brand ourselves with only one political strip but we can always aspire to be a sound critical thinker hopefully adding value to the discussion. Very well put. As someone who is somewhat politically literate but not following all the issues all the time, this thread at times has been informative. I have to say, though, the constant insults and generalizations, are really becoming tiresome and will soon keep me from this thread.

NW Alberta (Peace River area) is not so bad today, but we've certainly had our days. Closer to the NWT border has been much worse.

Very much agreed.