obfuscator

i'm Canadian but I've never been to Vancouver. So, uh...go to a bar. Make it out to Banff/Jasper/lake louise/anywhere rockies if you can (I have done that and it was awesome).

I am leaving my radio and tv off until its over. Campaigns are a joke. I can't blame you. Barring some massive event, my mind is already made up, and I could do without seeing all the propaganda.

Isolated incident involving two people. Nothing Harper is personally responsible for. Source? They weren't "fraudulent". They made inappropriate expense claims and have been punished for it, which Harper has supported. Once again, he cannot be held personally responsible for this to any degree. Do you hold Trudeau personally responsible for the two members of his party who allegedly sexually assaulted other MPs? A) I don't recall him actually promising to abolish it. At any rate, he can't do it without support from the provinces. B) He hasn't appointed senators for two years, and there are many vacancies he could have filled. "Government passes legislation" is not a scandal. It may be bad legislation, but it's not a scandal. I'm not sure what you're referring to here. A source would be nice, but I'll take your word for it. Bear in mind that he did have to deal with a major recession that was outside of his control, and Canada is generally considered to have weathered that storm better than most of the G8. Also not a scandal. These may not be good things, but there's a difference between something that breaks rules and something you don't like. Plus, the other parties are far from immune to spending taxpayer money on partisan purposes (http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/ndp-mps-ordered-to-repay-office-spending-to-be-denied-expense-claims-1.2392757)

There's no doubt the intervention in Libya failed, at least if the goal was to create a functional government. However, the crux of that article is that brutal dictatorship was somehow a preferred alternative. Meanwhile, Mulcair and Trudeau would have us do the exact same thing with ISIL (and to a lesser extent Afghanistan). You can't have it both ways - simultaneously blaming Harper for not comitting to a long term rebuild in Libya and then blaming him for leaving troops in Afghanistan so long. Not that you've done this personally, but that's the crux of the argument Trudeau and Mulcair have used. Once again, if they were in power, they'd have had to do one of the two possible options, and there are serious disadvantages to both. As such, I don't think this is really a criticism of the Harper government that holds much water. Morality of foreign intervention aside, there's a clear difference between supporting a democratically elected government that has been invaded by a foreign power, and helping to dispose of a brutal dictator. I don't disagree, but I contend this is more of a problem inherent in government bureaucracy than anything Harper has any control over (the implication being it is just as likely to continue under any other government). See my point above. Yeah, it's crappy, but is it Harper's fault? (Or the fault of the CPC in general?) Emphatically no. No majority government is interested in making major concessions to opposition parties. You can vote for another party all you want, but if you're expecting them to act any differently, prepare to be disappointed. As much as I can understand why this simplistic point of view is appealing, unfortunately you can't vote for only part of the package. If you vote for the NDP or LPC, you are getting all of their platform. The point is that this kind of fiscal policy has tangible, substantial negative effects. For example, the Ontario Liberal party has been in power in Ontario for a decade, and have managed to rack up a public debt 3x higher than the state of California, with 1/3rd of the population, which simultaneously increasing corporate taxation and regulation, as well as contributing to ridiculously high hydro rates (thanks, aggressive "green energy" policies) that have basically put the final nail in the coffin of manufacturing leaving the province. So what we're left with is a massively ballooning debt with the good jobs that would help pay that debt, in part, having disappearing. Ontario is in a world of hurt, and it's not going to magically fix itself. Anyway, the point of making this comparison is that the LPC holds pretty much identical ideological economic policies as the ontario Libs, and the NDP are even worse. These liberals aren't the Paul Martin/Jean Chretien's of the world, whom I can at least respect for running a pretty tight ship fiscally. A vote for either of these parties, in effect, is a vote for unquestionably damaging economic decisions that will seriously hurt Canada in the long run.

No he didn't. I can think of, uh...one? A couple rogue senators breaking spending rules? As far as scandals go, that's about the least scandalous one possible. From a taxation/economic perspective Trudeau's plans will cost just as much as Mulcair's, if not more. Also bear in mind that it's easy to claim he (Trudeau) will have open government; but his behaviour with whipped votes and nominations doesn't look promising in that regard. I'd be very surprised if he ended up being significantly more open than Harper.

He did say "roughly" the same

I don't think he has mainstream support, just the fringe. With a race as fragmented as the republican nomination one it's easy to get in the lead with little support...isn't he only at 15-20%?

I'm assuming you're referring to C-51? I admit I'm not a fan of that legislation, but any government in power when something like the PH attacks happened would have done something similar. What do you mean? If you're referring to the idea that Harper has ruined Canada's repuation on the international stage, that's been proven completely false on multiple occasions. Canada ranks just as highly in general public opinion across the globe as they ever did. Do you have any source for stating this other than a few first-hand accounts? It's impossible to argue with this point of view because for the most part it's based on a personal, irrational dislike of SH the person, as opposed to deficient policy. News flash: Libya was a failed state long before Harper took power. Obviously there is still an incredible amount of turmoil, but at least there is some hope now of achieving a semblance of democracy. Is the NDP/Liberal foreign policy any better? Humanitarian aid is convenient for a few reasons: it's not controversial, so it's easy to appear to be doing something without doing anything useful and risking alienating people for doing something you disagree with. However, it's ultimately not effective. The kurds fighting ISIL don't need blankets, they need guns (same goes for the Ukrainian government, for instance). A government with the foreign policy ideas currently held by the NDP (and to a lesser extent the LPC) would be directly contributing to deaths of innocent people by failing to provide meaningful assistance. The crux of the matter is that any party that's been in government for almost a decade is going to have to make tough decisions and be held accountable for them. It's easy for both the NDP and LPC to criticize Harpers record from an armchair; they have not had to make any of the tough calls. Leading an opposition and leading a government are two dramatically different things, and I have seen no evidence that suggests either the NDP or LPC are prepared to do the latter.

I say I'm in the same boat, but so many things I'd want the libs to change go against their core philosophy... I don't like the conservatives, really...I just think they are by far the best option. Or at least, the least bad option...

i fly to texas pretty regularly, there are lots of fat people. i'll do an informal inventory next time

I suppose this whole debate boils down to what one can reasonably expect from a plane ticket. If all an economy class ticket guarantees is that you will be transported from point A to point B, that's all you get. However, if there is also a reasonable expectation of relative comfort (or lack of extreme discomfort), things change when seated next to a person so obese that they intrude on your space. In theory, if you are purchasing one "seat", and are denied the entire unimpeded use of that seat, the airline has not kept up their end of the bargain. I'm not a lawyer, but as far as suing them goes, it seems there would be some reasonable grounds to do so in extreme circumstance. It's only a matter of time before someone does, and if they win, more people will do the same. Eventually it may well be cheaper for airlines to face possible "discriminatory" lawsuits from obese people whom they charge for multiple seats. Anyway, it is fairly rare, as muggi says. I've sat next to some fat people on planes, but no one so big as to make me actively uncomfortable.

it's not just weight though, for example many muscular guys would be quite heavy but still manage to fit into one seat. If they wanted to do it, it should be done by waist measurement. Anyway, it will happen eventually. More cases like this one will happen, airlines will get fed up, and start requiring waist measurements for flight tickets. At that point, an obese person whose feelings have been hurt will take them to court. Eventually, the airlines will win the case and this will become the norm, at least until the percentage of obesity in the population goes down. Obese people aren't a protected class. Airplanes can discriminate by weight as much as they want and there's nothing that fat people can do about it. won't stop them from suing for hurt feelings though

it's not just weight though, for example many muscular guys would be quite heavy but still manage to fit into one seat. If they wanted to do it, it should be done by waist measurement. Anyway, it will happen eventually. More cases like this one will happen, airlines will get fed up, and start requiring waist measurements for flight tickets. At that point, an obese person whose feelings have been hurt will take them to court. Eventually, the airlines will win the case and this will become the norm, at least until the percentage of obesity in the population goes down.

then it wouldn't be virgin mobile anymore now would it

one selfie, one dick pic, one elbow pic, one tongue pic

skating and skiing are quite similar motions. I found skiing pretty easy because I'd been skating my whole life before I tried. you do really need someone who knows how to skate to help you out though if you're trying to learn. it's such a different motion from walking that if you don't know what to do you can waste a lot of time walking on skates and never getting anywhere.

sounds like a trainwreck

In the states server minimum wage is really low, since tipping is expected... Tipping is almost as widespread in Canada though, and minimum wage is the same for everyone

Nice. my bench sucks. I'm doing 100lbs 5x5 right now

Tell her to get out of your swamp

Treat her like a princess and you can feed her to a dragon later if you want

Self control doesn't "come standard" with anyone. It's something that you have to constantly work at. Just my opinion, but if you got to the point where you were actively discussing being in a relationship with another woman, you didn't have anywhere near a sufficient amount of self control. Eh, I'd agree with you here if it wasn't for the fact that they were just on a trip together. I think a lot of people would use the trip as an opportunity to cheat and then somehow convince themselves that it "doesn't matter" or "doesn't count." Since it's impossible for him to really stay in contact with her, and he never actually made any moves or anything like that, I don't really see anything wrong here-- no lapse of self-control imo. It'd be different if he was acting this way towards a girl that he works with or frequently comes into contact with, but I imagine such a situation would never occur in the first place due to self-control. In other words, I think they both understood that there was no chance of anything real actually happening between them since they were just on a trip together. BUT, with that said, I won't be surprised if this has some subtle effects (for better or for worse) on Gabe's relationship now that he has proof that women besides his girlfriend would like to have him as a boyfriend. Certainly he did exhibit self control, but it seems as though it was more "the opportunity not being right" than anything. Directly acknowledging your feelings for someone is a big step...and that doesn't come without a lot of flirting and shared intimacy, which is what should have been avoided. As for the effect on his current relationship, that's up to how he acts.

Self control doesn't "come standard" with anyone. It's something that you have to constantly work at. Just my opinion, but if you got to the point where you were actively discussing being in a relationship with another woman, you didn't have anywhere near a sufficient amount of self control.

Not at all. But part of being committed to monogamy is understanding that you have a sex drive and if you don't respect it things many not go well.

part of self control (a major part) is avoiding situations that will seriously test your self control