punked

I listened to the Tories side and they say the money  has been spent BUT they don't say exactly where. So if they know its spent then where was it spent?  Maybe in advertising, robocalls, helping out on their overspending, things like that.

Come on the Liberals spent this money. 

Actually I can and did (find Liberal policies). 

 

And yes, one can find CPC Policies too, but there is no single easy source listing their policies - you have to search and read between the lines and also try to separate the lies from the truth.

 

IMO, in terms of clearly outlining specific policies the Libs, CPC and NDP are all equally vague.  The Green Party is probably the most detailed - it's too bad that they are so anti-trade otherwise I would likely support them.

 

I outlined earlier four differentiating Liberal policies:

1. Maintain a strong military at a lower cost than the CPC

2. Unlike NDP and Greens, Liberals are now pro-free-trade

3. Liberals will mange Justice better than the CPC:

-de-criminalize pot

-restore funding to safe injection sites

-treat drug addiction outside of the justice system

reversing the counterproductive course that our justice system has taken.

4. Liberals will be less biased than CPC in their position on Israel and work more constructively in the UN

 

For a voter like me, these policies combined with my mild dissatisfaction with the CPC, is enough to get my vote.  If the Liberals (or any other party) start rolling out detailed policies eventually they will eventually hit one that I do not agree with and I would reconsider my support, hence the need to balance between too vague and too specific.  Also, it would be hypocritical of Trudeau to claim that he wants to listen to his party and the public while putting out too many rigid policies.

So all the Liberal policies are the vaguely the same as the NDP ones? Well accept for the fact they have been NDP policies for the last 20 years not flash in the pan policies they never intend to follow threw on. Just great........no wait it isn't at all. 

These are not their policies they are general ideas they will flip flop on as polling changes. 

And you know this how?

Because I know my rights as an American citizen. 

Actually he does have a valid legal point says this law prof not that I know anything. May I kindly point out If you rely solely on circumstantial and eye witness evidence you run the risk  that an arguement of  reasonable doubt  can be raised or even an insanity plea.

 

This is why with even the most slam dunk of cases (presumptive evidence is what we like to call it) its  always preferable the prosecutor has a confession or at least statements from the accused that can be used in court.

 

However I would not be surprised if a legal arguement is made that there was never reasonable opportunity to offer the rights because the violent actions of the accused prevented it from being communicated in a timely manner. That is  an arguement that has been made successfully in the past. Kind of hard to offer the miranda when you have grenades being thrown at you or you are being shot at. Its not to conducive to conversation if you know what  I mean.

 

In this case however I would suggest the accused if he does recover my very well want to make political statements at the appropriate time and want to incriminate himself and even plead guilty. The guilty conviction os often used by  terrorists as a sign of martyrdom, vindication and confirmation that what they did was right and serves as call out to other terrorists to carry on.

 

I

They have him on camera placing the bomb next to a kid and in the frame running away as the bomb goes off. Its open and shut. 

What I don't understand is why is the Miranda Right being revoked for the bomber? I thought the only exception in which the Miranda Right can be revoke would be if there was a continual threat. Yet the officials last night did say the hunt is over, doesn't that mean the threat is over?

 

I guess I would be committing a slippery-slope fallacy in suggest where you draw the line to revoke these things...

 

Edit: It not as if he travelled from Russia to commit these crimes, he is an American citizen after all.

You don't know what you are talking about. Reading you your Miranda Rights is to inform you that basically anything you say can be used against you in court and that for questioning and such you have a right to have a lawyer present. When you aren't given your Miranda the things you say can't be used. In this case though the police don't need him to talk. They have him on video dropping the bomb. The case is already made so they are going to question him with out a lawyer and not present any of that in court. It isn't that they are not reading him his Miranda Rights its that the police and FBI don't intend to use anything they get out of him in court anyway. This case is made now its about getting the information they need out of him.