na85

Your own quote furthers my point. If they were SUPPOSED to be deported when they failed an immigration criterion, but never were, that is a failure in the system.

Nice attempt at twisting my words. I harbor no love of war criminals. Despite that fact, however, if they are Canadian citizens then yes, yes they do have rights as laid out in the Charter. If, as your quoted sources state, those 40000 were slated to be deported but never were, then that is a different issue. Chowdhury was never slated for deportation.

Rather than worrying about kicking these assassins out, I'd worry about preventing them from getting in in the first place.

Ah, okay. I see what you're saying now. Yes, that is a good point indeed.

lol, I think you missed the sarcasm in my post.

Absolutely. My point is that such assurances would be difficult to obtain.

Haha, yeah I usually do. He likes to troll, it seems.

So we should do it more? Sorry, I don't think I understood what you meant, BM. Who is "They" you're referring to?

It's ok though, because the Liberals under Martin and Chretien were corrupt and had the Sponsorship Scandal.

Actually I was referring to fugitives in general. Don't put words in my mouth. Because it's the moral high road, it's the right thing to do.

Just because they're fugitives doesn't mean they don't have rights.

Meh, those are my concerns. If I were a bunch of middle-eastern militants and I wanted some reliable income to fund whatever operations i had planned, I'd be rubbing my hands together with glee at the thought of western nations paying me for drugs.

Probably they oppose it because there really is no way to guarantee that the money finds its way into the hands of the farmers and stays out of Taliban coffers. Furthermore, the prospect of Taliban-run farms raises fears of our government(s) being directly responsible for funding our enemies. I think that this is a justifiable concern.

That's a horrible thing to say.

I think that saying "omg libs r terrorists" is going too far, even for the CPC.

What exactly was the bias and the nepotism in the article that Harper was about to read? To me, this is implying that Bains' decisions are biased toward his family members (father in law), which is the definition of nepotism.

Also, and this is a general response; Out of curiosity, am I the only left-winger in this thread who DOESN'T think PM Harper was trying to link the Libs to terrorism? I think at most he was trying to paint a picture of nepotism and bias as the Liberal decision-making criteria.

Your ability to make broad, sweeping generalizations is fantastic. Your knowledge of the intimate desires and motivations of every Liberal candidate in Canada is quite impressive. Please, share more of your wisdom with us.

I fail to see how the mechanical efficiency is relevant. In your earlier post you called for smaller gasoline engines. Smaller engines aren't more efficient; you'd still lose 80% of the energy.

I stand corrected.

Not by much. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/420f05001.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_particulate_filter

New Diesel engines come equipped with self-regenerating particulate filters. New diesels are quite clean. The problem is the old diesels in less-developed countries where emission standards aren't quite so stringent, nor so readily enforced.

So wait... No single Liberal MP has a shred of morals, but a large number of Conservative MPs are purely involved for altruistic reasons? What a load of bull. You know as well as anyone else that both parties have their good Samaritans along with their crooked members.

Agree. Not only do they burn less fuel, but better compression and efficiency means that new engines burn the fuel more completely, which results in less CO emissions.

Yep. http://automobiles.honda.com/models/model_...me=Civic+Hybrid $22 600 for a Civic hybrid, looks like USD. The Lexus Hybrid SUV runs for about $42,580