na85

I take anything that comes out of Sun Media with a grain of salt anyways.

I find it more refreshing than your flaming. There's no need to get so emotional over these things, no need to go on the offensive. People on this forum have a tendency to get very worked-up over things. I notice that August has been conspicuously absent from this thread, possibly because it's mostly degenerated into rants and sarcastic retorts.

That pretty much sums up my opinions. Totally green energy will no doubt require many many different methods of generation.

Again, the throughput of the engine does not determine its eco-friendliness. If an engine uses 100 gallons of air, but only releases a few parts per million of particulate matter, then the rest of that 100 gallons is just carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. CO2 and CO can readily be converted back to O2 by plants and phytoplankton. The AMOUNT of air is not the problem, it's the concentration of pollutants and greenhouse gases IN the air.

I myself score in the Libertarian Left region Economic Left/Right: -2.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.37

I am not sure where I fit in, I believe in a strong military, a very tough criminal justice system, abolish welfare for healthy able bodied people & close ties with the USA. However I am not against abortion, don't encourage it, believe in stem cell research, good education, top notch medical care, gay marriage really doesn't bother me and we need to fix the enviornment. I have no idea where I fit in te spectrum.... http://www.politicalcompass.org/

From the article: The same could be said for the NDP and the Tories.

Agree. Another plus is that the CANDU reactors require less refining of their fuels than do their contemporaries. It makes them a lot more attractive on the market. There is still a fair amount of potential, however. Nuclear safety and reactor technology are leaps and bounds ahead of where they were 20 years ago.

I think the terms themselves can be fairly descriptive, especially when applied to the 2-axis "political compass" rather than the traditional 1-axis spectrum.

Where do they put the waste? I wonder if they could drill a hole past the mantle and chuck the waste down there. I'm not sure how radioactive waste reacts to extreme temperatures. I'd be worried if they did that, what with seepage problems. Plus, drilling all the way through the crust would be enormously expensive. I'm sure it could be done, but the magnitude of such a project boggles the mind. As for burying it in the mantle, you'd need an environment where the temperature was high enough to dissociate the waste into its component elements. The melting point of Uranium is 1132 degrees C, whereas the average temperature of Earth's mantle (at the interface with the crust) is somewhere on the order of 600 degrees C. As you can see, it would probably be necessary to drill almost to the core, which is something like six thousand km deep.

I think everyone needs to calm down a little. The accusation was implied when Harper said "... this is how the Liberal party makes decisions..." (or something to that effect), which to me clearly insinuates that family ties influence the Liberals' decision-making. I'd wager he's trying to get some more play out of the "Martin's Liberals are crooked" stigma. ----- Again, rational debate is what we all seek. Personally, I always find August's opinions to be refreshingly insightful, even if I don't necessarily agree with them. Let's stick to the topic.

Hey, don't lump all us left-wingers in with baylee. I fully support our troops.

Photo-voltaic cells are the product of a dirty process, yes, but there are other solar solutions. Parabolic mirrors in a large array can focus enough light onto a single point to raise the temperature to ~9000 degrees C. Beyond solar, nuclear has potential if the waste could be managed properly. Personally, I think they should just heap all the waste onto a rocket and launch it into the sun.

From the transcript, it doesn't look to me like the discussion was even remotely heading towards the Air India investigation. That, coupled with the fact that PM Harper brought the newspaper clipping in with him to Parliament, leads me to believe that he was deliberately looking for an opportunity to smear Bains. Seems like childish tactics to me, it's the same sort of thing you get in Tory-bashing arguments; people just throw up "Harper has a hidden agenda!!1" as a smokescreen to thwart any rebuttals.

You can't "deplete" earth's air unless you convert it to some other substance. Internal combustion engines don't deplete earth's air, they merely dirty it. That being said, the throughput of an engine (60 gal vs 15 gal) does not determine its eco-friendliness. The new diesel engines have particulate filters that can reduce the total particulate emissions to less than 1 part per billion. It's eminently possible for a diesel engine to puff out 60 gallons of air that is cleaner than the 15 gallons puffed out by a gasoline engine. Merely reducing the size and displacement of the engine does nothing; instead we should be looking to improve the emissions from the existing engines, and for ways to further refine and clean up the fuel we use.

My personal choice wasn't up there, so I went with the second-most-irksome: Buying Quebec. My first choice would have been the way the Tories basically screwed Canada's robotics industry back in December. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/12/14/mars-rover.html

The forces need heavy-lift capability, especially teams like DART.

Federal Rae Days, anyone?

I don't deny that he had his faults, but I think that getting the constitution away from the UK was quite frankly a defining point in our great nation's history. It established Canada's sovereignty from Britain.

Agree. Bringing in conscription would absolutely bury the party that legislated it, especially in Quebec.

Pearson, King, Trudeau (patriating the constitution was good, say what you will about his politics), et al.

He might be a temporary PM, it's still too early in his mandate to know for sure how the next election will go. However you would be remiss in saying that Harper is a temporary politician. Like him or not (I definitely don't ), you can't deny he put the Conservatives on the map (and in office). I think Harper's going to be around for a while.

Rick Mercer wrote an interesting blog article about similar NDP-proposed peace talks with the Taliban in Afghanistan. I laughed out loud when I read his hypothetical itinerary, and I imagine that talks with "The Hezbollah Party" would go in a similar manner. http://rickmercer.blogspot.com/2006/09/far...-to-summer.html

That's not a reasonable argument, because if nobody had authority over anyone else, we wouldn't be in a society. I suspect that I would still want to have some sort of authority over everyone else, and that on some basal level, everyone else (yes, even Charles Anthony) would too, because this is human nature. It's instinctual to climb for social dominance, don't try to deny it. Either way, this has digressed from methods of raising voter turnout, and I submit to all readers that a high-school course on politics is less draconian than mandatory voting (which seems like a bit of a non-sequitur to me), and also would tend to side-step the people who would vote just to receive a tax credit.

So we shouldn't force people to learn personal hygiene and mathematics either? The curriculum in Ontario already forces students to do things like community service, and biology classes already have regular debates over things like abortion, medical ethics, et cetera. That's what's known as exercising my right as a citizen. Yes, I am technically saying that I want something imposed on everybody else, but the great thing about democracy is that everyone else gets to try to "impose" themselves on me, too.