Figleaf

Not totally unbelievable, since they had pushed interest rates down about a low as possible and were desperate for some other kind of economic stimulus.

Wasn't that the plot of Atlas Shrugged?

It's amazing how unconvincing such bumf is, considering how many people are still suckered by it.

I'm telling you that if our people find other people with false documents it is appropriate to put them in the slammer and back on the first aircraft back to where they came from. You're certainly entitled to your opinion. I personally am not commenting on whether it SHOULD be a crime, but rather on whether it IS a crime. You do realize that they are fleeing a regime that doesn't want them to escape, don't you? And that the false documents are needed to carry out that purpose? If you already realize that, OK, but it seems relevant when you look at the overall situation and I want to understand how you are taking it into account in your point of view. You must be kidding. May I alter your passport and use it the next time I travel? I'm beginning to think you don't really understand this conversation. So what. Are you saying that if you can beat the system that makes it OK regardless of the method used? ???What are you on about??? No, I am responding specifically to your contention that they would have used the passport to get into Canada. They almost certainly would not have. You don't seem to be paying any attention at all. Don't get all worked up about what you assume I believe in or stand for, just listen please: They were planning to make a fresh refugee application based on new persecution in Iran. They would not have used the fraudulent documents to re-enter Canada because you don't need a passport to make a refugee claim and using a false one can get you deported.

Please explain what you are asking.

That rather depends on your definitions, doesn't it?

I can't believe Steve is giving money to Toronto (ew, yuck!) to help build public transit (commie trains!). What's next for Pink Steve I wonder? Springing Iranian queue jumpers from incarceration in democratic America? Reprocessing of $1200 tax money per child every year just to put the government's face on it? Oh... wait.

To start with you have to prove these people destroyed their documents. These ones were caught red handed. I am telling you that the standard practice is to destroy or discard false passports immediately as you arrive in the destination country. These particular people were part of an emergency landing in US territory and would not otherwise have had their passports checked. Define 'OK'? I'm just noting that it is open to question whether it is a criminal act. No, they would likely not. Using a false document would mean that you could be removed from Canada at any time in the future. It is much better to discard the false document and make a refugee claim without any passport.

Shouting insult counts as an assault???

The solution to the democratic deficit is NOT to enact a complicated experimental method that would: a-entrench a list of political insiders from each party effectively untouchable in the legislature, forever; b-put people in the legislature who don't represent anyone but their parties, no constituents; and c-guarantee minority governments and balkanized legislatures: 5 Green Liberation Front, 7 Front Liberation Vert, 8 Northern Lights Party, 9 Molson's Blue Party, 9 Labatt's Canadian Party, 12 Fundamental Heritage Moments Party, 22 NDP, 34 Tory Bastards, 44 Liberals.

What surprises me is how content the terrorists seem to be to let us undermine ourselves at our own pace. If they were on a more intensive timeline, I'd expect to see them take a lot of quick shots at secondary but expensive targets ... tranportation infrastructure, public services, etc. Not for body count, but for maximum multiplier-effect cost.

Aren't you in a sort of Quandary of Paranoias? On the one hand, Al Gore, lawyer, politician, patrician, says one thing, but on the other hand George Bush, Bonesman, politician, New World Order Guy says another. Who to suspect (most)? There is no friend, anywhere.

So you agree that if they had entered Canada using forged documents it would have been a crime because that was their intent and you maintain we should give refugee status to those who enter the country using falsified documents. No, that does not follow from my comment. In fact, if they are like other refugee claimants, they would discard or destroy their false document specifically to avoid tendering false information to Canadian immigration authorities. The only 'fraud' perpetrated by refugees in carrying false passports is to fool their local exit authorities and placate the airport transit and checkin processes. These things could in some jurisdictions be made criminal, but it's not a sure thing that the have been. Furthermore, if a refugee is legitimately fleeing political persecution, presumably they would have the defence of necessity anyway (if charged in any common law jurisdition at least).

The essential ontological problem 'How did it all get going?' cannot be created or destroyed by manipulation. Answer it with a deity and the same question merely shifts to it. Answer it with an 'it always was', and the question is simply converted into an unanswerable question about the nature of consciousness ... 'What accounts for the perception of change?' Answer it with a Big Bang and you are still left with no explanation for where the micro-sized, superdense, compact everything-yet-to-come proto-universe came from. Personally, I like to think the ontological problem is unanswerable because the future is indeterminate. If (as I hope) the universe's future is indeterminate, until the end is known, it cannot be known whether the beginning is done yet. We don't know how it begins, because until it ends, its is in a sort of indeterminate Shroedinger state wherein the nature of the beginning is also indeterminate.

That's not exactly how it went. Chretien was clearly against the program to go in, and voiced his preference for letting inspectors finish thier work. If he was restrained in voicing outright refusal to join into an invasion, it was no doubt out of a desire to give US diplomacy the scope they want. Oh, no. There is no way on Earth that Canada should become involved in anything having a hint of a smidgen of a dash to do with Bush's criminal ventures in Iraq.

Or forged documents, a crime in most countries which is why they wound up in jail in the US. Are you sure it's a US crime to carry mock non-US documents which you don't intend to present to US authorities? It sounds like a stretch to me. Anyway, AFAIK they were not charged with any crime in the US. They were detained in immigration proceedings.

Well done. Thx.

Oh yeah. Well look who's inciting now.

I don't see how it sends that message. The family was compliant with Canadian immigration laws. As I understand it they left Canada when required to and were attempting to return to make a refugee claim based on new persecution they experienced after their return. A whole year, eh? Brain surgeon was he? Or maybe taxi driver? You misread my typo -- the missing letter is an s on the end of year(s). And you think the answer is to signal that even what tenuous rules we have don't matter? As noted above, this case doesn't represent a successful attempt to circumvent our rules. Your private views about how citizenship should operate are not particularly relevant to a discussion of how they do operate.

Sounds improbable.

I just sometimes feel the need to meet condescention with its like. Your views on Marx are interesting, but I will point out that the Wikipedia article is quite clear that the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat appeared in Marx's original thought and was discussed by Engels as part of it. Accordingly, you were profoundly mistaken to attempt to ascribe the notion to Lenin and should, perhaps, be less overconfident in your theoretical assertions. Why would you like me to show you that? No, I'm sorry but that's wrong. Marx held that changes come through the thesis and antithesis process of diaclectic materialism whereby each stage of production is met with a specific challenge that sweeps it aside until finally communism emerges. This is not an evolutionary process. Perhaps. I'm not sure they are directly contradictory concepts. But in any even, you overlook that Marx viewed the revolution itself as inevitable.

Why not just tell us idiots the answer to this highly important riddle? You started this whole thread with "As we all know" which is utterly ridiculous. Can you also give one good reason why anybody should give a hoot about Marxist scholarship? I'm just entertaining myself and broadening the scope of discussion here. As we all know, dialectical materialism remains an important contribution in the history of economic thought.

AAAAAA! I agree with you. AAAAAA!

Two elections ago, but who's counting. In any event, he was right that the Liberals are not willing to allow police input into the Judge selection process. That shows a certain bias towards predators, does it not? No, it does not. Police input into selecting judges is ridiculous. Judges are there to make unbiased findings of law and fact between litigants. Satisfaction of police interests is contrary to that concept. It's horrifying to me how conservatives can't grasp the very simplest notion of how undue influence impairs impartiality. What is it about conservatives that wants to encourage more wrongful convictions? Is it just viciousness? ????? Why the hell can't police decide judges? Because the institutional arrangement of our legal system requires the judges to judge the police. It can't go both ways without corrupting the process. Exactly. A front-line viewpoint is precisely what is NOT useful in determining guilt and innocence. They have absolutely NO 'right' to be on a selection committee. The inherent conflict of interest their presence creates should be prohibited. Like Clint says in 'Unforgiven': Deserve's got nothing to do with it. If that were the objective, the legislature could simply pass legislation specifying longer sentence provisions. They'd be better than cops. At least they have no vested interest in having soft judges, whereas the cops have a vested interest in having tough judges.

Holy shit. That's one of the most disgusting things I've heard for a long time. If there were such a thing as hell, I'd hope George Bush had a special place reserved in it.