normanchateau

The following story appeared in the Business Section of the Vancouver Sun on October 14, 2006, two days after Harper signed and implemented the "deal" which betrayed the softwood lumber industry. "Court orders U.S. to repay all $5.3 billion in softwood duties A U.S, court on Friday ordered the Bush administration to pay back all of the $5.3 billion US in duties collected from Canadian lumber companies, one day after Ottawa voluntarily implemented a negotiated agreement that leaves $1 billion of that money in the hands of the Americans. The belated legal victory in the softwood dispute provides "absolute vindication" that the U.S. duties were illegal and that Canadian lumber is not subsidized, opponents of the negotiated settlement said. The U.S. Court of International Trade ordered the refund after having already found the duties were illegal." Here's the link: http://www.thenextagenda.ca/story/2006/10/19/133951/26 It makes one wonder why Harper was in such an extraordinary hurry to sign the deal given that the court was about to provide its ruling the next day. Was it worth bringing David Emerson into the cabinet just so he could assist in Harper's betrayal of the softwood lumber industry?

Was that on this thread or another thread? I couldn't find a single statement from Michael Hardner on this thread where he is "defending the notion that violence is excusable if it is attached to religious beliefs." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Hardners post #39 in this thread quotes: "Internment camps based on religion is a bad idea in my books. Do you think that arresting people solely on the basis of their 'suspected religion' is a good idea ?" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That's the whole thing concerning Muslims and their violent terrorist attacks is that they are BASED on their religion, Islam. So the fact is anyone being an Arab Muslim is considered a believer of Islam, as that is the definition of Muslim. If Michael suggest Muslims being arrested and placed in internment camps is a bad thing simply because they are Muslim then in fact he is "defending the notion that violence is excusable if it is attached to religious beliefs" or he would not be saying such a thing about a religion that is NOT docile. The only aspect that remains is to prove that any certain Muslim is a fanatic or extremist which is impossible to prove even in the best of time much less a time of extreme violence. This is why it could be quite possible all Muslims could be rounded up and placed in internment camps as part of a national security effort if conditions presented no other viable option. Where in the Koran is it written that Muslims must engage in violent terrorist attacks?

Alas, sad but true.

A cheap shot taken at a woman is not always sexist. Cheap shots which perpetuate stereotypes about women probably are. It's people who take offense at everything and continually try to apply labels to those perceived offenses who perpetuate stereotypes more than the ignorant clods who take the shots. In an effort to avoid being sexist I use the word clod, generally applied to males. I have no use for people who take offense at "everything" just as I have no use for those who are racist or sexist or homophobic.

How they caved? The US lumber lobby got to keep a significant portion of the illegal duties and today the Canadian softwood lumber industry pays a 15% export tax which is even higher than the 10.8% illegal duties imposed by the U.S. Harper betrayed both free trade and the softwood lumber industry. In the next election, he will lose even more BC seats than he lost in January, 2006.

A cheap shot taken at a woman is not always sexist. Cheap shots which perpetuate stereotypes about women probably are.

Was that on this thread or another thread? I couldn't find a single statement from Michael Hardner on this thread where he is "defending the notion that violence is excusable if it is attached to religious beliefs."

I can't believe you're still missing the point. The criticism of Ambrose is sexist in that it implies her weakness as Environment Minister is due to her preoccupation with her hair. The preoccupation with her hair is a female stereotype, notwithstanding the fact that Trump is no doubt preoccupied with his. However no one has suggested a correlation, positive or negative, between the Donald's skills as an entrepreneur and his hair. Far more interesting to me than irrelevant comments about her hair is the fact that Ambrose, who is not a social conservative nor a religious fanatic, would allow Harper's office to impose Darrel Reid on her as Chief of Staff.

Yes, they do and that includes the desire to protect their citizens from being slaughtered in Iraq and Afghanistan. And if they hasten the retreat of their troops from those countries as the Brits likely will when Blair steps down, Canada will become the major foreign invader and target in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Bye, bye, Stephen Harper.

I did yesterday...4:47 pm. Here's your quote. There is support for the comments from a Greenpeace representative. It is fair to say Greenpeace is from the left, isn't it? Again I'll repeat my earlier point. I think the comments about Ambrose were outrageous and sexist. Had those comments been made by a Member of Parliament, they would have deserved the same condemnation and derision as Peter MacKay's outrageous and sexist comments. But Greenpeace and the Climate Action Network leftist? On what do you base this? I have never viewed environmental groups or political parties as necessarily leftist or rightist. They can be either. For example, the Green Party of BC bitterly opposes the BC NDP on the grounds that the leftist NDP is concerned more with economic than environmental issues. The previous leader of the Green Party of Canada was formerly with the Progressive Conservatives and many right-leaning people can see reasons to vote Green but abhor the NDP. I see Greenpeace and the Climate Action Network as environmental groups. If you seriously believe that being pro-environment means you must be "leftist", then you must think that being anti-environment defines you as a "rightist". But to be fair to Harper, I never thought his failure to deal with environmental issues had any relationship to his being a right-winger. I assumed he made Darrel Reid the Chief of Staff to Rona Ambrose because Reid and Harper are both Evangelical Christians and social conservatives, and that it had nothing to do with Harper's respect or lack thereof for the environment.

I did yesterday...4:47 pm.

You are obviously not an investor in softwood lumber companies. Unfortunately, I am. This deal has significantly hurt those companies and their share values. BC lumber companies (with a few exceptions) preferred litigation to deal with illegal US actions. The way to deal with a bully (the US lumber industry) is to fight him, not grovel bloody-nosed at his feet. Harper will lose even more seats in BC in the next election than he did in January, 2006. Harper's financial mismanagement will be his undoing. This economic incompetent even quietly raised our personal income tax rate on July 1, 2006. He is making even Brian Mulroney look good in retrospect.

That would depend, would it not, on whether the sexual abuse by Muslim preachers was extraordinarily high as compared to the general population. Let's suppose it were extraordinarily high. Would that justify rounding up ALL Muslim preachers? It would depedn on how high the percentage, how severe the abuse, and what other options were available. And if I were to provide some hypothetical figures, e.g., thousands of victims, very severe abuse, 10% of Muslim preachers, would you answer with an unqualified yes or no?

Yes, you are correct. It was Yitzhak Rabin who was murdered by a right wing Israeli.

So you fully expect free trade to end this year? It won't end this year but thanks to Harper, we're headed in that direction. The Free Trade Lumber Council bitterly oppossed the Harper softwood lumber "deal" since it replaced the previous illegal U.S. duties with an even higher export tax. This is contrary to free trade and NAFTA. Canadian softwood lumber producers wanted free trade but Harper betrayed them.

Very much reminiscent of the silence on the right when Darrel Reid was appointed Chief of Staff to Rona Ambrose. Reid's claim to fame is comparing Canada to Nazi Germany for adding sexual orientation to hate crimes legislation. He predicted Christians would be imprisoned for condemning homosexuality when this legislation passed. Harper of course voted against the legislation and Darrel Reid is now rewarded with a position in Ambrose's ministry, defending the environment. Why would Ambrose, who is not known to be a social conservative, pick a religious extremist like Reid as her Chief of Staff unless he was foisted upon her by so-con Harper? The silence on the right is deafening!!!

I'm not sure why the thread heading is "Left attacks..." It was the Climate Action Network who made these outrageous and sexist comments. I've heard no support for these comments from anyone on the Left. As far as I know, the Climate Action Network is merely an environmental group. Other than they're opposed to Harper and Ambrose's feeble environmental efforts, I'm not sure that it's fair to characterize this group as the Left.

If the Republicans are tossed, I anticipate US forces will withdraw from Afghanistan sooner rather than later. This can only spell disaster for Canada's mission in Afghanistan. And disaster for Harper's re-election prospects.

Forget the "Suppose..." The current government of Afghanistan is a fundamentalist conservative theocracy. It differs from the previous Taliban government in that it also includes drug dealers, warlords and corrupt government officials. But the powerful mullahs remain. Is this an improvement over the Taliban? Probably. Is it worth the sacrifice of Canadian lives. Probably not.

Internment camps based on religion is a bad idea in my books. Do you think that arresting people solely on the basis of their 'suspected religion' is a good idea ? That is, Italians, and swarthy types could be arrested based on how they look ? I answered your question, now you answer mine. Who is talking about internment camps based on religion. Betsy is. The question was should all Muslims be interned?

That would depend, would it not, on whether the sexual abuse by Muslim preachers was extraordinarily high as compared to the general population. Let's suppose it were extraordinarily high. Would that justify rounding up ALL Muslim preachers?

I think the criticism in part reflects the fact that Harper, who once took pride in not breaking promises, has now irreversibly lost that moral superiority. It's like losing one's virginity. It can never be restored. But taxing the trusts per se is supported by left wing parties. Canada's two parties of the left, the BQ and NDP, have both said they will support the Harper legislation. So the legislation will pass. I'm sure the investment community is thrilled that Harper's legislation required votes from the anti-corporate welfare and anti-business BQ and NDP to pass.

The same Begin as surrendered the Sinai for a piece of paper. And his "partner in peace" was dead within four years. His "partner in peace" was dead because he was assassinated by a right wing Israeli. So from your perspective Begin was not sufficiently right wing?

When Dachau opened in 1933, internees and their relatives were told that they were there "for their own safety".

Yes, his talent in getting us deeper and deeper into the quagmire that is Afghanistan shows he's another dud like Stephen Harper and floor crosser David Emerson.