nicky10013

Of course it is. Considering it's on your list at all and the fact that you keep on going with this proves otherwise. Ah, so you're exactly what I said you are. No arguments of your own, just floating around from thread to thread, picking out what's wrong without adding any insight of your own. At least I took the opportunity to get involved in university, to put in my say. I bet you were the kid who always grumbled about how the university was screwing you in some way or another but didn't have any suggestions of his own to actually bring to the table. If you went to university in the first place, which, considering the fact that you seem to continually mistake what an argument is, isn't necessarily a lock to begin with.

Don't act as if you knew it all along. These stories are leaked to the press by the government. Just like the government is only "considering" staying in Afghanistan militarily.

So, in terms of doing business in these countries, which are all rural and with their economy that is mostly agricultural, what is Canada going to get out of these countries?

All you have to do to earn all that righteousness you exude is give me an example. Brag all you want then. I suspect you knew that though. Like I said, the fact that you won't (more like can't) says it all. God knows you're drooling at the chance. It's gotta be tough for you, you know, to act like you're superior when you know you can't prove it. Right?

Whether I vote in companies or not, it doesn't change the fact that companies there make boatloads of money.

China is a gateway to China. We already have an Embassy in Beijing and 4 consulates.

I'll give you Laos. Nepal is growing but is tiny anyway. Burma, hahaha no. You do realize Burundi is in Africa, right?

You realize that geographic size also is a consideration. Geographic size has something to do with it. South Korea is about the size of Southern Ontario. If not smaller.

Uhh, yeah, I actually did.

I was paraphrasing. It is legal, you know. As for being beaten, I'm at least the one who has actually posted proof here of my arguments. You've done no such thing. The fact that you're completely ignoring this fact, and the fact that you're incredibly weak arguments over proving a negative, a pile of horseshit just meant to distract people from the real crux of what is going on here, says who is really being beaten here. You can sit here and make fun of me as much as you please. It doesn't change the channel from the fact that you've been unable to provide any proof of your own. Lets go over things. You've called me: a sped an embarrassment you've questioned my literacy skills despite your own problems ignorant a liar Have you done anything on this thread besides make fun of me? You've provided proof of absolutely noting yet have the gall to call me these names. If I'm easily this stupid, you shouldn't have any problems. Yet you are having these problems. I think that says far more about you than it could ever say about me. Like I said. You're a slimy weasel, a coward who has no personal opinions of his own, no original argument. You just attack for fun. Your kind bring nothing to society. You're a waste of oxygen.

And which growing markets do we need representation but currently have none?

Ah the business man and his business smarts strike again. The sale of embassies in Africa will never raise the requisite capital to buy land and design and build new embassies in Asia. It also requires money to break a lease.

The word "all" doesn't make or break the statement. More semantics. More purposeful ignornace of everything else I've posted here. I've never once doubted your honesty. Please don't take that for a compliment.

So, you're going to tear down perfectly good embassies now and build them in Asia where we already have them? And you're worried about spending money?

I guess you missed the federal part.

No, you said that instead of finding unmitigated support for the freedom of speech, all I could find was him saying that all restrictions should be lifted (I did, you refuse to accept it, but that's not my problem). If you meant something different perhaps you should check up on your writing skillz Bringing ignorance back up, you still refuse to very much prove a positive and find me where he believes in restrictions on freedom of speech. If I'm so wrong, it shouldn't be so hard, now should it. Oh, why am I asking, you'll never answer this anyway. I guess it goes to show you should never chose to debate a coward. Always attacking, never actually arguing for themselves.

Does it matter whether I do or not? It still happens.

Considering the only government to run a balanced budget over the past 50 years was the modern Liberal Party, the notion that the Federal Liberal Party is the least financially responsible of the federal parties is utterly ridiculous. As for Asian embassies, you do realize that they're not talking about shutting down African Embassies in favour of opening Asian embassies. They're talking about closing African embassies and running those embassies out of Asian embassies. It'll stretch the resources of the offices in Asian countries and effect the ability of those embassies to do business in both countries. I know Canada's ex-ambassador to NATO. His first posting within DFAIT, I want to say, was in Tanzania. The embassy was run out of the embassy in Rome. He said he never got anything done and was only ever allowed to actually travel to the country 2-3 times. Diplomats are supposed to liase with foreign governments - to set up contacts to the mutual benefit of both states. You just can't accomplish that by shutting down embassies. The diplomatic community is a very touchy one. Speaking "diplomaticaly" is a euphemism for people talking carefully for a reason. In a world where a single word within a communique can signal a giant shift in foreign policy, the message shutting embassies down is terrible. It says we just don't want to interact with the world anymore. Like I said, it's us burning bridges. It just goes to show how incompetent this government is. If you agree with it, that's your prerogative, but I think you're under the impression that international relations works differently than it actually does.

I posted your own words. You can try to deny them all you want, those words were in fact written by you. I notice how you ignored the rest of my post, though. You want to talk about my ignorance, how about you actually address everything I said before accusing anyone of ignorance, willful or otherwise. You try to give advice to me about framing a coherent argument. My advice to you, pretending something didn't happen isn't an argument to begin with. Just as hypocritical as Steyn.

Oh, I know the risks of doing business in Nigeria. It's a pretty hairy area. Yet, no matter what you say in terms of risk, we still do business there.

Neither you or I are Liberal or NDP policy makers. It was a suggestion off the top of my head and not a policy proposal. I'm flattered that you think I hold such sway within the party that what I'm saying is. As for the NDP giving the how, I've never actually heard a solid policy proposal from anyone representing the NDP here.

So you see absolutely NO need for diplomatic representation in Africa?

It was just an example of where we get the money. Turning this into a debate on the F-35 is going way off topic.

Why would want to countries invest in unstable countries? Returns. Nigeria is pretty damn unstable, yet millions go in because of what they can get out. The investment is worth it. As for the F-35, who said we have to buy an F-35? Anywho, that's a debate for the other thread. The point here is that embassies aren't so expensive that the money can't be found to run them and the return on that investment could be lucrative in terms of international prestige, easier access for businessand future international cooperation in a situation that might arise. Like I said, you just don't burn bridges. Recalling ambassadors and shutting down embassies is just that.

Perhaps I shouldn't be taking advice from someone who ceded the point to begin with and only now are just taking it up to score a few cheap hits. Which as what I was arguing to begin with. Despite the fact that you blatantly said here that I've proven that he doesn't want any restrictions on freedom of speech, you're still arguing that he does in fact believe in some restrictions. Since you've told me that I proved my point, which in itself is proving a negative as I've clearly proved he doesn't believe in restrictions on speech, why don't you wrestle me up a quote saying where he believes in restrictions. The funniest thing about this is you wouldn't even have to prove a negative. I did that. You're only proving a negative to my argument which is hardly the same thing. You'd be proving a positive, that he believes in some restrictions. So why don't you drop the excuses, quit calling people names, stop being lazy and actually prove that you're intellectually capable of handling an argument above the 8th grade level. Of all my time at Maple Leaf Web I don't think I've ever seen you do such a thing.