kimmy Posted April 16, 2011 Report Share Posted April 16, 2011 Loss of sovereignty? WTF? If you forbid me from shopping at Walmart, how does that make you or me more "more sovereign"? What does your ability to shop at WalMart have to do with the topic at hand? We had American retail chains long before FTA or NAFTA or G8 or G20. The loss of sovereignty is, we agree to not attempt to make Canadians buy Nova Scotian-made tube-socks by slapping punitive tariffs on tube socks made in Alabama. We've voluntarily surrendered our ability to promote Nova Scotian tube-socks at the expense of tube-socks made by our American friends. That's a loss of sovereignty. In return, our American friends voluntarily stop attempting to promote American-made wood products by slapping punitive tariffs on products made in Quebec. They've surrendered some sovereignty as well. Good for Alabama tube-sock mills and Quebec shelving-unit factories, bad for Nova Scotia tube-sock mills and Indiana shelving-unit factories, but everybody gets cheaper tube socks and shelving units. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted April 16, 2011 Report Share Posted April 16, 2011 What do birthers, truthers, and NAU conspiracy theorists share in common? A few brain cells. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted April 17, 2011 Report Share Posted April 17, 2011 I'm sure they all have a full brian. i have yet to see proof. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikemac Posted April 19, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 19, 2011 Umm yeah.... Chretian brougyht in NAFTA....thanks for coming That is wrong M.Dancer. U.S. President George H. W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992 to sign NAFTA. That is the main reason why the Conservatives got only 2 out of the 308 federal ridings in the following election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scouterjim Posted April 19, 2011 Report Share Posted April 19, 2011 i have yet to see proof. Is that Brian on "Family Guy"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted April 19, 2011 Report Share Posted April 19, 2011 Is that Brian on "Family Guy"? Totally missed my typo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shakeyhands Posted April 19, 2011 Report Share Posted April 19, 2011 What does your ability to shop at WalMart have to do with the topic at hand? We had American retail chains long before FTA or NAFTA or G8 or G20. The loss of sovereignty is, we agree to not attempt to make Canadians buy Nova Scotian-made tube-socks by slapping punitive tariffs on tube socks made in Alabama. We've voluntarily surrendered our ability to promote Nova Scotian tube-socks at the expense of tube-socks made by our American friends. That's a loss of sovereignty. In return, our American friends voluntarily stop attempting to promote American-made wood products by slapping punitive tariffs on products made in Quebec. They've surrendered some sovereignty as well. Good for Alabama tube-sock mills and Quebec shelving-unit factories, bad for Nova Scotia tube-sock mills and Indiana shelving-unit factories, but everybody gets cheaper tube socks and shelving units. -k Tube socks.... how pre-NAFTA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted April 20, 2011 Report Share Posted April 20, 2011 (edited) What does your ability to shop at WalMart have to do with the topic at hand? We had American retail chains long before FTA or NAFTA or G8 or G20.The loss of sovereignty is, we agree to not attempt to make Canadians buy Nova Scotian-made tube-socks by slapping punitive tariffs on tube socks made in Alabama. We've voluntarily surrendered our ability to promote Nova Scotian tube-socks at the expense of tube-socks made by our American friends. End of story.Your definition of "sovereignty" means that someone in Canada can prevent me from buying socks/trading wherever the Hell I please. That's sovereignty? Kimmy, your "sovereignty" to promote Nova Scotian tube-socks seems more like a scam. ... but everybody gets cheaper tube socks and shelving units.I think true sovereignty is letting individual Canadians decide where they'll get the best benefit in any bargain.That is wrong M.Dancer. U.S. President George H. W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992 to sign NAFTA. That is the main reason why the Conservatives got only 2 out of the 308 federal ridings in the following election.The failure of the Meech Lake Accord had nothing to do with the collapse of the Progressive Conservative Party into a Western and a Quebec wing.Free trade with the US united Canadians (outside certain urban elites, particularly anglo). Mulroney unfortunately pushed the envelope on including Quebec in Canada on terms reasonable for all. This, and the GST, were political killers. Nevertheless, Harper has benefitted from Mulroney's good work. ---- BTW, Laurier also signed a Free Trade Agreement with the Americans. Edited April 20, 2011 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted April 20, 2011 Report Share Posted April 20, 2011 What does your ability to shop at WalMart have to do with the topic at hand? We had American retail chains long before FTA or NAFTA or G8 or G20. The loss of sovereignty is, we agree to not attempt to make Canadians buy Nova Scotian-made tube-socks by slapping punitive tariffs on tube socks made in Alabama. We've voluntarily surrendered our ability to promote Nova Scotian tube-socks at the expense of tube-socks made by our American friends. That's a loss of sovereignty. In return, our American friends voluntarily stop attempting to promote American-made wood products by slapping punitive tariffs on products made in Quebec. They've surrendered some sovereignty as well. Good for Alabama tube-sock mills and Quebec shelving-unit factories, bad for Nova Scotia tube-sock mills and Indiana shelving-unit factories, but everybody gets cheaper tube socks and shelving units. -k I agree with you in theory, but in practice the trade-off is not an equal one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted April 20, 2011 Report Share Posted April 20, 2011 Your definition of "sovereignty" means that someone in Canada can prevent me from buying socks/trading wherever the Hell I please. That's sovereignty? Kimmy, your "sovereignty" to promote Nova Scotian tube-socks seems more like a scam. I think true sovereignty is letting individual Canadians decide where they'll get the best benefit in any bargain. If you're talking about individual sovereignty it is. When you're talking about sovereignty of the nation, it isn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted April 20, 2011 Report Share Posted April 20, 2011 (edited) If you're talking about individual sovereignty it is. When you're talking about sovereignty of the nation, it isn't.Sovereignty of the nation?As individuals, we surrender our individual sovereignty to the nation/country in certain conditions. We fight and die for our country. More mundanely, we pay taxes. Maybe I'm playing with the word "sovereignty" but I don't think so. ---- If I'm going to surrender my freedom to others, then I want to make damn sure that my loss is someone else's clear gain. I don't want to die for nothing. And I want to make sure that my taxes are used to do good. How is being forced to buy Nova Scotian Tube Socks an acceptable, good infringement of my individual sovereignty? As I say, it strikes me as a scam - that Mulroney rightly stopped. Edited April 20, 2011 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted April 20, 2011 Report Share Posted April 20, 2011 The only traitor is Duceppe. We need to enact the Emergencies Act and detain the entire BQ cabinet. Ban the party and any like it from Canada and move on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nittanylionstorm07 Posted April 20, 2011 Report Share Posted April 20, 2011 The only traitor is Duceppe. We need to enact the Emergencies Act and detain the entire BQ cabinet. Ban the party and any like it from Canada and move on. lol Conservatives- we must fight authoritarian rule! (Unless we're in control, of course!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted April 20, 2011 Report Share Posted April 20, 2011 lol Conservatives- we must fight authoritarian rule! (Unless we're in control, of course!) A party dedicated to the breakup of Canada is treasonous, end of story. These traitors need to be banned from ever poisoning Canada ever again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted April 20, 2011 Report Share Posted April 20, 2011 A party dedicated to the breakup of Canada is treasonous, end of story. Explain how they've committed treason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted April 20, 2011 Report Share Posted April 20, 2011 (edited) Nafta only had a few MAJOR problems that were aligned to US interests. 1. Access to buy out Canadian companies and ship out Canadian resources. Americans have WAY more capital so can just buy out all the successful public companies, without the trade restrictions they can just move product across the border - at no gain to Canada. 2. It placed restrictions on internal Canadian trade - that is not free trade that is "trade blockage". It happens that this meant Canada an incredibly resource self sufficient country could not internally trade its own resources and was FORCED to buy foreign products - with markups in a global market rather than establish strong domestic companies able to internally trade to be competitive on a global market rather than taken over by multinational giants headquartered in the US. 3. It opened up Canada's resources to US companies on equal basis on Canadian companies this outright also gave the American's an edge because they had more capital. You could say but there is no difference between a US company and a Canadian company. You are wrong. US steel and other US companies show that they favour strengthening their US homebase and employees at the cost of Canadian jobs. It is reverse dumping -- basically they come in buy the industry and resource rights, then scuttle -- so that they can force up the market and bring home the money to their US assets... that is why Nafta doesn't work, there are still different nationalities, and US companies favour US nationals to Canadian nationals, meaning the US gets jobs that Canadians could compete for. Anyone who doesn't get the issue of Nafta is a moron or a traitor. Edited April 20, 2011 by William Ashley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikemac Posted April 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 30, 2011 BTW, Laurier also signed a Free Trade Agreement with the Americans. That is nonsense August1991. Starting in 1855, while Canada was under British control, free trade was implemented between the colonies of British North America and the United States under the Reciprocity Treaty. In 1866, a year before Canadian Confederation, the United States Congress voted to cancel the treaty. Every Prime Minister since Confederation had said that Canada can not have reciprocity (free trade) with the US because of the difference in the economy of scale between the countries. Every Prime Minister up to Mulroney. infringement of my individual sovereignty You know what you can do with your "individual sovereignty" or any other Austro-Libertarian philosophy, policy or pipe dream. If one man was to blame for the financial meltdown that many countries around the world are still struggling from it's that Libertarian Greenspan, the former head of the US Federal Reserve. If Harper likes his Libertarian policy so much then let him pack his bags and head south. I heard this catchy tune on a local radio station today, "Steve It's Time to Leave" You can see who has the best chance to beat out the conservative in your riding at the Project Democracy web site. http://www.projectdemocracy.ca/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted April 30, 2011 Report Share Posted April 30, 2011 That is nonsense August1991. Starting in 1855, while Canada was under British control, free trade was implemented between the colonies of British North America and the United States under the Reciprocity Treaty. In 1866, a year before Canadian Confederation, the United States Congress voted to cancel the treaty. Every Prime Minister since Confederation had said that Canada can not have reciprocity (free trade) with the US because of the difference in the economy of scale between the countries. Every Prime Minister up to Mulroney. You're sure? From the Canadian Encyclopedia article on Sir Wilfrid Laurier`: After 1908, despite his desire to correct certain abuses arising from the far-reaching changes in society, Laurier focused his attention primarily on 2 bills which, in the final analysis, resulted in his defeat (...). The second bill concerned reciprocity with the US, the old Liberal dream of 1891. Brought to the Commons early in 1911, it provided for the free trade of several natural products and reduced duty for an imposing number of Canadian manufactured products entering the US. Despite the attractions of the plan, it raised the ire of Canadian industrialists and provided a target for the Conservative Party under R.L. BORDEN, who accused the Liberals of disloyalty toward England and of leading the country towards political annexation. To settle the issue the prime minister called a general election and, on 21 September 1911, suffered a bitter defeat. You know what you can do with your "individual sovereignty" or any other Austro-Libertarian philosophy, policy or pipe dream. If one man was to blame for the financial meltdown that many countries around the world are still struggling from it's that Libertarian Greenspan, the former head of the US Federal Reserve. If Harper likes his Libertarian policy so much then let him pack his bags and head south. I heard this catchy tune on a local radio station today, "Steve It's Time to Leave" You can see who has the best chance to beat out the conservative in your riding at the Project Democracy web site. http://www.projectdemocracy.ca/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted April 30, 2011 Report Share Posted April 30, 2011 mikemac-- project democracy shows the candidate from the last election that had the best chance of defeating the Conservatives. The same thing might not be true today. We're wading into uncharted territory with the NDP polling above 30%. Project Democracy is going to do more harm than good. Vote for the party that represents YOU, not against the party that doesn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Who's Doing What? Posted April 30, 2011 Report Share Posted April 30, 2011 Meanwhile I prefer to use my whole 'brian' Good idea to use spell check when insulting someone's intelligence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted April 30, 2011 Report Share Posted April 30, 2011 (edited) Good idea to use spell check when insulting someone's intelligence. brian, apparently, is a word. The spell check doesn't find anything wrong with it. Edited April 30, 2011 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Who's Doing What? Posted April 30, 2011 Report Share Posted April 30, 2011 A party dedicated to the breakup of Canada is treasonous, end of story. These traitors need to be banned from ever poisoning Canada ever again. So we should just throw away a person's right to free speach? If there are enough people in a given area to support a certain view then they have that right to have that view heard. Out-lawing any political party or view is just a disgusting idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted April 30, 2011 Report Share Posted April 30, 2011 (edited) I heard this catchy tune on a local radio station today, "Steve It's Time to Leave" Good song. Edited April 30, 2011 by Molly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Who's Doing What? Posted April 30, 2011 Report Share Posted April 30, 2011 brian, apparently, is a word. The spell check doesn't find anything wrong with it. lol I guess so. Don't use it enough to know. It's just funny when insinuating that someone is stupid that we do something "stoopid." lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted April 30, 2011 Report Share Posted April 30, 2011 A party dedicated to the breakup of Canada is treasonous, end of story. And some is anybody advocating a dictatorial err I mean strong authoritarian government, don't you agree? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.