Windsor/Detroit bridge is a go!

[guyser]

Canada wants this bridge. Canada does not want to have to deal with the CANADIAN approach to the Ambassador bridge if it were to be improved/expanded upon. As I said, there's all of those traffic lights. Fourteen, I believe. Michigan does not have that problem. Canada has been pushing for a new bridge for ten years, not Michigan, and certainly not the U.S.

Chrysler has beeen pushing for this bridge, they have been vocal about the delays of getting their JIT stuff over and back. Chrsyler says that on average, any car part travels back and forth across this border a dozen times before it goes into a car. Thems som big numbers.

8000 trucks,$12 B a day in goods and I forget the number of cars, but suffice to say...tons!

A delay is a delay, and this solves many of those problems, of which the worst is the 14 traffic lights.

In fact there are only 14 traffic lights from Ottawa boundary all the way to Mexico....and they are all in Windsor.

If Canada wants it, if it serves Canada's needs better, it's only right that Canada do - as Harper has said - "whatever it takes to make it happen." If you expect thanks under those circumstances, there's something wrong with "polite" you.

Obama knows it is needed,(January mtg w Harper) but he has full plate right now and thus hasnt said much.

Plenty of businesses have spoken up about the need for it, the truckers in fact have been most vocal for obvious reason.

If ease of crossing is achieved (and it will) cross border shopping will increase which benefits both sides, though I suspect Detroit more than Windsor.

As for paying the bill, meh...if we have to so be it. The tolls can pay it back. I dont think anyone forgets the straights that Detroit is in( and by extension Michigan as so goes auto goes Mich) and this could be a start to better times. Lord knows the city needs help , but frankly the best thing Detroit could do right now is fire every last city councillor they have including the mayor.

That Kwame thing and his cronies was bad...very bad.The loss of spectacular architecture will haunt Detroit for quite some time.

Edited June 29, 2012 by guyser

[Guest American Woman]

Chrysler has beeen pushing for this bridge, they have been vocal about the delays of getting their JIT stuff over and back. Chrsyler says that on average, any car part travels back and forth across this border a dozen times before it goes into a car. Thems som big numbers.

8000 trucks,$12 B a day in goods and I forget the number of cars, but suffice to say...tons!

"Chrysler" and "the U.S." are two very different things. The fact of the matter is, the U.S. has not been pushing for this bridge the way Canada has. Obama wasn't even part of the agreement; as I've pointed out - that was between Canada's PM and the state governor.

A delay is a delay, and this solves many of those problems, of which the worst is the 14 traffic lights.

And the traffic lights are on Canada's side. The delays could be solved by another span added to the Ambassador Bridge, but that wouldn't solve the problems on Canada's end re: the approach.

In fact there are only 14 traffic lights from Ottawa boundary all the way to Mexico....and they are all in Windsor.

Sounds to me as if you're supporting my point.

Obama knows it is needed,(January mtg w Harper) but he has full plate right now and thus hasnt said much.

As Haper says this is the most important infrastructure that will be carried out during his term. The fact that Obama has more important things on his "full plate" supports what I've been saying - that this is more important to Canada. Surely you don't think that Harper has nothing on his plate. The importance of this issue in Canada speaks of the importance of a new bridge to Canada. A new bridge will mean Canada does not have to deal with the problems on the Canadian side of the Ambassador Bridge. It's easier to build a new bridge. That doesn't mean the same applies to the Michigan side. It doesn't.

Plenty of businesses have spoken up about the need for it, the truckers in fact have been most vocal for obvious reason.

And I've recognized that. But again, it's not truckers in Canada being most vocal about it - it's your PM.

If ease of crossing is achieved (and it will) cross border shopping will increase which benefits both sides, though I suspect Detroit more than Windsor.

In that area, it likely will. But that's hardly a pressing matter to "the U.S." Or to me, for that matter.

As for paying the bill, meh...if we have to so be it. The tolls can pay it back. I dont think anyone forgets the straights that Detroit is in( and by extension Michigan as so goes auto goes Mich) and this could be a start to better times.

Why would a new bridge be more likely to do that than another span on the existing bridge? From Michigan's standpoint.

Lord knows the city needs help , but frankly the best thing Detroit could do right now is fire every last city councillor they have including the mayor.

That Kwame thing and his cronies was bad...very bad.The loss of spectacular architecture will haunt Detroit for quite some time.

Michigan consists of a lot more than Detroit. I sometimes wonder if most people realize that.

[bleeding heart]

Battle the idea , not the person (of which I need to remember sometimes too) and some of you really need to learn this.

Since you're addressing this directly to me, guyser, I would suggest to you that you haven't read her lovely exchanges with me. She candidly informs me that I'm an "asshole," and I have been too civil to return the favour.

Or perhaps this was her being "misinterpreted"?

At any rate, your helpful little lecture is best directed at the poor, misunderstood little victim herself, it would seem.

Edited June 30, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Guest American Woman]

Since you're addressing this directly to me, guyser, I would suggest to you that you haven't read her lovely exchanges with me. She candidly informs me that I'm an "asshole," and I have been too civil to return the favour.

Or perhaps this was her being "misinterpreted"?

At any rate, your helpful little lecture is best directed at the poor, misunderstood little victim herself, it would seem.

Oh. My. God. Still going on about that, are you??

You accused me of - and I quote - thinking "that Norwegian fellow made some really good points!" - end quote- "that Norwegian fellow" being the man who murdered dozens of innocent people. That's a direct quote from you. You even put the quotation marks in, as if that's what I actually said - as it's so far off from anything that I actually said or think that - trust me - I was restraining myself in my response.

My response - and your post - actually confirms what guyser said:

I dont recall a single denigrating post about Canada from AW. She is in fact a frequent visitor to this country and has been quite supportive of plenty of canuck things.

She gets prickly when people are sniping at her for things she either did not say or were misintepreted by some, and frankly that would rile any of us if it occurred as often as it does to her.

[Shady]

It's too bad Obama doesn't have the same urgency regarding the XL pipeline that Harper has regarding the new bridge. Both are big construction/infastructure projects that would greatly benefit the economy, especially now.

[Guest American Woman]

It's too bad Obama doesn't have the same urgency regarding the XL pipeline that Harper has regarding the new bridge. Both are big construction/infastructure projects that would greatly benefit the economy, especially now.

I don't think it's too surprising that Obama would have more concern about the effect it would have in a sensitive environmental area within the States than Harper does. Americans don't expect Harper to look out for their interests, such as drinking water and irrigation; they do, however, expect their President to.

Edited to add: I think it's interesting to note that Harper says the bridge would be the most important infrastructure, placing it above the XL Pipeline.

Edited June 30, 2012 by American Woman

[Shady]

I don't think it's too surprising that Obama would have more concern about the effect it would have in a sensitive environmental area within the States than Harper does. Americans don't expect Harper to look out for their interests, such as drinking water and irrigation; they do, however, expect their President to.

Edited to add: I think it's interesting to note that Harper says the bridge would be the most important infrastructure, placing it above the XL Pipeline.

I think Obama's decision is less about concern and more about politics. It's widely believed that after the election, he'll approve the project right away.

[Guest American Woman]

I think Obama's decision is less about concern and more about politics. It's widely believed that after the election, he'll approve the project right away.

What you think is simply that - what you think. As for what's "widely believed," and if that's true I'm unaware of it, it remains to be seen. Again, it's just people's opinions. So far his actions speak for themselves, and the rest is opinion/speculation at this point.

[bleeding heart]

Oh. My. God. Still going on about that, are you??

Well, you do like to carry on about how others practice bad debating tacts...no doubt you are often correct.

Breaking forum rules, losing all sense of civility, and calling someone with whom you're having a dispute an "asshole" is similarly a bad debating tactic.

You accused me of - and I quote - thinking "that Norwegian fellow made some really good points!" - end quote- "that Norwegian fellow" being the man who murdered dozens of innocent people.

Yeah, I completely agree that this was unneccessary. Obviously you have no more in common with that little degenerate than I do. My bad, and my apologies.

trust me - I was restraining myself in my response.

We all restrain ourselves on these forums...and don't indulge as you did.

So it would appear that you are weak when it comes to restraining yourself. I feel confident that this is your own fault, not mine.

[Guest American Woman]

Apparently I've given you the mistaken impression that I am interested in discussing this with you and/or that your opinion regarding the issue means something to me; nothing could be further from the truth so I will have my say and that will be that.

I explained my position and I stand by it - and I did it for the benefit of presenting your claim factually - ie: in context - to guyser. As I said, it supports his original post. Now if you have a problem with what I said a year ago, I suggest you report it - instead of bringing it up with no context over and over again - under two different registered names.

Edited to add: while you're on your holier-than-thou kick, how about restraining yourself from making false claims about what other people think/say - even going to far as to use quotation marks. Try managing that.

Edited June 30, 2012 by American Woman

[bleeding heart]

Apparently I've given you the mistaken impression that I am interested in discussing this with you and/or that your opinion regarding the issue means something to me; nothing could be further from the truth

Yes, I do have that impression, expressly because you continue to discuss it.

I explained my position and I stand by it - and I did it for the benefit of presenting your claim factually - ie: in context - to guyser. As I said, it supports his original post. Now if you have a problem with what I said a year ago, I suggest you report it

My only problem with it, as is plain from what I've said, is that you are rather sanctimonious about the awful way that others, myself included, debate with you.

I'm merely pointing out that you have no high moral ground to stand on, and so I can't take your wounded victim status seriously.

-

instead of bringing it up with no context over and over again - under two different registered names.

This sounds a little coy; but I've never made any secret about the fact that I used to post under another name, and in I have brought the matter up to several posters, unbidden. There's nothing secret or untoward about it; it's happening only because of some minor glitch when I began posting here again, after several months hiatus...and I decided to keep it as it is.

Edited to add: while you're on your holier-than-thou kick, how about restraining yourself from making false claims about what other people think/say - even going to far as to use quotation marks. Try managing that.

Did you miss my open and explicit apology on exactly this matter?:

Yeah, I completely agree that this was unneccessary. Obviously you have no more in common with that little degenerate than I do. My bad, and my apologies

Even if the apology is not accepted, which of course is your prerogative....it's in bad taste to harp on the subject after the apology has been freely and genuinely offered.

Edited June 30, 2012 by bleeding heart

[cybercoma]

Apparently I've given you the mistaken impression that I am interested in discussing this with you

I'm confused as to why 3 paragraphs follow this statement.

[bleeding heart]

I'm confused as to why 3 paragraphs follow this statement.

So am I, and so is she.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Even if the apology is not accepted, which of course is your prerogative....it's in bad taste to harp on the subject after the apology has been freely and genuinely offered.

Not at all, as that is exactly how this game is played. More arrows for one's quiver.

[bleeding heart]

Not at all, as that is exactly how this game is played. More arrows for one's quiver.

OK.

[Guest American Woman]

bleeding heart, on 30 June 2012 - 11:34 AM, said:....Even if the apology is not accepted, which of course is your prerogative....it's in bad taste to harp on the subject after the apology has been freely and genuinely offered.

Not at all, as that is exactly how this game is played. More arrows for one's quiver.

If there was indeed an apology that was "freely and genuinely offered," I missed it - but it's been hard to miss the dozen or so posts by bloodyminded/bleeding heart throughout the following year, whining about it. If one "freely and genuinely" recognizes that an apology was called for, seems to me one would let it go rather than continue to try to rake me over the coals for it. But what's even more amusing is the accusation that *I* am the one "harping on it" - when he is the one continuously bringing it up. Priceless. Even more priceless since he's continuing to make false accusations/representations about what I think, in this very thread ..........

Edited June 30, 2012 by American Woman

[bleeding heart]

If there was indeed an apology that was "freely and genuinely offered," I missed it

It was today, post #134.

I get it; apology not accepted.

-

If one "freely and genuinely" recognizes that an apology was called for, seems to me one would let it go rather than continue to try to rake me over the coals for it.

After I apologized, you castigated me for what I had already apologized for.

But what's even more amusing is the accusation that *I* am the one "harping on it" - when he is the one continuously bringing it up. Priceless.

After I apologized, you castigated me for what I had already apologized for.

So you were the one "bringing it up."

I don't know why an apology should send you into another paroxysm of mockery.

Edited June 30, 2012 by bleeding heart

[bush_cheney2004]

.... But what's even more amusing is the accusation that *I* am the one "harping on it" - when he is the one continuously bringing it up. Priceless.

Agreed...that's why I don't even pretend to feign such diplomacy...apologies are just another chance to rub it in with dripping sarcasm.

Do Big Horn sheep apologize?

Edited June 30, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[bleeding heart]

Agreed...that's why I don't even pretend to feign such diplomacy

I have seen you act in a dipolomatic manner.

Towards myself, in fact.

This is not a criticism.

...apologies are just another chance to rub it in with dripping sarcasm.

Yes, this is AW's new tactic. But why would anyone wish to do so?

[bush_cheney2004]

I have seen you act in a dipolomatic manner.

Towards myself, in fact.

This is not a criticism.

Again...it doesn't really matter in this game. How you play it is your business, but no such expectation can be demanded from others.

It's no secret that I prefer conflict because of thermodynamic laws.

Yes, this is AW's new tactic. But why would anyone wish to do so?

No, AW has been pretty consistent in such matters, escalating only in kind. I have tangled with her on occasion and lived to tell about it.

[bleeding heart]

Again...it doesn't really matter in this game. How you play it is your business, but no such expectation can be demanded from others.

Sure. I have no objection to your style...even when it is friendly and diplomatic. It's your business, as you say.

No, AW has been pretty consistent in such matters, escalating only in kind.

I hadn't seen it, noting that she claims to object on moral principles to bad debating behaviour. But I defer to your judgement.

[Guest American Woman]

It was today, post #134.

I get it; apology not accepted.

So this quote (from post #134) -

So it would appear that you are weak when it comes to restraining yourself. I feel confident that this is your own fault, not mine.

- is part of your "openly and genuinely offered apology" - that you expect me to accept.

You better believe "apology not accepted."

[bleeding heart]

So this quote (from post #134) -

So it would appear that you are weak when it comes to restraining yourself. I feel confident that this is your own fault, not mine.

- is part of your "openly and genuinely offered apology" - that you expect me to accept.

No...the apology part was the openly and genuinely offered apology. (And I don't "expect" nor care if you accept it, though I'm mildly surprised you did not; I only object to your harping on an issue that I had already claimed responsibility and apologized for. Because that's silly.)

But...you want me to apologize for your faults, too? I should apologize for your calling me an asshole?

I'm not sure that's a reasonable expectation.

You better believe "apology not accepted."

This was already clear, AW. I know that. Did you not read that I understood it?

The apology stands (because it's right, not because I think you must accept it): for asserting your agreement with Breivik, which was obviously unfair, and for using quotation marks in a hypothetical, thus foolishly confusing the issue with a direct quote. Also not fair.

As to the rest: your own bad behaviour is on you, I'm afraid.

Edited June 30, 2012 by bleeding heart

[bush_cheney2004]

...The apology stands (because it's right, not because I think you must accept it): for asserting your agreement with Breivik, which was obviously unfair, and for using quotation marks in a hypothetical, thus foolishly confusing the issue with a direct quote. Also not fair.

Being no expert at such things, I would still propose that any "apology" requiring such lengthy explanation is somewhat flawed. We really want to see you bleed (pun intended).

[Guest American Woman]

No, AW has been pretty consistent in such matters, escalating only in kind.

Thank you. I appreciate you're pointing that out, especially since this

I have tangled with her on occasion and lived to tell about it.

is also true. We have had our disagreements - still do - which is why it cracks me up when posters suggest that we are exactly alike and/or the same person.

One of the biggest things I have to point out re: our past exchanges, in light of my past references to you as an Ugly American, is that I am now all too aware that "Ugly" is not limited to the U.S. - and I understand where you were coming from so much better now.

Edited June 30, 2012 by American Woman