Jump to content

Windsor/Detroit bridge is a go!


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 250
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

...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.

Of course...it works a lot better that way. It's a good cop - bad cop approach and methinks you are the "good cop". :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman
To sum up, it's that you believe (and always have) that........
apologies are just another chance to rub it in with dripping sarcasm

Umm... I didn't say that - or even quote it in any of my responses. You're quoting bush-cheney there - even though it looks, in your post, as if you are quoting me; but thanks for once again claiming what *I* "believe, (and always have)," though. <_<

:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

Of course...it works a lot better that way. It's a good cop - bad cop approach and methinks you are the "good cop". :D

I always seem to be the "good cop" in good cop-bad cop situations. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was today, post #134.

I get it; apology not accepted.

-

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

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.

Because you're being trolled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Umm... I didn't say that - or even quote it in any of my responses. You're quoting bush-cheney there - even though it looks, in your post, as if you are quoting me; but thanks for once again claiming what *I* "believe, (and always have)," though. <_<

:rolleyes:

Of course I was quoting Bush_Cheney and not you; as is perfectly plain:

I don't think you understand the pedigree of the discussion which led to his remark.

You missed this, evidently. Or you have trouble with the complexities of pronouns.

Edited by bleeding heart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

Of course I was quoting Bush_Cheney and not you; as is perfectly plain:

You missed this, evidently. Or you have trouble with the complexities of pronouns.

No, it wasn't perfectly plain - especially since I wasn't even responding to the quote you included. If only there was an option we could use similar to the "ignore" feature that would prevent posters from responding to our posts. I've certainly had my fill of of this type of bullsh*t.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it wasn't perfectly plain - especially since I wasn't even responding to the quote you included. If only there was an option we could use similar to the "ignore" feature that would prevent posters from responding to our posts. I've certainly had my fill of of this type of bullsh*t.

You know, you could always stop responding to him, but you're one of those people that thinks they win if they get the last word in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it wasn't perfectly plain - especially since I wasn't even responding to the quote you included.

:)

That you chose not to include the crucial contextual point in your response--the one that openly clarifies from whom the quote is derived--doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

You're becoming increasingly silly.

Edited by bleeding heart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, while this is true, it's more of an issue for Canada than it is the U.S. Don't you wonder why the U.S. isn't involved the way Canada is?

The building of a bridge which crosses any provincial or international boundary is a federal matter in Canada. That's why it's them and not Ontario. I'm not quite sure how it is in the US but from my observation the federal government only gets involved in building bridges when some politician with power wants to put something expensive in his state. I.e., the bridge to nowhere in Alaska.

The opposition to the group is centered on one man. But he's a billionaire, so that means in the US, where money controls all politics, that he has immense influence He owns the American Taliban (ie the Tea Party) in Michigan, and partly through them he owns most of the Republican party. The bridge would unquestionably be a benefit to a state which is desperately in the hole, and a city which can't even afford to pay for its own street lights. But in American politics, what matters is what the rich want, and the rich, in the person of Manny Maroun, don't want this bridge. That's why it's been delayed so long. Harper finally had to basically offer to pay for everything to make it possible to push it past Moroun's puppets in the Michigan legislature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Argus, I'm surprised you know so much about this. Is this actually national news?

I've read a few articles in the Post or Globe. Not sure where else. Here's one in the Star which is kind of evocative. Star

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read a few articles in the Post or Globe. Not sure where else. Here's one in the Star which is kind of evocative. Star

Thanks. I wasn't aware this was national news.

Frankly, I'm surprised it took this long for the government to reclaim control of Canada's largest border crossing. It's insane to think we've been relying on an uncooperative private party for this long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

The building of a bridge which crosses any provincial or international boundary is a federal matter in Canada. That's why it's them and not Ontario. I'm not quite sure how it is in the US but from my observation the federal government only gets involved in building bridges when some politician with power wants to put something expensive in his state. I.e., the bridge to nowhere in Alaska.

This bridge, being international, will require a presidential permit from Obama.

The opposition to the group is centered on one man.

It's mainly centered on the opposition he is leading, but that doesn't mean the opposition is all in support of him by any means; those who oppose don't all oppose on the same grounds.

But he's a billionaire, so that means in the US, where money controls all politics, that he has immense influence He owns the American Taliban (ie the Tea Party) in Michigan, and partly through them he owns most of the Republican party.

This bridge has been an issue for longer than the Tea Party has been around. I'd like proof, too, that the Tea Party has control in the Michigan legislature.

The bridge would unquestionably be a benefit to a state which is desperately in the hole, and a city which can't even afford to pay for its own street lights.

Please explain to me how a new bridge would be of more benefit to Michigan and Detroit than another span on the Ambassador bridge. Furthermore, while Detroit is hurting, many Michigan cities are thriving. Again. Michigan consists of more than Detroit.

But in American politics, what matters is what the rich want, and the rich, in the person of Manny Maroun, don't want this bridge.

This bridge is an issue in Michigan, so it's not involving "American politics" - as I pointed out, I've heard nothing from Obama pushing his bridge, and the deal was made between Harper and the Michigan governor - as Harper says it's the most important infrastructure to Canada during his term (that would include the XL pipeline) and that he will do whatever it takes to make it happen.

That's why it's been delayed so long.

I'm interested in how long you think it's been delayed.

Harper finally had to basically offer to pay for everything to make it possible to push it past Moroun's puppets in the Michigan legislature.

Obviously you haven't read the legislature's objections, or have chosen to dismiss them. At any rate, since Harper is the one who wants the bridge so badly, it makes sense that he should front the money - which Canada will recoup. Meanwhile, the state loses taxes collected on the Ambassador Bridge tolls.

I'm not saying I'm against the bridge under the terms that have been accepted by Gov. Snyder, but there are more sides to this issue than yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...This bridge is an issue in Michigan, so it's not involving "American politics" - as I pointed out, I've heard nothing from Obama pushing his bridge, and the deal was made between Harper and the Michigan governor - as Harper says it's the most important infrastructure to Canada during his term (that would include the XL pipeline) and that he will do whatever it takes to make it happen.

Agreed...this is an unbalanced deal between the Prime Minister of Canada as well as local Ontario yokels and the governor of one state. Most Americans don't know and don't care about the old bridge or the new bridge.

America builds bigger bridges for lunch. ;)

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

Agreed...this is an unbalanced deal between the Prime Minister of Canada as well as local Ontario yokels and the governor of one state. Most Americans don't know and don't care about the old bridge or the new bridge.

Good or bad, I honestly think the same could be said about most Michiganders.

One would think this is all about Detroit, and as I keep pointing out, Detroit isn't Michigan; Detroit has a population of about 714,000(-) while Michigan has a population of approx. 9,800,000(+).

America builds bigger bridges for lunch. ;)

Interesting quote from the Ottawa Citizen:

Both sides are in agreement the structure must be “iconic.” It must be beautiful, or dramatic, or both, and make a powerful statement. For that I say thank God the Americans are involved because they can be counted on to fill in any dramatic design gaps we Canucks might leave.

Also good to see an article out of Canada acknowledging Michigan fronting money for the Bluewater Bridge (from the Windsor Star):

Michigan's $550-million half share of the cost of the new structure will be repaid to Canada through the U.S. share of the tolls, just as Canada continues to repay Michigan under a similar scheme to twin the Bluewater Bridge over the St. Clair River in 1997.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's mainly centered on the opposition he is leading, but that doesn't mean the opposition is all in support of him by any means; those who oppose don't all oppose on the same grounds.

Yes, actually, they do.

This bridge has been an issue for longer than the Tea Party has been around. I'd like proof, too, that the Tea Party has control in the Michigan legislature.

Maroun controls much of the Republican party. That's pretty bloody obvious. You need proof water is wet too?

Please explain to me how a new bridge would be of more benefit to Michigan and Detroit than another span on the Ambassador bridge.

The purpose of a bridge is to allow traffic to flow freely. Adding a second span to an existing bridge which opens onto a complex series of small roads on either end would be idiotic. Far better to build a bridge which leads to highways.

Furthermore, while Detroit is hurting, many Michigan cities are thriving. Again. Michigan consists of more than Detroit.

Certainly true. What's more, Detroit is fully of darkies. Poor darkies don't vote Republican, so who cares if a bridge will help anyone in that area, right?

Obviously you haven't read the legislature's objections, or have chosen to dismiss them

.

Their objections are that it may damage the monopoly of their patron. I thought that was clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I don't care if the bridge is built or not but, I do care about the amount being spent and where the Tories are getting the money. Radio news said today, that the cost of the bridge and since WE, Canadians taxpayers are paying for it, will come from all the cut backs the government is doing now. another problem I've been told is that HUMMING sound coming from the location where the NEW bridge is to be built. Why? Because if that location is unstable for a steel bridge then another location has to be appointed and it may be next to the Ambassador. I still think for the last two years someone could be tunneling underground there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...