Argus Posted December 29, 2004 Report Posted December 29, 2004 As opposed to the past of whom? Russia? China? Britain? France? Spain? What other country which had world wide interests was "nicey dicey"? Which was kinder than the Americans have been towards foreigners? CANADA Canada has always been an insignificant country with no influence beyond our borders and no "world wide interests". As to our internal affairs, you might give a look to how we used to treat various peoples, from the natives to the Jews, French, Chinese, Irish, Blacks, etc. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted December 29, 2004 Report Posted December 29, 2004 Change does not come quickly without a lot of unnecessary bloodshed. It does not come from shunning and isolating a country. Change comes when we have interaction in trade, technologie and ideas.I find it interesting how all the lefties now believe that you cause change by interaction, but not that long ago they were implacable in their demand for sanctions against South Africa and Rhodesia. As someone who opposed those sanctions at the time I can testify to how furious any lefty or liberal was with any reasons whatsoever for defending trade with or investment in the apartheid countries.I wonder if it's because China is Communist, and the old lefties still harbour a soft spot in their hearts for Communism. The USA is changing, too. And not for the best. Democratic rights are disappearing and international laws and agreements ignored. I would rather hook my star to an improving nation rather than a falling one that may drag us down too.Which democratic rights are disappearing in the United States? Which democratic rights are appearing in China? I see zero sign of improvement in China. It is as much a murderous dictatorship as it ever was. There is no freedom whatsoever and no sign of any coming over the horizon. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted December 29, 2004 Report Posted December 29, 2004 China might not be like in Mao's days but it is still a vicious, brutal and now thoroughly corrupt dictatorship with no respect for human rights whatsoever. Sounds like the Bush regime Bush was legally elected to office. It's odd people will defend rogue regimes who take power by the gun and then attack Bush for being illegitimate. Little hypocrisy there, no? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Guest eureka Posted December 29, 2004 Report Posted December 29, 2004 It was the "Right" that wanted South Africa kicked out of the Commonwealth. As for what democratic rights are disappearing in the US, read the papers virtually every day of the week. It should not be necessary to talk of the Patriot Act again. Only a Bush family member or sycophant could ignore that. Quote
Argus Posted December 29, 2004 Report Posted December 29, 2004 It was the "Right" that wanted South Africa kicked out of the Commonwealth.Nonsense. It was African nations, mostly. It was the Left which was bananas over sanctions and such, the same left which wants to make kissy faces with Communist China.As for what democratic rights are disappearing in the US, read the papers virtually every day of the week. It should not be necessary to talk of the Patriot Act again. Only a Bush family member or sycophant could ignore that.Give me specifics, please. What democratic rights are disappearing? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
I miss Reagan Posted December 29, 2004 Report Posted December 29, 2004 Give me specifics, please. What democratic rights are disappearing? I think the answer to this question is the terrorists democratic rights. I think what they'd like us to believe is that the US has become, as they say, "a police state". From the picture the ACLU types paint I would expect a scene of FBI and ATF agents standing outside everyone's doors ready to knock them down any second. Quote "Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war." -Karl Rove
Black Dog Posted December 29, 2004 Report Posted December 29, 2004 It was the Left which was bananas over sanctions and such, the same left which wants to make kissy faces with Communist China. Does the straw man manufacturing business pick up much over the holidays? Who are these people "making kissy faces" with China? Is it the left? Or is it the corporations and governments who depend on China as a market for cheap goods, and a supplier of cheap labour? It was not the left who awarded China "favoured nation" trading status in the wake of Tianamen Square. Really: how can one talk about the "left" so much and yet completely fail to identify who they are? Why it's almost as if "the left" in this case is a mythical creation, a figment of someone's imagination... Quote
caesar Posted December 30, 2004 Author Report Posted December 30, 2004 Actually, BC is pursuing trade with China and they are an extreme right wing government. With right wing it is completely "where the money is" However in this I agree as the USA is not playing by the rules in trade relation we need other trading partners. China is not invading or bullying anyone other than a little pressure on Taiwan which Canada and the USA do not recognize. Right wing American government officials are, also, pursuing the Chinese moolah. Quote
Guest eureka Posted December 30, 2004 Report Posted December 30, 2004 It was Diefenbaker who led the charge to have South Africa expelled from the Commonwealth. With that came many sanctions and the loss of Commonwealth preferences. Quote
caesar Posted December 30, 2004 Author Report Posted December 30, 2004 think the answer to this question is the terrorists democratic rights. I think what they'd like us to believe is that the US has become, as they say, "a police state". From the picture the ACLU types paint I would expect a scene of FBI and ATF agents standing outside everyone's doors ready to knock them down any second Not yet but getting closer everyday. Quote
Newfie Canadian Posted February 10, 2005 Report Posted February 10, 2005 So it begins? According to the Globe: The federal government will ask the World Trade Organization for authority to retaliate against at least $4.1-billion in U.S. imports over American non-compliance with WTO rulings on softwood lumber. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...Story/National/ Quote "If you don't believe your country should come before yourself, you can better serve your country by livin' someplace else." Stompin' Tom Connors
August1991 Posted February 10, 2005 Report Posted February 10, 2005 By imposing softwood lumber duties, the Americans are hitting their own head with a hammer. Now, in return, we are threatening to hit our head with hammer. And the Globe & Mail calls this "retaliation"? I call it self-mutilation. If the American government wants to be stupid, I supposed that is its right. But it's no reason for our government to be stupid also. Quote
caesar Posted February 10, 2005 Author Report Posted February 10, 2005 Not at all; We must fight fire with fire. If we want to trade fairly with the bullying USA; we have to stand up to the bully. Quote
Newfie Canadian Posted February 10, 2005 Report Posted February 10, 2005 I'm not opposed to hitting the US in areas where there are comparble and accessible foreign or domestic entities able to step in should the situation continue for a long time. And let's face it, the US has had ample time to comply with the rules Quote "If you don't believe your country should come before yourself, you can better serve your country by livin' someplace else." Stompin' Tom Connors
August1991 Posted February 10, 2005 Report Posted February 10, 2005 Not at all; We must fight fire with fire. If we want to trade fairly with the bullying USA; we have to stand up to the bully.A trade "war" is unlike a military war. Despite the rhetoric, this is not a "battle" against a "bully"."Fire with fire"? By imposing softwood duties, the US government acted like a man who puts fire to his own house. Would a bully burn down his own house? A really stupid bully might. And the best way to deal with such a stupid bully would be to leave him alone and let him burn down his house if he wants to. The last thing we would want to do is be stupid also and burn down our own house. Quote
caesar Posted February 11, 2005 Author Report Posted February 11, 2005 A trade "war" is unlike a military war. Despite the rhetoric, this is not a "battle" against a "bully"."Fire with fire"? It sure in the heck is. The USA ignores international decisions and to abide by the rules. It thinks that because it used to be wealthy it can make the rules. Same with Bush; He was elected president of the USA ONLY He was not elected as a leader of the world. Quote
moderateamericain Posted February 25, 2005 Report Posted February 25, 2005 sigh...not are greatest moment here. i trully hope that we can turn this around, i believe in fair tade and Nafta must be maintained, i think we have taken are good realtionship with canada for granite, you have a right to be angry over this, and believe me your counterparts to the south arent all jumping on the bandwagon. Quote
August1991 Posted February 25, 2005 Report Posted February 25, 2005 If the entire 27 percent duties are reflected in U.S. prices, and depending on the lumber market, these duties could add between $1,000 and $1,500 to the cost of a new home, pricing as many as 300,000 to 450,000 families out of the housing market. They would not be able to qualify for mortgages. “While $1,500 may not sound like much to some people, for many first-time homeowners and seniors seeking to lower their housing costs in retirement, it is the difference between being able to buy a home for the first time, or not,” she said. US Lobby Group This is what I meant by Americans "burning down their own house". These duties hurt Americans. ModerateYank, thanks for reviving this thread. Quote
caesar Posted February 26, 2005 Author Report Posted February 26, 2005 This is what I meant by Americans "burning down their own house". These duties hurt Americans. Of course, they do. The American government is a conservative one; only concerned with big business and let the consumers pay the price. That is the same type of government that many on this forum support. Well, I am a middle income consumer and I am tired of making the rich richer. If the government is going to grab my money, anyhow, I would prefer that money be spent on health care that all require and to assist those who are handicapped or have health problems( be they mental or physical) that prevent them from making their own way in life. However, I would not want to go so far as to support those who do not take the initiative to work; particularly those who believe they are too good to take a minimum wage job and work their way up. If that is all that is available to them; they should take the position until something better comes along. Quote
moderateamericain Posted February 26, 2005 Report Posted February 26, 2005 This is what I meant by Americans "burning down their own house". These duties hurt Americans. Of course, they do. The American government is a conservative one; only concerned with big business and let the consumers pay the price. That is the same type of government that many on this forum support. Well, I am a middle income consumer and I am tired of making the rich richer. If the government is going to grab my money, anyhow, I would prefer that money be spent on health care that all require and to assist those who are handicapped or have health problems( be they mental or physical) that prevent them from making their own way in life. However, I would not want to go so far as to support those who do not take the initiative to work; particularly those who believe they are too good to take a minimum wage job and work their way up. If that is all that is available to them; they should take the position until something better comes along. i can agree with that because of what you said at the end, only thing is, any time you take a job unless your working directly for the government your always making someone money Quote
ft.niagara Posted February 27, 2005 Report Posted February 27, 2005 I joined this forum in the summer, and of course was drawn to the US Canadian relations forum. You can see I do not have that many posts. At that time there were a handfull of posters, with about three quarters of them American bashers. Now, more than six months later, and the same faces and 1000 posts later, I see the same attitudes. As far as a trade war, do it. I can't wait. Quote
Stoker Posted March 2, 2005 Report Posted March 2, 2005 Judge grants delay of Canada-U.S. cattle trade Is anybody really suprised, what with PM PM's poor handling of BMD? Quote The beaver, which has come to represent Canada as the eagle does the United States and the lion Britain, is a flat-tailed, slow-witted, toothy rodent known to bite off it's own testicles or to stand under its own falling trees. -June Callwood-
caesar Posted March 2, 2005 Author Report Posted March 2, 2005 Is anybody surprised with Bush still in office with his childish tempet tantrums whenever he does not get his own way; whenever Canadian authorities are not kissing his big fat butt. If the USA government will not play fair according to international trade agreements; we have seen how they ignore internatioal laws regarding invading another country"s territories; why would we desire to join them in any type of military alliance. Quote
Stoker Posted March 2, 2005 Report Posted March 2, 2005 Is anybody surprised with Bush still in office with his childish tempet tantrums whenever he does not get his own way; whenever Canadian authorities are not kissing his big fat butt. If the USA government will not play fair according to international trade agreements; we have seen how they ignore internatioal laws regarding invading another country"s territories; why would we desire to join them in any type of military alliance. What agreement have we signed that forces them to take, what they deem, suspect cattle? If the safety record of an American product was in question, wouldn't you want the Canadian government to "protect us" from it? With that being the case, since we refused to sign onto a program that would defend both of our nations, why should the Americans allow Canadian beef? Quote The beaver, which has come to represent Canada as the eagle does the United States and the lion Britain, is a flat-tailed, slow-witted, toothy rodent known to bite off it's own testicles or to stand under its own falling trees. -June Callwood-
B. Max Posted March 2, 2005 Report Posted March 2, 2005 He says he and his federal counterpart are now talking about what kind of retaliation Canada might take if the bill passes. And he says one of the options includes stopping energy exports to the U.S Something like this is all it would take to push albertans over edge to fully support secession. I say, have at her. Quote
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.