NDP should focus entirely on the Liberals

mirror · August 18, 2005

Good ole Canadian loser mentality, always afraid of the big bad bully to the South.

Always appeasing the US. This is a coward's mentality.

Enough is enough. This is blatant criminal behaviour on the part of the US. Oh, we're not allowed to say that. We might offend them. CRAP! Canada has been been talking for years over softwood lumber and it is has gotten us nowhere with the bully. We have lost over $5 billion and thousands of jobs doing what the US dictates. The time for Canadian action is now and if we have have to tighten our pocket books for a bit, so be it.

That's why the US went to war because of the appeasing of the Bush administration because too many Americans were afraid to challenge them.

It is time for Canadians to stand up and be counted here.

shoop · August 18, 2005

Good ole Canadian loser mentality, always afraid of the big bad bully to the South.
Always appeasing the US. This is a coward's mentality.

Enough is enough. This is blatant criminal behaviour on the part of the US. Oh, we're not allowed to say that. We might offend them. CRAP! Canada has been been talking for years over softwood lumber and it is has gotten us nowhere with the bully. We have lost over $5 billion and thousands of jobs doing what the US dictates. The time for Canadian action is now and if we have have to tighten our pocket books for a bit, so be it.

That's why the US went to war because of the appeasing of the Bush administration because too many Americans were afraid to challenge them.

It is time for Canadians to stand up and be counted here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yaaaaaaaaawn. More empty rhetoric. What the hell is the States gonna do when we stand up to them? Laugh, probly.....

Behaving maturely and professionally isn't cowardly it is the proper way to get things done.

mirror · August 18, 2005

Yea, your appeaser mentality is sure gonna resoulve things with the US, isn't it!

Like the BSE crisis - how many jobs were lost, and how much did Canada lose over that?

Like the Devil's Lake water diversion - what is going to be the impact on Lake Winnipeg?

SirSpanky · August 18, 2005

Not appeasement buddy, don't put words in my keyboard.

All I said was if we goe toe to toe with em, we'll lose, simply cause they don't care enough. To get them to listen, we need more than us. Perhaps getting some kind of economic coalition. Having a "loser attitude" is picking a fight we won't win. This administration has made it clear that it does what it wants, when it wants. A combo of pressure from allies, and all the legal stuff, I hope will settle some things.

err · August 18, 2005

You say we sell our oil to the Chinese? Ahhh, who bears the huge cost of shipping? Alberta oil producers? Great idea. So Alberta takes it up the arse so Jack Layton can make a stand agianst the U.S. Potential Prime Ministers should at least pretend to represent the entire country.

You think Alberta is somehow being gypped ??? Because of NAFTA, we have to pay through the nose for our own heating gas and oil..... and Alberta is getting all of the profits... like I feel sorry for them....

Do you honestly think the U.S. would give up the softwood lumber duties because of that move? What is to stop them from using that cash to subsidize oil imports?

The USA likes NAFTA... There's only a few cases where there are difficulties with NAFTA, and those are the few products that Canada can produce more efficiently than the USA... softwood lumber, steel, and cedar shingles.... They should give up the softwood lumber duties... They lost their court case wrt these duties... but I think you'll find that Uncle Sam is a big bully... who won't follow the rules.....

Get the point. The U.S. economy is ten times the size of ours. They will win everytime we try and force a pissing contest. Layton is just pandering to retarded reactionaries such as yourself who have no idea about economics, but think Canada is better everytime we 'slap the U.S. in the face.' Grow up!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Like I said, the USA are just big bullies, and they need "suck-ups" like you to bend over for them when they feel like it.... People have no respect for people who don't stand up for themselves....

If the USA won't play by the NAFTA rules, then we shouldn't either... I think Jack's right....

err · August 18, 2005

Yaaaaaaaaawn. More empty rhetoric. What the hell is the States gonna do when we stand up to them? Laugh, probly.....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If we turn off the tap, they'll pay attention. They're willing to let thousands of their own boys die to get their hands on Iraq's oil, and willing to kill hundreds of thousands of foreigners...

mirror · August 18, 2005

Well, it sure sounds like the NDP are preparing for the Fall session:

Article

A substantial increase in the federal child tax benefit and a bigger international assistance budget are emerging as key conditions of further NDP support for Prime Minister Paul Martin's Liberal minority government.

It is really gratifying to hear at least one political party not saying ME, ME, ME, all the time, and thinking of people that need assistance the most.

err · August 18, 2005

Article
A substantial increase in the federal child tax benefit and a ....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, they had a decent federal child tax benefit as part of their platform last election and didn't promote it that well... It looked like a really decent package ... Some of our conservative friends might not like it... unless they have kids....

shoop · August 19, 2005

If we turn off the tap, they'll pay attention. They're willing to let thousands of their own boys die to get their hands on Iraq's oil, and willing to kill hundreds of thousands of foreigners...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How exactly would we turn off the tap?

What about the thousands of Canadians thrown out of work by doing so?

How would we replace the loss of income to the Canadian treasury?

Do you honestly think the United States is going to back down in the face of Canadian belligerence?

They are bigger and tougher than us. Best not to try and get in a pissing match with the U.S. or we will lose every time. If we sink to that level the U.S. is totally justified in doing so in return.

But if we maintain professionalism and courtesy in the relationship then perhaps we can arrive at an agreement that leaves both sides happy.

mirror · August 20, 2005

err...........I think blocking the sale of Terasen Gas might catch their attention.

Then a tax to be paid by the purchaser on any oil and gas exported to the US. The tax could go towards helping the thousands of people that have been deprived of their employment since the US started this criminal tariff on our softwood lumber exports to the US. Any time they screw around with our trade agreements in future we could just ratchet up the percentage of the export tax. The oil situation is so tight it would not take very much to have a significant impact almost immediately.

And in the meantime we should start to diversify our trade with other countries than the US. China I am quite sure would be very happy to purchase our oil.

err · August 20, 2005

How exactly would we turn off the tap?

Taxes.... exactly like what they're doing with to our softwood lumber.... contrary to the NAFTA agreement.... It shouldn't be hard to find another buyer for our oil.... not hard at all, given today's prices.

What about the thousands of Canadians thrown out of work by doing so?
How would we replace the loss of income to the Canadian treasury?

As funny as you may think it at first, they need us.... What will they do... They can't invade Canada.... They can hurt us economically for a short time, but not without further hurting themselves.... and God forbid, have us get into bed with China or another large power instead of relying on Uncle Sam as our major trading partner... And we actually have all of the resources to be self sufficient.... they don't...

Do you honestly think the United States is going to back down in the face of Canadian belligerence?
They are bigger and tougher than us. Best not to try and get in a pissing match with the U.S. or we will lose every time. If we sink to that level the U.S. is totally justified in doing so in return.

But if we maintain professionalism and courtesy in the relationship then perhaps we can arrive at an agreement that leaves both sides happy.

Are you actually saying we should smile politely, turn around, and bend over... I don't think so... If you don't stand up for yourself when you're right, then who will.

Further, the USA would never risk losing the NAFTA agreement... the one that allows them to rape our country of a lot more than it's natural resources... We are actually big losers in NAFTA, so the threat of ending it is scarier to the USA than it should be to Canada.

We have stuff they want and need (oil, various other natural resources, a 'buddy' that helps look after their undefended border, etc...) If we don't recognize this, we are not in a negtiating position at all, but rather are in the bending over position...

shoop · August 20, 2005

As funny as you may think it at first, they need us.... What will they do... They can't invade Canada.... They can hurt us economically for a short time, but not without further hurting themselves.... and God forbid, have us get into bed with China or another large power instead of relying on Uncle Sam as our major trading partner... And we actually have all of the resources to be self sufficient.... they don't...

Let's look at the 'hurting' involved. To draw a physical analogy they could punch us so hard as to put us into a coma, but they would break a few fingers in doing so. While lying in our hospital bed recovering we could take solace in the fact that at least those buggers were injured in the attack. What a tremendous moral victory. :rolleyes:

Their economy is TEN TIMES the size of ours.The answer is shrewdness, not belligerence.

Are you actually saying we should smile politely, turn around, and bend over... I don't think so... If you don't stand up for yourself when you're right, then who will.
We have stuff they want and need (oil, various other natural resources, a 'buddy' that helps look after their undefended border, etc...) If we don't recognize this, we are not in a negtiating position at all, but rather are in the bending over position...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

By 'turning off the taps' we are not in a negotiating position at all. Deal with them professionally, not like children.

ps, what's with the 'bend over' references? Can't such thinly-veiled homophobia get your anti-globalization leftie card revoked? :unsure:

mcqueen625 · August 20, 2005

Layton calls for energy tax on exports to the US to conter the softwood lumber duties imposed by the US.
I agree. It is time to play hardball with these Yankees.

And where is Ralph Klein on this issue? I remember him stating we should all stick together during the BSE crisis.

Canada suspends softwood talks with U.S.

Finance Minister Ralph Goodale said Washington has to understand that "Canada takes this very, very seriously."'
NDP Leader Jack Layton has said Canada must play "hardball" with the Americans by imposing export charges on oil and gas. Otherwise, he said, the United States won't take the issue seriously.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wake up Mirror! The reality is that the Canadian economy is totally controlled by the U.S. since most of our major industries are either owned outright or are controlled by the U.S. Layton acts as if we can operate independent of the United States and he is totally out of touch with the real world. He would quickl;y find that out if he was ever to be elected to govern, and that is not likely to happen. We are socialist enough already with successive Liberal governments. The only thing this has gained Canada is dependence on government for just about everything, and as a result of that mindset we continue to lose freedom of choice, and our government bureaucracy continues to be one of the fastest growing segments of our society. The more control government has the more it will cost to operate the bureaucracy to support it, and the less disposable income that will be available for the citizens to purchase the necessities of life. If we keep on we will be just handed a pay-stub on payday, and government will give us whatever they feel we need to survive. We will end up like Russia and the other communist countries where everyone works for the State. The Liberal's are that different than the NDP in that respect.

err · August 20, 2005

Let's look at the 'hurting' involved. To draw a physical analogy they could punch us so hard as to put us into a coma, but they would break a few fingers in doing so. While lying in our hospital bed recovering we could take solace in the fact that at least those buggers were injured in the attack. What a tremendous moral victory.
Their economy is TEN TIMES the size of ours.The answer is shrewdness, not belligerence.

They need our oil... They're willing to spend billions and billions to get their hands on Iraq's oil... and they've got a guaranteed access to ours through NAFTA. However, the neighbourhood bullies think NAFTA's good only when it works entirely in their own favour... So lets play their own game... TAX the OIL...

Do you think it's fair that they don't have to play by the rules, and we do ??? We have cards to play, so lets play them...

By 'turning off the taps' we are not in a negotiating position at all. Deal with them professionally, not like children.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think it is a wonderful bargaining position.... We have something they're willing to kill for... restricting access until they follow the rules... what's so childish about that....

Unions go on strike and get raises (and other benefits) for their members. If they didn't... do you think that companies would voluteer the same benefits for their employees if the employees had acted "professionally" as you would call it... You're naive if you really think so...

err · August 20, 2005

The reality is that the Canadian economy is totally controlled by the U.S. since most of our major industries are either owned outright or are controlled by the U.S.

Did you mean by COMPANIES in the USA ??.. American Companies that have great access to Canada and its resources throug NAFTA ??... You know, that agreement that the USA follows only when it is in their favour...

We are socialist enough already with successive Liberal governments. The only thing this has gained Canada is dependence on government for just about everything, and as a result of that mindset we continue to lose freedom of choice, and our government bureaucracy continues to be one of the fastest growing segments of our society. The more control government has the more it will cost to operate the bureaucracy to support it, and the less disposable income that will be available for the citizens to purchase the necessities of life.

You say that we have a loss of freedom of choice... In some cases, you may be right... In the USA, they can choose to cough up enough for health care, or just die when they get sick... Maybe just go bankrupt.... If those are the kinds of choices you want, well we're not with you on those ones... There's a huge list of things that make Canada a better place to live than the USA.... I think that you'll find that the citizens of the USA would rather have our health care and social safety net...

(I think perhaps you've been reading too much neo-con tripe)

If we keep on we will be just handed a pay-stub on payday, and government will give us whatever they feel we need to survive. We will end up like Russia and the other communist countries where everyone works for the State. The Liberal's are that different than the NDP in that respect.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The "commie" argument show how many card you have left....

shoop · August 20, 2005

They need our oil... They're willing to spend billions and billions to get their hands on Iraq's oil... and they've got a guaranteed access to ours through NAFTA. However, the neighbourhood bullies think NAFTA's good only when it works entirely in their own favour... So lets play their own game... TAX the OIL...
Do you think it's fair that they don't have to play by the rules, and we do ??? We have cards to play, so lets play them...

Yes, we do have cards to play. But let's play to win. Taxing the oil hurts us more than it hurts the U.S. Sure they will still take some of their oil from Canada, but they will cut back on how much. Besides, what's to stop the U.S. from using that money to 'buy' a more stable oil supply from Venezuela?

The belligerence of the Martin regime has strained the Canada-U.S. relationship. Let's avoid confrontation and work constructively.

I think it is a wonderful bargaining position.... We have something they're willing to kill for... restricting access until they follow the rules... what's so childish about that....

The unquestioned 'truth' that the U.S. is willing to "kill" for oil.

You're naive if you really think so...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Please don't attack me personally. Greg has laid out the rules of the forum repeatedly.

err · August 20, 2005

Yes, we do have cards to play. But let's play to win. Taxing the oil hurts us more than it hurts the U.S. Sure they will still take some of their oil from Canada, but they will cut back on how much. Besides, what's to stop the U.S. from using that money to 'buy' a more stable oil supply from Venezuela?

It's not like we'll have trouble finding another buyer for our oil.... And with all the efforts they are putting forth to assure themselves of a steady supply... I think they'd stand up to attention fairly quickly if we were to threaten their supply...

The belligerence of the Martin regime has strained the Canada-U.S. relationship. Let's avoid confrontation and work constructively.

I think we need Martin to act more like Trudeau, and stand up to the USA a lot more than he has...

I think it is a wonderful bargaining position.... We have something they're willing to kill for... restricting access until they follow the rules... what's so childish about that....
The unquestioned 'truth' that the U.S. is willing to "kill" for oil.

They don't mind killing their own for oil... It's what IRAQ is about.... didn't you know ???

shoop · August 20, 2005

It's not like we'll have trouble finding another buyer for our oil.... And with all the efforts they are putting forth to assure themselves of a steady supply... I think they'd stand up to attention fairly quickly if we were to threaten their supply...

How much will the added costs of getting the oil to your "prospective new buyers" be? What will the legal costs be when U.S. companies sue Canadian companies for breaking supply contracts? Who will pay these costs?

I think we need Martin to act more like Trudeau, and stand up to the USA a lot more than he has...

That would be great ... for the Conservatives. Piss off the Americans to the point where the start being really nasty. That would probably tip the balance away from the Liberals. Enough to get Martin out of the PMO....

They don't mind killing their own for oil... It's what IRAQ is about.... didn't you know ???

Again, I miss the self-evident nature of your reasoning.

err "The Iraq war is about oil." shoop "Why do you say that?" err "Because it is!"

I applaud the well-constructed and laid out argument on that one.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

err · August 20, 2005

How much will the added costs of getting the oil to your "prospective new buyers" be? What will the legal costs be when U.S. companies sue Canadian companies for breaking supply contracts? Who will pay these costs?

I think Chinese translators are fairly economical. The big supply contract that you're worried about is NAFTA..... you know, that deal under which there aren't supposed to be any softwood lumber duties....

I think we need Martin to act more like Trudeau, and stand up to the USA a lot more than he has...

That would be great ... for the Conservatives. Piss off the Americans to the point where the start being really nasty. That would probably tip the balance away from the Liberals. Enough to get Martin out of the PMO....

And what nasties do you think Uncle Sam will have for us... more softwood lumber taxes ???

They don't mind killing their own for oil... It's what IRAQ is about.... didn't you know ???

Again, I miss the self-evident nature of your reasoning.

err "The Iraq war is about oil." shoop "Why do you say that?" err "Because it is!"

I applaud the well-constructed and laid out argument on that one.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And I am amazed at your ability to look at what's going on in the middle east and completely miss the point...

Were there weapons of mass destruction... no... and they knew it... They wouldn't have attacked if they thought he did.... They knew he used all of the biological weapons that the USA provided Saddam on the Iranians... And he didn't have any at the end of the first war....

Did they (the USA) think Saddam was an awful tyrant, gassing his own people with the helecopters that the USA provided for that expressed purpose... (Ie... did they suddenly feel bad they helped him kill his own ???)

Did they not like the fact that the guy they installed in charge of Iraq was a dictator...

There's so much evidence out there if you care to take your blinders off...

I recommend "It's the Crude, Dude" by Linda McQuaig if you really want to know about Iraq... and the USA's intentions there.....

August1991 · August 20, 2005

Did you mean by COMPANIES in the USA ??.. American Companies that have great access to Canada and its resources throug NAFTA ??... You know, that agreement that the USA follows only when it is in their favour...

I find it truly ironic that you bemoan NAFTA because it allows Americans easy access to our natural resources, but then when Americans don't buy our natural resources (softwood lumber), you get upset.

According to you, the US government has done a good thing by imposing duties on Canadian softwood lumber. This creates an economic barrier between our two countries and makes trade more difficult. I would have thought you would approve of that.

mirror · August 20, 2005

We have signed a trade agreement and we keep our word. Why doesn't the US do the same? Even our dumbass Canadian negotiators like Richie who negotiated this agreement has said that he never would have supported NAFTA if he thought the Americans would not live up to what they agreed to. The US is going to pay back those CRIMINAL softwood lumber duties or NAFTA will be ripped up by Canada. It's as simple as that. And the sooner we start selling anything we export somewhere else than the US the better off all Candians will be. We should start by opening up negotiations with CHINA over our oil exports.

err · August 20, 2005

Did you mean by COMPANIES in the USA ??.. American Companies that have great access to Canada and its resources throug NAFTA ??... You know, that agreement that the USA follows only when it is in their favour...
I find it truly ironic that you bemoan NAFTA because it allows Americans easy access to our natural resources, but then when Americans don't buy our natural resources (softwood lumber), you get upset.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't approve of NAFTA at all. Not one tiny little bit. However, being as Mr. Mulroney got us into this deal, where the surface of the iceberg is the taxation portion, we are obliged to live with it. Even though we got the shit end of the stick, we've been committed to following its rules. Now the United States, who has the upper hand decides they don't want to follow the rules in one of the few areas where Canada can actually benefit from the deal...

I would love to see NAFTA scrapped over this little argument, but there's no way the USA will allow that to happen.... It guarantees them our oil, even if there's not enough left for us...(and we all know they like oil)

If they get to win 39 times out of 40, and don't accept the rules in the one game we win at... I'm sorry... there's a lot of pejorative terms for players like that...

August1991 · August 20, 2005

err, I think you've missed my point.

I don't approve of NAFTA at all.

If you don't approve of NAFTA, then you must be in favour of barriers to trade between Canada and the US. Well, the US government has done precisely that, imposed a barrier to trade. You should applaud.

August 20, 2005

That does not folow, August> Before NAFTA an FTA, there was very nearly Free Trade between Canada and the US. There was just not all the other provisions designed to let the US loose in our economy and to increase its controlling interest.

I believe that err is right in the whoke thrust of his argument. It is not possible to negotiate with one who will not play by the rules. Even if it were, it is not possible to negotiate by running away from the issue.

It is also high time that we did diversify. That way we will not be hit quite so hard in the rapidly approaching American depression.

Diefenbaker had that one right.

August1991 · August 20, 2005

It is also high time that we did diversify. That way we will not be hit quite so hard in the rapidly approaching American depression.

Once again, to be consistent, you should be happy with the US imposing this duty on softwood lumber. It encourages Canada to sell its softwood lumber elsewhere.

You can't on one hand argue that Canada should trade less with the US (presumably to diversify elsewhere) and then on the other hand get upset when the US government makes it difficult for us to trade with Americans. The arguments are inconsistent.

The same inconsistency belies the arguments that Americans should not be able to come up here and buy our "cheap" water (oil, natural resources, whatever) but then Americans are "unfair" when they will not come up here and buy our "cheap" lumber. It makes no sense.