Dougie93 Posted February 2 Report Posted February 2 5 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said: We were worrying about a lot of nonsense that had little quantifiable value. Well we’re going to find out fast what really matters to Canadians. as you know, I have been predicting this outcome for years now Canada was going to gets it comeuppance the Postwar Liberal Order was breaking down America was going to "freeze Canada out" it's not Trump's idea, he is simply doing what Fly Over Country is demanding the Democrats are not Canada's allies, the Democrats ideology has brought Canada to its knees I never endorsed Trump, and I didn't vote for him, but I was rooting for him to win knowing full well what he was going to do, this is not a surprise, this is what Trump said he would do when Canada crushed the Freedom Convoy, I knew it was going to take something on a vastly larger scale to snap Canada out of its stupor with crisis comes opportunity ; chaos is a ladder souls are forged by crucible Canada really did need the MAGA Republicans to try to invade Canada, that is what it was going to take Quote
Queenmandy85 Posted February 2 Report Posted February 2 15 minutes ago, eyeball said: I like Eby's idea about just removing redstate booze from BCLIQUOR's shelves. I hope our Consumer Co-op takes a similar approach when stocking our grocery shelves. Kokanee, not Coors. Molson, not Bud. 1 1 Quote A Conservative stands for God, King and Country
Zeitgeist Posted February 2 Report Posted February 2 1 minute ago, Dougie93 said: as you know, I have been predicting this outcome for years now Canada was going to gets it comeuppance the Postwar Liberal Order was breaking down America was going to "freeze Canada out" it's not Trump's idea, he is simply doing what Fly Over Country is demanding the Democrats are not Canada's allies, the Democrats ideology has brought Canada to its knees I never endorsed Trump, and I didn't vote for him, but I was rooting for him to win knowing full well what he was going to do, this is not a surprise, this is what Trump said he would do when Canada crushed the Freedom Convoy, I knew it was going to take something on a vastly larger scale to snap Canada out of its stupor with crisis comes opportunity ; chaos is a ladder souls are forged by crucible Canada really did need the MAGA Republicans to try to invade Canada, that is what it was going to take Agreed, but a gambler needs to know when to hold em and when to fold em. I’m not sure Trump understands that markets don’t like uncertainty. The U.S. risks no longer being a trusted partner, which has much bigger long term implications than having to find other countries to export our resources and lumber. The blunt instrument tariffs quickly appear as the product of 19th century minds. This isn’t McKinley’s world. Quote
ExFlyer Posted February 2 Report Posted February 2 21 minutes ago, eyeball said: I like Eby's idea about just removing redstate booze from BCLIQUOR's shelves. I hope our Consumer Co-op takes a similar approach when stocking our grocery shelves. Why just "red states"? The US is punishing our entire country not just Liberal provinces. Quote Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.
Dougie93 Posted February 2 Report Posted February 2 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said: Kokanee, not Coors. Molson, not Bud. Molson is owned by Coors, it's MolsonCoors now Kokanee is owned by Anheuser-Busch, Kokanee is Bud Labatt is also owned by Anheuser-Busch, Labatt is also Bud Edited February 2 by Dougie93 1 Quote
ExFlyer Posted February 2 Report Posted February 2 1 hour ago, CdnFox said: That is absolutely not true. ... Yes it is. I went away for a while and can see you are still the A$$hole you were before. LOL Quote Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.
Zeitgeist Posted February 2 Report Posted February 2 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Dougie93 said: Molson is owned by Coors, it's MolsonCoors now Kokanee is also owned by Anheuser-Busch, Kokanee is Bud Labatt is owned by Anheuser-Busch, Labatt is also Bud Local microbreweries. Knowing who makes what is critical in this fight. I’ve suddenly realized I like Moosehead. Edited February 2 by Zeitgeist Quote
Dougie93 Posted February 2 Report Posted February 2 (edited) 40 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said: Agreed I am not partisan ; politically agnostic servant of the British Crown in North America, mercenary for the Sovereign I can't deny that I have been yearning for this war all along my nation is the House of Windsor ; what is best for HM The King ? i don't deny that I am far right but the right is towards the monarch, as Gods representative on Earth Loyalist & Royalist throw Trudeau under the bus; Carney is already purging Trudeau's people from his team now Mark Carney need only go to Buckingham Palace to get my vote Mark Carney has the juice to recruit Charles Windsor I don't really care about carbon taxes and all that noise, I know I will be paying high taxes in Canada no matter what I don't care which party does it first, Conservatives or Liberals whoever goes Churchillian, I will follow them if we're going to war, we need the Commander-in-Chief at the head of his troops Donald Trump is a Head of State, the Prime Minister is not Americans are not impressed by Canadian politicians in the least but make no mistake, Americans are extremely impressed by the Royal Family when Donald Trump went to Paris; the only person he was sucking up to, was HRH The Prince of Wales Edited February 2 by Dougie93 1 Quote
Dougie93 Posted February 2 Report Posted February 2 39 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said: Local microbreweries. Knowing who makes what is critical in this fight. I’ve suddenly realized I like Moosehead. it's too f*cking cold for beer in this weather, it was -16ºC yesterday I smoke & drink outside, on my patio, so in winter, I stick to whisky I do loves me some Bourbon but there is a Canadian alternative Crown Royal Northern Harvest Rye, distilled in Gimli, Manitoba, bottled in Amherstburg, Ontario even tho it's a Rye, it's got a bite like Bourbon, the closest thing there is to Canadian Bourbon World Whisky of the Year 2016 ; Quote
Zeitgeist Posted February 2 Report Posted February 2 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Dougie93 said: it's too f*cking cold for beer in this weather, it was -16ºC yesterday I smoke & drink outside, on my patio, so in winter, I stick to whisky I do loves me some Bourbon but there is a Canadian alternative Crown Royal Northern Harvest Rye, distilled in Gimli, Manitoba, bottled in Amherstburg, Ontario even tho it's a Rye, it's got a bite like Bourbon, the closest thing there is to Canadian Bourbon World Whisky of the Year 2016 ; Actually Canada has a full range of incredible liquor. I had some of the best gin I ever tasted at Toronto’s distillery district. Our whiskies and vodkas are top class. It will be fun to explore the range of Canadian options. My favourite drink is Dillon’s gin and orange-mint. Stellar and located in Niagara. If you get a chance to visit the distillery in Elora, it’s got a phenomenal lounge upstairs and some really unique drinks. Edited February 2 by Zeitgeist Quote
CdnFox Posted February 2 Report Posted February 2 2 hours ago, Zeitgeist said: But don’t forget that statehood does include voting rights, both for the federal government in Washington and for the state’s or states’ legislatures. Does it. I wonder. Quote There’s a lot of value in U.S. citizenship. The complications that would have to be worked out are that certain federal policies wouldn’t have to apply to Canada on matters such as healthcare and gun rights, because the Canadian public would reject giving up those and maybe a few other policies that were federal in Canada. That’s a hard pill for Americans to swallow, especially if some of those things are better than what the U.S. has, such as pharmaceutical costs. Also the Republicans would oppose additional Democrat power. I think that right there would be the biggest one at the end. Because of the college system Ontario and Quebec but once again completely dominate the political landscape and the new state would inevitably go democrat 9 out of 10 elections. Why would trump or the democrats shoot for that? They would be looking to Nerf that in one way or another Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
suds Posted February 2 Report Posted February 2 18 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said: So appeasement is your answer? appeasement: the policy of giving in to a hostile power in an attempt to prevent trouble I don't see the U.S. as a 'hostile power'. I see them as a 'pissed off' power. Security concerns have been a topic of debate between U.S. and Canadian leaders for decades now. So, how would you rate our present government when it comes to such things as border security, national security, defense spending, illegal immigration, maintaining integrity over our electoral process, or the defending/protecting of sovereignty over our arctic territories? What realistic chance have we got defending our arctic against Russian or Chinese military aggression if we don't have the U.S. backing us? Or for that matter, what realistic chance has Denmark got against defending Greenland? Do you not see the pattern here? The U.S. is concerned about the national security of our country and arctic, Greenland, and the Panama Canal where the canal is run by a company with strong ties to the Chinaes government. And then there's the fentanyl problem where Canada 'is no longer just a simple producer of fentanyl but a global exporter'. I don't know about you but I'd give them a failing grade. For the last 4 years our government could have been preparing for the second Trump administration (knowing full well his ways of doing things), and what did they do? Nothing as far as I can see, or do you see things differently? Diplomacy is usually the best bet as an alternative to appeasement or trade wars. Unfortunately the diplomacy ship has sailed largely due in part to our own making. And to think if diplomacy was used on occasion (think Danielle Smith) you're labelled a traitor. Add to the mess we're in, a lame duck leader, and a prorogued Parliament. Ontario is calling for an election that we don't need but why waste a good emergency? In case a lot of Canadians don't realize it, anti-americanism is good for the Liberal Party and it's on a definite uptick. B.C. is calling for bans on certain U.S. exports but only from red states. Of course politics has nothing to do with any of this. We're left staring at mass layoffs, recession, market selloffs, and if our governments are going to start handing out money as I expect they will be (think covid) our debt is going to skyrocket likely bringing on another round of inflation. The only good thing about this is that it's going to take a while for things to take real damaging effect, and maybe will give us enough time to put those who know something about diplomacy back in charge. Your thoughts? 1 Quote
Barquentine Posted February 2 Report Posted February 2 6 minutes ago, Dougie93 said: World Whisky of the Year 2016 Prefer Scotch or good Bourbon but I'd give that Crown Royal a try. Quote
Zeitgeist Posted February 2 Report Posted February 2 (edited) 5 minutes ago, CdnFox said: Does it. I wonder. I think that right there would be the biggest one at the end. Because of the college system Ontario and Quebec but once again completely dominate the political landscape and the new state would inevitably go democrat 9 out of 10 elections. Why would trump or the democrats shoot for that? They would be looking to Nerf that in one way or another Which makes me think the whole threat is a game to extract as much as he can out of a trade deal. We need to take a similarly ridiculous position of removing items from previous trade agreements, such as access to our resources. If we’re going to get screwed we might as well screw back. Energy and resources are our ace in the hole. Trump doesn’t need any of it? Cool and the Gang. We’ll ship to Germany, China, anybody but the U.S. Let’s start with refining our oil and shipping it to Ontario. Cut the price of fuel in half at the pumps. Make Canada affordable for Canadians. Edited February 2 by Zeitgeist Quote
Barquentine Posted February 2 Report Posted February 2 So Trump is mad because the US is "subsidizing" us ? He must be really pissed at Israel. 1 Quote
Dougie93 Posted February 2 Report Posted February 2 1 minute ago, Barquentine said: Prefer Scotch or good Bourbon but I'd give that Crown Royal a try. well my favourite whisky is Lagavulin 16, but it's $175 a bottle Northern Harvest Rye is not like any other Crown Royal tho it's the only Canadian whisky to ever win World Whisky of the Year https://www.whiskybible.com/whiskybibleawards2016/ and it's only $37 a bottle ; value pick 1 Quote
CdnFox Posted February 2 Report Posted February 2 5 minutes ago, suds said: appeasement: the policy of giving in to a hostile power in an attempt to prevent trouble I don't see the U.S. as a 'hostile power'. I see them as a 'pissed off' power. Security concerns have been a topic of debate between U.S. and Canadian leaders for decades now. No it hasn't. When did Biden ever bring it up? Or Obama, point to all those news Articles where Obama was complaining about our spending with NATO. Or bush before him. If the Americans had a serious issue about that they could easily have said at any time " Hey, come sit down and talk we have to work this out or there will be serious ramifications". Then there's diplomacy and things get hammered out. They could have even made it part of the previous trade negotiations. The fact is most of the drugs are crossing at US border crossings. That's got nothing to do with us, we don't man those borders we certainly don't track vehicles leaving the country. That's their job. This is all bullshit smoking mirrors it's that simple. Trump wants something else. Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
Zeitgeist Posted February 2 Report Posted February 2 (edited) 14 minutes ago, CdnFox said: No it hasn't. When did Biden ever bring it up? Or Obama, point to all those news Articles where Obama was complaining about our spending with NATO. Or bush before him. If the Americans had a serious issue about that they could easily have said at any time " Hey, come sit down and talk we have to work this out or there will be serious ramifications". Then there's diplomacy and things get hammered out. They could have even made it part of the previous trade negotiations. The fact is most of the drugs are crossing at US border crossings. That's got nothing to do with us, we don't man those borders we certainly don't track vehicles leaving the country. That's their job. This is all bullshit smoking mirrors it's that simple. Trump wants something else. Exactly. Let’s not forget that the U.S. has pissed off a lot of countries over the decades. There’s an argument to be made that Canada doesn’t need to spend money on the military because we shouldn’t be supporting America’s colonial wars. It’s all rhetoric to extract money from Canada. Our leaders should start by handing a piece of paper with their first offer in all trade negotiations being a zero with a line through it. It’s the Mr. Burns approach. That’s exactly what Trump is doing now, making up loads of BS about border security on the northern border and trade deficits as he gets our oil at fire sale prices. We just spent $1.3 billion on border stuff and it didn’t do anything to reduce tariffs. Edited February 2 by Zeitgeist Quote
Dougie93 Posted February 2 Report Posted February 2 (edited) 40 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said: . That’s exactly what Trump is doing now, making up loads of BS about border security on the northern border and trade deficits as he gets our oil at fire sale prices. the national security rubric is simply to allow Trump to get around the courts everything Trump is doing is under the auspices of National Security State of Emergency this allows him to operate under the President's Article II War Powers but the Trump plan to use tariffs to overthrow Neoliberal Globalism Trump didn't just pull all of this out of his ass the Trump plan has actually been written by economist Stephen Miran "Currently a senior strategist at Hudson Bay Capital Management LP and a fellow at the Manhattan Institute in New York City, Miran holds a PhD in economics from Harvard University and his dissertation advisor was Martin Feldstein, an eminent American economist who chaired the CEA during the Reagan administration." https://financialpost.com/news/stephen-miran-economist-trump-economic-advisory-team point being, while Canadians are thinking that Trump is just crazy and has no plan here Trump actually has a very well developed plan, and it's the main event of his 2nd term so thinking that Trump is going to cave the moment Americans start complaining about it that's not a given, Trump is aware that this plan is going to be very disruptive that's the whole point, this is an attempt to reorder things at the global level so this war could go on much longer than Canadians are expecting right now Trump's intention is to make all of this structural, enduring, permanent that's why he invoked Canada as the 51st State he means that if Canada can't handle this plan being imposed forever then becoming the 51st State will be Canada's only option Edited February 2 by Dougie93 Quote
suds Posted February 2 Report Posted February 2 (edited) 43 minutes ago, CdnFox said: No it hasn't. When did Biden ever bring it up? Or Obama, point to all those news Articles where Obama was complaining about our spending with NATO. Or bush before him. If the Americans had a serious issue about that they could easily have said at any time " Hey, come sit down and talk we have to work this out or there will be serious ramifications". Then there's diplomacy and things get hammered out. They could have even made it part of the previous trade negotiations. The fact is most of the drugs are crossing at US border crossings. That's got nothing to do with us, we don't man those borders we certainly don't track vehicles leaving the country. That's their job. This is all bullshit smoking mirrors it's that simple. Trump wants something else. In 2011, Obama and the Harper administration signed a deal to increase trade cooperation on addressing security concerns and reducing trade barriers. So even back then, national security played an important role for opening borders to another country for trade purposes. Makes sense so far doesn't it? But the most profound statement made about the deal was made by Liberal leader Bob Rae who said.... "It's a bunch of pilot projects, it talks about improving co-operation with respect to certain things, but frankly I don't see the kind of changes that are going to be necessary to ensure that we continue to have strong, unharassed access to the U.S. market". As for Biden, his administration left the southern border completely open for his 4 years in office. As for the fentanyl, Canada is now in the business of exporting the drug and not just using it domestically. Should we not be a bit concerned about that either? Edited February 2 by suds Quote
suds Posted February 2 Report Posted February 2 33 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said: Exactly. Let’s not forget that the U.S. has pissed off a lot of countries over the decades. There’s an argument to be made that Canada doesn’t need to spend money on the military because we shouldn’t be supporting America’s colonial wars. It’s all rhetoric to extract money from Canada. Our leaders should start by handing a piece of paper with their first offer in all trade negotiations being a zero with a line through it. It’s the Mr. Burns approach. That’s exactly what Trump is doing now, making up loads of BS about border security on the northern border and trade deficits as he gets our oil at fire sale prices. We just spent $1.3 billion on border stuff and it didn’t do anything to reduce tariffs. Yeah, the world's hegemon (and policeman) usually has a habit of pissing off certain countries from time to time. Personally, I'm glad it's the U.S. and not Russia or China. So, this argument you're referring to about Canada not needing to spend money on military because we shouldn't be supporting U.S. foreign wars is made by who exactly?? Canada is a member of Nato who wants to be a member on the cheap. Where do you get this silly nonsense from?? Quote
SpankyMcFarland Posted February 2 Report Posted February 2 (edited) 1 hour ago, suds said: appeasement: the policy of giving in to a hostile power in an attempt to prevent trouble I don't see the U.S. as a 'hostile power'. I see them as a 'pissed off' power. Security concerns have been a topic of debate between U.S. and Canadian leaders for decades now. So, how would you rate our present government when it comes to such things as border security, national security, defense spending, illegal immigration, maintaining integrity over our electoral process, or the defending/protecting of sovereignty over our arctic territories? What realistic chance have we got defending our arctic against Russian or Chinese military aggression if we don't have the U.S. backing us? Or for that matter, what realistic chance has Denmark got against defending Greenland? Do you not see the pattern here? The U.S. is concerned about the national security of our country and arctic, Greenland, and the Panama Canal where the canal is run by a company with strong ties to the Chinaes government. And then there's the fentanyl problem where Canada 'is no longer just a simple producer of fentanyl but a global exporter'. I don't know about you but I'd give them a failing grade. For the last 4 years our government could have been preparing for the second Trump administration (knowing full well his ways of doing things), and what did they do? Nothing as far as I can see, or do you see things differently? Diplomacy is usually the best bet as an alternative to appeasement or trade wars. Unfortunately the diplomacy ship has sailed largely due in part to our own making. And to think if diplomacy was used on occasion (think Danielle Smith) you're labelled a traitor. Add to the mess we're in, a lame duck leader, and a prorogued Parliament. Ontario is calling for an election that we don't need but why waste a good emergency? In case a lot of Canadians don't realize it, anti-americanism is good for the Liberal Party and it's on a definite uptick. B.C. is calling for bans on certain U.S. exports but only from red states. Of course politics has nothing to do with any of this. We're left staring at mass layoffs, recession, market selloffs, and if our governments are going to start handing out money as I expect they will be (think covid) our debt is going to skyrocket likely bringing on another round of inflation. The only good thing about this is that it's going to take a while for things to take real damaging effect, and maybe will give us enough time to put those who know something about diplomacy back in charge. Your thoughts? If a neighbouring friendly country has a problem with our policies, the normal, civilized way for rule of law democracies to start addressing the issues would be to engage in negotiations over them through the usual channels. That’s what the US has been preaching to other countries since 1945. Giving into a bully is appeasement. The US under Trump is hostile to our economic interests. He wants to damage our economy in the short-term through tariffs and long-term by forcing companies to leave here. He has a primitive, mercantilist view of economics. Edited February 2 by SpankyMcFarland Quote
CdnFox Posted February 2 Report Posted February 2 1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said: Which makes me think the whole threat is a game to extract as much as he can out of a trade deal. We need to take a similarly ridiculous position of removing items from previous trade agreements, such as access to our resources. If we’re going to get screwed we might as well screw back. Energy and resources are our ace in the hole. Trump doesn’t need any of it? Cool and the Gang. We’ll ship to Germany, China, anybody but the U.S. Let’s start with refining our oil and shipping it to Ontario. Cut the price of fuel in half at the pumps. Make Canada affordable for Canadians. We are on the same page. I believe he is moving to negotiate a new trade deal that is extremely favorable to him and at the same time attempt to pressure companies into moving their production back to the states by pointing out that a war could flare up again anytime in the future and they're exposed if they have their production in Canada. I believe that's also the case with Mexico. He will be looking for some concessions from china as well but it's interesting to note that they only got 10%, indicating that he doesn't feel he has the same level of leverage over them or doesn't want their manufacturing jobs as much Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
Army Guy Posted February 2 Report Posted February 2 39 minutes ago, CdnFox said: No it hasn't. When did Biden ever bring it up? Or Obama, point to all those news Articles where Obama was complaining about our spending with NATO. Or bush before him. If the Americans had a serious issue about that they could easily have said at any time " Hey, come sit down and talk we have to work this out or there will be serious ramifications". Then there's diplomacy and things get hammered out. They could have even made it part of the previous trade negotiations. The fact is most of the drugs are crossing at US border crossings. That's got nothing to do with us, we don't man those borders we certainly don't track vehicles leaving the country. That's their job. This is all bullshit smoking mirrors it's that simple. Trump wants something else. Quote The speech also included one interesting nugget about Canadian military spending. In a section on military co-operation, Obama said the U.S., Canada and its allies are united in defence of their collective security. “And doing so requires a range of tools,” he said. “As your ally and as your friend, let me say that we’ll be more secure when every NATO member, including Canada, contributes its full share to our common security.” Canada has been criticized for not spending two per cent of GDP on defence, something the country agreed to in 2006. Spending is currently hovering around one per cent. https://ca.news.yahoo.com/four-more-years-obama-gives-speech-to-001327953.html Your in denial if you think this is a recent thing...and it has not just came from the US it has also come from other NATO allieds, all of which have sat down and asked Canada to up it's game ...and all of those asks have been ignored....In this case diplomacy has failed to show results...Now we are in the serious ramification zone... and for some reason you and many others can't see that... Failing to make any type of arrest before it gets to the US border is the problem... 1 Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
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.