Canada wihtout Bush?

normanchateau · November 8, 2006

keep your chin up, unemployment under the Liberals pays well, and so does welfare.Rae days will be here again.

So you fully expect free trade to end this year?

It won't end this year but thanks to Harper, we're headed in that direction. The Free Trade Lumber Council bitterly oppossed the Harper softwood lumber "deal" since it replaced the previous illegal U.S. duties with an even higher export tax. This is contrary to free trade and NAFTA. Canadian softwood lumber producers wanted free trade but Harper betrayed them.

scribblet · November 8, 2006

[quote[True but it often depends on the existing governments view on using anti Americanism as a political tool.

Exactly! Blind hatred for Bush and for some reason hatred of Harper clouds their judgement.

As I said somewhere else (so many of the same type of threads) I recognized that what Harper has done is best for the country, the softwood lumber deal included. Under previous gov'ts we were bleeding money and no negotiated settlement in sight, the lawyers fees etc. were astronomical. Now we have a settlement, not a 100% acceptable to all, but infinitely better than what we had. An acceptable end to which the Liberals were not able to manage.

All of these complaints seem to be rooted in ideology and extreme anger at the loss of power (or inability to gain power as in NDP) rather than what is best for Canada and I suspect, the fact that all of the scare mongering about Harper has proven to be just that - hot air. Canadians have seen through that and won't buy into it again.

normanchateau · November 8, 2006

As I said somewhere else (so many of the same type of threads) I recognized that what Harper has done is best for the country, the softwood lumber deal included. Under previous gov'ts we were bleeding money and no negotiated settlement in sight, the lawyers fees etc. were astronomical. Now we have a settlement, not a 100% acceptable to all, but infinitely better than what we had. An acceptable end to which the Liberals were not able to manage.

You are obviously not an investor in softwood lumber companies. Unfortunately, I am. This deal has significantly hurt those companies and their share values. BC lumber companies (with a few exceptions) preferred litigation to deal with illegal US actions. The way to deal with a bully (the US lumber industry) is to fight him, not grovel bloody-nosed at his feet. Harper will lose even more seats in BC in the next election than he did in January, 2006. Harper's financial mismanagement will be his undoing. This economic incompetent even quietly raised our personal income tax rate on July 1, 2006. He is making even Brian Mulroney look good in retrospect.

scribblet · November 8, 2006

All of these complaints seem to be rooted in ideology and extreme anger at the loss of power (or inability to gain power as in NDP) rather than what is best for Canada and I suspect, the fact that all of the scare mongering about Harper has proven to be just that - hot air. Canadians have seen through that and won't buy into it again.

Having said that I do believe the Dems. have a protectionist attitude, which makes it even more fortunate that we have the lumber deal.

It could be a political gridlock until the next elections.

normanchateau · November 8, 2006

Having said that I do believe the Dems. have a protectionist attitude,

Yes, they do and that includes the desire to protect their citizens from being slaughtered in Iraq and Afghanistan. And if they hasten the retreat of their troops from those countries as the Brits likely will when Blair steps down, Canada will become the major foreign invader and target in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Bye, bye, Stephen Harper.

southerncomfort · November 8, 2006

Still at it mindlessly bashing Harper huh wot no Grewal bashing yet LOL Good thing for us the majority of canucks dont think the libs are ready to govern so bye-bye Liberals LOL and hello 4 years of good policy.

The dems will not be able to change much war wise until the next elections by that time we can get out Afghan. too, too bad so sad for Harper bashers.

They will have to come up with some decent policy to win big next time around so far its just like opposition here with no substance or alternatives

Bush will vetoe any really extreme bills anyway but the problem here is that the terrorists will the dem. victory as their gain not good for us bubba.

geoffrey · November 9, 2006

Doesn't he only get 1 veto?

jdobbin · November 9, 2006

Still at it mindlessly bashing Harper huh wot no Grewal bashing yet LOL Good thing for us the majority of canucks dont think the libs are ready to govern so bye-bye Liberals LOL and hello 4 years of good policy.
The dems will not be able to change much war wise until the next elections by that time we can get out Afghan. too, too bad so sad for Harper bashers.

The latest two polls out today have the Liberals tied with the Tories.

cybercoma · November 9, 2006

Right now Ontario is begining to hurt in the manufacturing sector,Windsor is getting close to 10% unemployment,America's economy is heading for a slump.
Protectionist measures by the Democrats will mean American jobs will stay in America, that will mean even greater woes for Ontario's factories.

Harper knows the importance of American business for Canada.

Idiots who are Bush-wackers don't have a clue of the importance of free trade to Canada.

Alberta will prosper,Ontario will die.

When America sneezes,Canada catches the cold.

Rae days will return in wide screen,livng technicolour.

Windsor dug its own grave by electing NDP MPs in both ridings. I lived there for 25 years and things were great when they had former Deputy Prime Minister Herb Grey in office. Now, Brian Masse (NDP) has taken his place because he was a popular city councillor. I don't think the people who elected him understand what the NDP stands for on national issues.

Regardless, the unemployment is a direct result of production costs associated with the wages and benefits of the autoworkers. The unions are the ones that ruined it for the autoworkers, don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

normanchateau · November 9, 2006

Still at it mindlessly bashing Harper huh wot no Grewal bashing yet LOL

I would think that even a loyal Conservative supporter would acknowledge that Gurmant Grewal was not a credit to his party. But if I'm wrong, I'm sure the many Conservative supporters on this board will tell us why Gurmant Grewal should be brought back to run for the Conservatives in the next election. Personally, I'd welcome Gurmant Grewal running for the Conservatives.

Incidentally, Grewal's BC riding was won by the Liberals in the January, 2006 election, one of several Liberal and NDP gains in the province in that election. I anticipate further Conservative losses in BC in the next election given Harper's betrayal of the BC softwood lumber industry.

White Doors · November 9, 2006

Having said that I do believe the Dems. have a protectionist attitude,

Yes, they do and that includes the desire to protect their citizens from being slaughtered in Iraq and Afghanistan. And if they hasten the retreat of their troops from those countries as the Brits likely will when Blair steps down, Canada will become the major foreign invader and target in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Bye, bye, Stephen Harper.

Nice. Hoping for Canadian troop casualties so we can be rid of Harper? That's a smiley face in your books? Sick.

White Doors · November 9, 2006

Still at it mindlessly bashing Harper huh wot no Grewal bashing yet LOL

I would think that even a loyal Conservative supporter would acknowledge that Gurmant Grewal was not a credit to his party. But if I'm wrong, I'm sure the many Conservative supporters on this board will tell us why Gurmant Grewal should be brought back to run for the Conservatives in the next election. Personally, I'd welcome Gurmant Grewal running for the Conservatives.

Incidentally, Grewal's BC riding was won by the Liberals in the January, 2006 election, one of several Liberal and NDP gains in the province in that election. I anticipate further Conservative losses in BC in the next election given Harper's betrayal of the BC softwood lumber industry.

Really? 'Cause the BC softwood lumber industry was in favour of the deal.

You should whine all out in the open and stop hiding behind others like a child.

Canadian Blue · November 9, 2006

Yes, they do and that includes the desire to protect their citizens from being slaughtered in Iraq and Afghanistan. And if they hasten the retreat of their troops from those countries as the Brits likely will when Blair steps down, Canada will become the major foreign invader and target in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Bye, bye, Stephen Harper.

So when was the left talking about how they support the troops not the mission. Yet here we have talk about our troops getting killed, wow their sure is nothing like hoping Canadian troops die over in Afganistan for political gain eh. How about this since were staying in Afganistan, and NATO is staying in Afganistan why don't you support the troops, and hope that the Taliban doesn't kill anymore of our citizens so they can go home after a successful mission.

normanchateau · November 10, 2006

Yes, they do and that includes the desire to protect their citizens from being slaughtered in Iraq and Afghanistan. And if they hasten the retreat of their troops from those countries as the Brits likely will when Blair steps down, Canada will become the major foreign invader and target in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Bye, bye, Stephen Harper.

So when was the left talking about how they support the troops not the mission. Yet here we have talk about our troops getting killed, wow their sure is nothing like hoping Canadian troops die over in Afganistan for political gain eh.

What a ridiculous and unfair accusation. At no time did I say or imply that I hoped Canadian troops would be killed. What I clearly said was that if the US and Britain withdrew, Canadians would become the main target. And I also indicated in no uncertain terms that would hasten Harper's departure.

While there's no denying that I hope for Harper's departure from the PMO, it is a leap of logic for you to suggest that I want to see troops die. On the contrary, I want to see the troops out of Afghanistan so they don't die.

Canadian Blue · November 11, 2006

Norman, get back to reality. If the US and Britian were to leave Afghanistan, we would be leaving to, as would every other NATO nation. Do you honestly believe any political leader with a half a brain would stay when the two largest military powers in NATO leave them behind.

I highly doubt America or Great Britian would leave Afghanistan, that would be complete idiocy on their part.

Once again if the troops were to leave Afghanistan now, we would only be, excuse the language, fucking ourselves over! If Afghanistan were to ever be controlled by the Taliban again, then we'd see terrorist camps take route again, and I wouldn't be surprised if another major terrorist attack occured. We should stay at the very least until we are confident that the country will not fall back into the hands of the Taliban.

PS: The Harper hating is getting really old.

normanchateau · November 11, 2006

I highly doubt America or Great Britian would leave Afghanistan, that would be complete idiocy on their part.

You seem unable to acknowledge that I was not hoping for the death of Canadian troops.

newbie · November 11, 2006

I highly doubt America or Great Britian would leave Afghanistan, that would be complete idiocy on their part.

Just how many American troops are actually in Afghanistan now?

Canadian Blue · November 11, 2006

19,500 American troops. Mostly concentrated in the South along with the Brits, Dutch, Danish, and Canadian's. Whats needed is troops from more European countries who have had a limited combat role.

Norman, you were talking about how Canadian's would become the "major target" in Afghanistan and that would hopefully would knock Harper out of power. I'm not sure about you but that sounds like pretty wishful thinking as to the benefits of more deaths in Afghanistan. Once again that is your own statement, and you can explain yourself clearly if you feel the need to. Once again you implied that more Canadian's would be killed which would hopefully bring about knocking Harper out of power.

I'm not sure were you got the idea that the Brits and American's would pull out of Afghanistan since both countries do see the need for that mission unlike Iraq which is a different case.

killjoy · November 11, 2006

If you don't call the US president a moron in public then you're his puppet.

This country is getting really, really stupid, and it ain’t the conservative boogymen.

I mean it's so ironic someone chanting drum-circle dribble about Harper being Bush's puppet, yet the vast majority of these people are simply mindlessly mimicking the "seattleUnderground.org"-culture of their favorite pastime: the US.

They're just simple cut-and-paste views from the US itself! I mean they just say it over and over and over again: "He's a puppet." It's like some kind of religion.

"It is because I believe it is! and I don't need anything else." Everything they bring forward is nonsense for the simple reason they started comparing him to Bush before he even got in, before he did a single thing.

Unbelievable.

.

normanchateau · November 11, 2006

Norman, you were talking about how Canadian's would become the "major target" in Afghanistan and that would hopefully would knock Harper out of power. Once again you implied that more Canadian's would be killed which would hopefully bring about knocking Harper out of power.

Canadian Blue, yes I said Canada would become a major target if the US and Britain withdrew but I did NOT say that this "would hopefully knock Harper out of power." And yes I implied that more Canadians would be killed but I did NOT say that this "would hopefully bring about knocking Harper out of power." I did indeed imply that more deaths would lead to Harper's departure. You seem to be creating the term "hopefully" in your mind then misattributing it to me. I never said it. If you think I did, provide the quote.

scribblet · November 11, 2006

If you don't call the US president a moron in public then you're his puppet.
This country is getting really, really stupid, and it ain’t the conservative boogymen.

I mean it's so ironic someone chanting drum-circle dribble about Harper being Bush's puppet, yet the vast majority of these people are simply mindlessly mimicking the "seattleUnderground.org"-culture of their favorite pastime: the US.

They're just simple cut-and-paste views from the US itself! I mean they just say it over and over and over again: "He's a puppet." It's like some kind of religion.

"It is because I believe it is! and I don't need anything else." Everything they bring forward is nonsense for the simple reason they started comparing him to Bush before he even got in, before he did a single thing.

Unbelievable.

.

The Canadian peace movement today is really just another manifestation of anti Americanism.

normanchateau · November 11, 2006

If you don't call the US president a moron in public then you're his puppet.

.

The Canadian peace movement today is really just another manifestation of anti Americanism.

And what diabolically evil manifestation does the US peace movement represent?

jdobbin · November 11, 2006

The Canadian peace movement today is really just another manifestation of anti Americanism.

I guess that means the Canadian war movement must be pro-American.

scribblet · November 11, 2006

Not necessarily, in fact most Canadians including myself don't want war, and I don't support going into Iraq. I do however support Nato and our committments.

It is the same with the M.E. really, those who side with the terrorists against Israel are manifesting an anti U.S. position also; just as the objections to some of the CPC policies are based strictly on idealogy and a hatred of Harper - why - mainly because some see him as being too pro Bush.

Blind hatred doesn't make for balanced arguments and is extremely corrosive to relationships with our largest trading partner.

jdobbin · November 11, 2006

Not necessarily, in fact most Canadians including myself don't want war, and I don't support going into Iraq. I do however support Nato and our committments.

Some of the protesters against the war were Quakers and Mennonites. I can't recall them hating either side but in principle are pacifists. Certainly there is an anti-American component to some protesters. However, many of them are against war as a basic philosophy.