CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 9276
PostPosted: Sat Sep 05, 2009 12:01 am
 


Oh fuck. I just had a baddddd thought. Obama's health care plan would cause a LOT of heartbreak in Canada. Chrysler, Ford and GM have plants in Canada because it's cheaper for those companies to have them here than in the US. And it's the difference in our medical system that's the reason for this.
With a national health care plan in the US, the "Big 3" wouldn't have to remain in Canada, and with Obama's protectionist attitude, it's quite conceivable they could pack up and go stateside.


Offline
Newbie
Newbie
Profile
Posts: 2
PostPosted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 8:45 am
 


Regradless of what Obama decides it will be to benefit the Americans and that means if he has to anger Canada, so be it.
Wasn't he slow to come around to resigning NAFTA agreements?
Lets not forget hes the Leader of America, and America is in major trouble, it is possible that he can change that he will by any means.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 6964
PostPosted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 9:24 am
 


I'm not sure I get your point. Actually, I AM sure. I don't get your point.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 3351
PostPosted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 9:56 am
 


PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:
Oh fuck. I just had a baddddd thought. Obama's health care plan would cause a LOT of heartbreak in Canada. Chrysler, Ford and GM have plants in Canada because it's cheaper for those companies to have them here than in the US. And it's the difference in our medical system that's the reason for this.
With a national health care plan in the US, the "Big 3" wouldn't have to remain in Canada, and with Obama's protectionist attitude, it's quite conceivable they could pack up and go stateside.

To be fair, the cost to move back would probably be considerable. The companies likely won't make that decision without plenty of forewarning. Also, the healthcare thing is definitely uncertain at this point. The opposition (myself included) seem to have been effective thus far against it's passage.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 3351
PostPosted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 9:59 am
 


Lemmy wrote:
I'm not sure I get your point. Actually, I AM sure. I don't get your point.

I think he is saying that Obama will take America's side over Canada's anyday, since he is, of course, America's President. I disagree, as I think Obama views himself more as a global citizen than as America's advocate.


Offline
Newbie
Newbie
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 18
PostPosted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 7:18 pm
 


Pseudonym wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
I'm not sure I get your point. Actually, I AM sure. I don't get your point.

I think he is saying that Obama will take America's side over Canada's anyday, since he is, of course, America's President. I disagree, as I think Obama views himself more as a global citizen than as America's advocate.


Reminds me of the Devils Advocate.


Offline
Newbie
Newbie
Profile
Posts: 6
PostPosted: Tue May 11, 2010 10:52 pm
 


It basically said that Barack Obama wants Canada to spend more money on researching environmentally friendly technologies. The reason he is "bad for Canada" is simply because the oil sands offer jobs and money to Canada, forget the fact that he is trying to eliminate greenhouse gases...he must be bad for Canada.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1636
PostPosted: Tue May 11, 2010 11:01 pm
 


michaelhoffman wrote:
It basically said that Barack Obama wants Canada to spend more money on researching environmentally friendly technologies. The reason he is "bad for Canada" is simply because the oil sands offer jobs and money to Canada, forget the fact that he is trying to eliminate greenhouse gases...he must be bad for Canada.

So we should foot the entire bill to research expensive technologies, foot the entire bill to implement them, and then listen to people complain about the increased cost of the goods that are now 'green'? We are changing to more green policies gradually but it is hard when your entire economy is based upon businesses that release chemicals as a byproduct, we require vehicles to survive, and we have cheap and readily available fuel sources, it takes a while to change your entire system.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 9276
PostPosted: Tue May 11, 2010 11:08 pm
 


michaelhoffman wrote:
It basically said that Barack Obama wants Canada to spend more money on researching environmentally friendly technologies. The reason he is "bad for Canada" is simply because the oil sands offer jobs and money to Canada, forget the fact that he is trying to eliminate greenhouse gases...he must be bad for Canada.

"Drill baby, drill" ring any bells? I have serious doubts about your statement after his signing off on permitting more offshore drilling.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 3387
PostPosted: Wed May 12, 2010 2:36 am
 


I don't think that he'll be bad for Canada, he provides an old tradition USA-Canada relations, so nothing bad. another way someone think that he will use Canadian resources for North America economy.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Ottawa Senators


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 17114
PostPosted: Wed May 12, 2010 7:07 pm
 


Ah. I love the smell of a necro at night.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 26 posts ]  Previous  1  2



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.