[hurley_108]

sandorski sandorski:

That's a totally different thing. It's neither Better/Worse in either jurisdiction, just a different way of selecting Government. Canadians know in advance who will be Leader depending on what Party Wins the Election. We often know and can judge the potential Leader years in advance, if we want that Leader, we Vote for that Party.

Personally, I think that separation of executive and legislative was one thing that the US got oh so very right.

[DrCaleb]

sandorski sandorski:

That's a totally different thing. It's neither Better/Worse in either jurisdiction, just a different way of selecting Government. Canadians know in advance who will be Leader depending on what Party Wins the Election. We often know and can judge the potential Leader years in advance, if we want that Leader, we Vote for that Party.

And by doing so, we get the government we deserve.

[Tman1]

sandorski sandorski:

Canadians elect Party Leaders. How a particular Party chooses their Leader is up to them.

Ummm no they don't. I just explained why but thanks for reading it. Did you completely miss the Obama and Clinton cat scratching these past few months? Hard to miss since Canada has nothing better to do than to gaze at foreign power grabbing in envy. Glad things I say go in one ear and out the other....

$1:

No, I don't think the US President is the Roman Emperor. However, Bush has acted pretty close to one and when the Republicans had the Senate and House Majority they pretty much gave Bush everything he wanted. In turn, Bush gave them pretty much everything they wanted even after threatening to Veto on occassion, which he never did until Democrats began sending things his way(as I recall).

Well, it sucks but thats the way democracy is. The American people vote for Bush, they get Bush. Unless he does something idiotic like Clinton thinking with his dick and lying about it, he can't be removed until his term is up. How do you think Canadian politics run? Uh oh, a Con slept with an ex-biker chick, raise the call to an election....and I just love how these politicians threaten an election like its the Canadian peoples beck and call. No wonder nobody cares about elections. Anyways, the point I was making was that Congress votes like anybody else, Bush wants to go to war, he needs Congress' approval or I think he has a certain limit to declare war without Congress but I'll have to check that. I suppose 9/11 calls for desperate measures in desperate times. Of course thats all done and overwith, Saddam, with no connections with the people who crashed into the towers, is dead. Oh, and Congress can defeat Bush's veto, why? Because of the very point I was making. Bush is no Roman Emperor. The Senate (along with checks and balances) is there for a VERY good reason *cough 1776, cough*

$1:

NAFTA is only 1 issue of concern to Canadians and as such it alone doesn't address who is best for Canada. Even without that, we Canadians are already being affected negatively due to poor Fiscal and Economic Management by the US. That in itself makes McCain a poor choice as his Fiscal Agenda includes carrying on the Bush fiasco, but not only that, he proposes even more Spending than Obama. At best Obama's comments about NAFTA are vague and really don't mean anything right now. There are many Canadians who would welcome renogotiation and many others who would welcome a total scrapping of it.

Fiscal and economic management by the U.S.....really now. Does any average Canadian think about that, care? I don't. Why should that affect Canadians? Maybe the most affected by that would be to the wealthy Canadian business-people who do mainly business in the U.S who obviously would be short-changed by that. Personally I don't know how you calculate that out as being anything comparitive to anything. Canada's economy is good, probably better than the U.S now and even after all the whiners and bitching about recession and being affected by the U.S. We still export most of their energy, of course everybody has oil and gas problems now so.....maybe we might have some barganing power instead of their high and mighty attitude. Maybe you missed my point. Americans want to renegotiate to their benefits and I don't really need to tell you American brand of negotiation do I? Lumber to ring a bell? My problem is that they think they have to the power to renegotiate. Maybe they still do because we do most of their trade but it goes both ways and its time Canadians stop buying into the submissive part of this and make the go-ahead. I'm not saying renegotiating is bad but it has to be on equal terms, not because Mr.Obama and his democrats think they are 'bigger' than us.

$1:

Then there is the issue(s) of Foreign Policy. McCain wants to continue the Iraq fiasco, while Obama wants to end it. McCain's policy will continue to make Afghanistan a secondary concern, while Obama wants to make it a primary concern. These differences do affect Canadians.

I never said I agreed with any or all of Mccains positions. I support our troops but I don't particularly want them to be killed by IED's, roadside bombs, falling into wells or getting cleaved in the head by an axe.

[Tman1]

sandorski sandorski:

That's a totally different thing. It's neither Better/Worse in either jurisdiction, just a different way of selecting Government. Canadians know in advance who will be Leader depending on what Party Wins the Election. We often know and can judge the potential Leader years in advance, if we want that Leader, we Vote for that Party.

Yeah....and Dion doesn't or will not make the cut. Next.

[sandorski]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

sandorski sandorski:

That's a totally different thing. It's neither Better/Worse in either jurisdiction, just a different way of selecting Government. Canadians know in advance who will be Leader depending on what Party Wins the Election. We often know and can judge the potential Leader years in advance, if we want that Leader, we Vote for that Party.

And by doing so, we get the government we deserve.

Of course and so do they. What's wrong with our Government? We've Balanced the Budget, unlike the US Government for eg.

[sandorski]

Tman1 Tman1:

sandorski sandorski:

That's a totally different thing. It's neither Better/Worse in either jurisdiction, just a different way of selecting Government. Canadians know in advance who will be Leader depending on what Party Wins the Election. We often know and can judge the potential Leader years in advance, if we want that Leader, we Vote for that Party.

Yeah....and Dion doesn't or will not make the cut. Next.

Well, that might be so, but so what? Liberals chose him, that's their problem if he fails to form a Government, not Canada's.

[Tman1]

sandorski sandorski:

Tman1 Tman1:

sandorski sandorski:

That's a totally different thing. It's neither Better/Worse in either jurisdiction, just a different way of selecting Government. Canadians know in advance who will be Leader depending on what Party Wins the Election. We often know and can judge the potential Leader years in advance, if we want that Leader, we Vote for that Party.

Yeah....and Dion doesn't or will not make the cut. Next.

Well, that might be so, but so what? Liberals chose him, that's their problem if he fails to form a Government, not Canada's.

It is the Liberals problem if they voted in somebody who can't form the government. Which begs the question of why these people should be allowed to vote for him in the first place instead of the people.

[sandorski]

Tman1 Tman1:

sandorski sandorski:

Canadians elect Party Leaders. How a particular Party chooses their Leader is up to them.

Ummm no they don't. I just explained why but thanks for reading it. Did you completely miss the Obama and Clinton cat scratching these past few months? Hard to miss since Canada has nothing better to do than to gaze at foreign power grabbing in envy. Glad things I say go in one ear and out the other....

$1:

No, I don't think the US President is the Roman Emperor. However, Bush has acted pretty close to one and when the Republicans had the Senate and House Majority they pretty much gave Bush everything he wanted. In turn, Bush gave them pretty much everything they wanted even after threatening to Veto on occassion, which he never did until Democrats began sending things his way(as I recall).

Well, it sucks but thats the way democracy is. The American people vote for Bush, they get Bush. Unless he does something idiotic like Clinton thinking with his dick and lying about it, he can't be removed until his term is up. How do you think Canadian politics run? Uh oh, a Con slept with an ex-biker chick, raise the call to an election....and I just love how these politicians threaten an election like its the Canadian peoples beck and call. No wonder nobody cares about elections. Anyways, the point I was making was that Congress votes like anybody else, Bush wants to go to war, he needs Congress' approval or I think he has a certain limit to declare war without Congress but I'll have to check that. I suppose 9/11 calls for desperate measures in desperate times. Of course thats all done and overwith, Saddam, with no connections with the people who crashed into the towers, is dead. Oh, and Congress can defeat Bush's veto, why? Because of the very point I was making. Bush is no Roman Emperor. The Senate (along with checks and balances) is there for a VERY good reason *cough 1776, cough*

$1:

NAFTA is only 1 issue of concern to Canadians and as such it alone doesn't address who is best for Canada. Even without that, we Canadians are already being affected negatively due to poor Fiscal and Economic Management by the US. That in itself makes McCain a poor choice as his Fiscal Agenda includes carrying on the Bush fiasco, but not only that, he proposes even more Spending than Obama. At best Obama's comments about NAFTA are vague and really don't mean anything right now. There are many Canadians who would welcome renogotiation and many others who would welcome a total scrapping of it.

Fiscal and economic management by the U.S.....really now. Does any average Canadian think about that, care? I don't. Why should that affect Canadians? Maybe the most affected by that would be to the wealthy Canadian business-people who do mainly business in the U.S who obviously would be short-changed by that. Personally I don't know how you calculate that out as being anything comparitive to anything. Canada's economy is good, probably better than the U.S now and even after all the whiners and bitching about recession and being affected by the U.S. We still export most of their energy, of course everybody has oil and gas problems now so.....maybe we might have some barganing power instead of their high and mighty attitude. Maybe you missed my point. Americans want to renegotiate to their benefits and I don't really need to tell you American brand of negotiation do I? Lumber to ring a bell? My problem is that they think they have to the power to renegotiate. Maybe they still do because we do most of their trade but it goes both ways and its time Canadians stop buying into the submissive part of this and make the go-ahead. I'm not saying renegotiating is bad but it has to be on equal terms, not because Mr.Obama and his democrats think they are 'bigger' than us.

$1:

Then there is the issue(s) of Foreign Policy. McCain wants to continue the Iraq fiasco, while Obama wants to end it. McCain's policy will continue to make Afghanistan a secondary concern, while Obama wants to make it a primary concern. These differences do affect Canadians.

I never said I agreed with any or all of Mccains positions. I support our troops but I don't particularly want them to be killed by IED's, roadside bombs, falling into wells or getting cleaved in the head by an axe.

sigh, I'm not even sure how to respond to all this. It's as if you're talking to someone that isn't me. Start reading what I typed and quit reading between the non-existant lines.

1) Ya, I see the process, but Canada has a Process too. Canadian Political Party Leaders are not chosen like the Pope. It is an open process where everyone who wants to join a Political Party gets a Vote on the Leader of that Party.

2) huh?

3) Canadians are very aware when the US Economy crashes. Lumber isn't even covered by NAFTA, so a renegotiation could possibly fix that error. Of course they'll want to redo it in their favour. When we first negotiated NAFTA they tried to get things in their favour as well. We also tried to get things in our favour. That's the way all negotiations occur.

4)??

[sandorski]

sandorski sandorski:

Tman1 Tman1:

sandorski sandorski:

That's a totally different thing. It's neither Better/Worse in either jurisdiction, just a different way of selecting Government. Canadians know in advance who will be Leader depending on what Party Wins the Election. We often know and can judge the potential Leader years in advance, if we want that Leader, we Vote for that Party.
Yeah....and Dion doesn't or will not make the cut. Next.

Well, that might be so, but so what? Liberals chose him, that's their problem if he fails to form a Government, not Canada's.

It is the Liberals problem if they voted in somebody who can't form the government. Which begs the question of why these people should be allowed to vote for him in the first place instead of the people.

You are totally not getting it. Anyone who wants to join the Liberal Party can. They then get a choice of who is the Leader. Who they choose is their own problem if the rest of Canadians choose not to make their Party the Majority(or large enough Minority).

In the US, people Register for a particulr Party, then they vote for who will represent that Party in the Presidential Election.

You seem to think there is some kind of monumental difference. There isn't. Both Canadians and Americans associate themselves to One Party and One Leader when the issue of choosing Party Leader is concerned.

[Tman1]

sandorski sandorski:

sigh, I'm not even sure how to respond to all this. It's as if you're talking to someone that isn't me. Start reading what I typed and quit reading between the non-existant lines.

Translation: This is too complicated for you and you just don't know how to respond. Gotcha. You should also heed your own advise and start reading what I typed. Look below.

1)But not people who didn't join that political party? Isn't that called partisianship?

2) What part didn't you get? Bush doesn't have absolute power and can be defeated by Congress? Oh, I guess that can be pretty complicated I suppose.

3)

$1:

Canadians are very aware when the US Economy crashes. Lumber isn't even covered by NAFTA, so a renegotiation could possibly fix that error. Of course they'll want to redo it in their favour. When we first negotiated NAFTA they tried to get things in their favour as well. We also tried to get things in our favour. That's the way all negotiations occur.

What? Lumber isn't part of the free trade agreement? What the heck do you think the Lumber dispute is about? It's about renegotiating, mostly in their favour. Really now, educate yourself instead of spewing of reading between the non-existant lines which is what this is. Lumber is a product, that product is under industry, that industry is under NAFTA. Come on.

4) Again, what part didn't you understand?

[sandorski]

Tman1 Tman1:

sigh, I'm not even sure how to respond to all this. It's as if you're talking to someone that isn't me. Start reading what I typed and quit reading between the non-existant lines.

Translation: This is too complicated for you and you just don't know how to respond. Gotcha. You should also heed your own advise and start reading what I typed. Look below.

1)But not people who didn't join that political party? Isn't that called partisianship?

2) What part didn't you get? Bush doesn't have absolute power and can be defeated by Congress? Oh, I guess that can be pretty complicated I suppose.

3)

$1:

Canadians are very aware when the US Economy crashes. Lumber isn't even covered by NAFTA, so a renegotiation could possibly fix that error. Of course they'll want to redo it in their favour. When we first negotiated NAFTA they tried to get things in their favour as well. We also tried to get things in our favour. That's the way all negotiations occur.
What? Lumber isn't part of the free trade agreement? What the heck do you think the Lumber dispute is about? It's about renegotiating, mostly in their favour. Really now, educate yourself instead of spewing of reading between the non-existant lines which is what this is. Lumber is a product, that product is under industry, that industry is under NAFTA. Come on.

4) Again, what part didn't you understand?

1) Ya, so??

2) I dealt with this a few posts back. I also pointed out the President/Senate workings and also how that failed during the Bush Presidency

3) Read up on the Lumbber dispute. Lumber is not covered by NAFTA and all the temporary solutions for the last 2 decades were made independently from other Trade agreements.

4) your point, what is it supposed to be?

[herbie]

Lumber was covered under NAFTA.
Until the Yanks didn't like it and decided not to abide by any NAFTA rulings.
Or has that ratbag Emerson and nutlicker boss brainwashed a lot of Canadians now?

[Tman1]

sandorski sandorski:

1) Ya, so??

2) I dealt with this a few posts back. I also pointed out the President/Senate workings and also how that failed during the Bush Presidency

3) Read up on the Lumbber dispute. Lumber is not covered by NAFTA and all the temporary solutions for the last 2 decades were made independently from other Trade agreements.

4) your point, what is it supposed to be?

Real great hard hitting arguments there, too tough for me.

Well, I think its safe to say our discussion is at an end but thanks for playing.

I'll just end it with this little tid-bit. Lumber is covered under NAFTA. There were several NAFTA rulings against it and also WTO rulings. As of now, they still owe us millions of dollars.

Telling me to read up on the lumber dispute..lol.

[sandorski]

Tman1 Tman1:

sandorski sandorski:

1) Ya, so??

2) I dealt with this a few posts back. I also pointed out the President/Senate workings and also how that failed during the Bush Presidency

3) Read up on the Lumbber dispute. Lumber is not covered by NAFTA and all the temporary solutions for the last 2 decades were made independently from other Trade agreements.

4) your point, what is it supposed to be?

Real great hard hitting arguments there, too tough for me.

Well, I think its safe to say our discussion is at an end but thanks for playing.

I'll just end it with this little tid-bit. Lumber is covered under NAFTA. There were several NAFTA rulings against it and also WTO rulings. As of now, they still owe us millions of dollars.

Telling me to read up on the lumber dispute..lol.

Ya, you're the E-Winnar!

I'm not carrying on this pointless back and forth.

[Tman1]

I take it you actually read about NAFTA and the lumber dispute and bowing out after several attempts to tell you. Hope the next time you attempt to play politics you might know the facts first instead of trying to force your facts to others that you might think are less likely to know of. Toodles.