|
Political Debate jan 9 (pg. 12)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Wyndham |
nacarter - now thats a post, sorry for the insult. I do agree to an extent that harper will more "americanize" our country, but not to the extreme you speak of. Harper is under pressure to instate a partial ban on abortions? Im sure he is, but do you realistically think this will ever happen, even in a private bill. Not only would it be complete suicide from ever running in politics ever again for harper, but theres not a chance in hell it would EVER pass in the first place, his own party would crucify him lol. All the leaders are under various pressures from various groups for various reasons, his policy is against banning abortions in any form, and i take him at his word, because he has yet to show hes a liar on the scale of martin, who i have trouble believing anything he says now a days. And this cristian group u speak of, i really dont' think their pressure is going to cause harper to act in their favour, considering that canadian's aren't that religious (compared to US) I dont argue that the more restrictions on abortions there are, the more back alley ones are done, but thats not the point. The point is harper has stated again and again he will not, nor will his party support any type of ban on abortions.
I dont think i've ever heard harper "refuse to defend the charter of rights" maybe sec 15 ok, but your statement was a little strong.
The article shadowwolf posted i really liked, so im not gonna bother responding to the 51st state comment, but i do agree he'd take us more inline with US, but not nearly enough that we'd even be considered an americanized country. I also think u put too much faith in how much influence all this religious pressure has on harper as a party leader. I don't doubt that we'd probably have gone to war in iraq as well if harper had had a majority, hopefully in less of an offenive role, but i'll give you that.
Finally, neither party is a great party to choose from, hopefully it will be a conservative minority so harper can be tested as a pm, if he sucedes great, if not, then the liberals will have gotten rid of martin and cleaned up their party, hopefully. I cannot vote right now for a liberal party with a flip flopping leader like martin who is plagued by scandle after scandle, runs a ridiculous attack campaign, has a record of not getting things done, has promised everthing to everyone, throws out crazy ideas like taking out the notwithstanding clause just to bait harper into another attack debate on gay marriage, all these ridiculous adds going on, amoung various other reasons. I do like some of the liberal policies, as well as dislike some of the conservative policies, but martin is a blithering idiot and its time he and 12 years of liberal majority power are removed from office. |
|
|
| Wyndham |
o, and as for stronich vs louis.... im suprised stronich only has a HS diploma, kinda funny considering she was the ceo of magna. Good to know education wise shes on the same level as brown, touche abercrombie. But as far as stating she is more qualified for politics than brown?? Not sure if you voted for her last time, but was she more qualified in the last election with NO expierience and a HS diploma? as well how qualified was she to be conservative leader with no prior political experience? If you didn't vote for her, ignore those questions.
I take brown as a new candidate who as jayx1 put it, seems more in touch with voters, than stronich. I take belinda at her rookie political career, which is a disgrace, as well as the only reason shes really where she is, is because of who her daddy is, and she is OBVIOUSLY only interested in advancing her political career. Maybe you dont "support belinda" but why are you completely writing off a candidate who hasn't had a chance yet and who looks promising, espically considering word is out they have the "same mere high school education"??? |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
i never liked stronach but when i voted for her as a conservative i voted for the party. I didnt just start hating on her because she turned parties. I never really liked her candidacy but held my nose for the greater cause. I always saw her as daddy's girl who got where she was through nepitism. My parents went to the grand opening of her restaurant many many years ago and met her and couldnt get over what a spoiled bitch she was.
Lois on the other hand i do like because i have heard her speak and she seems to have a good idea about what voters in this area want. Again, the fact that shes not a career politician is a good thing. |
|
|
| Wyndham |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
i never liked stronach but when i voted for her as a conservative i voted for the party. I didnt just start hating on her because she turned parties. I never really liked her candidacy but held my nose for the greater cause. I always saw her as daddy's girl who got where she was through nepitism. My parents went to the grand opening of her restaurant many many years ago and met her and couldnt get over what a spoiled bitch she was.
Lois on the other hand i do like because i have heard her speak and she seems to have a good idea about what voters in this area want. Again, the fact that shes not a career politician is a good thing. |
agreed, i voted for belinda last time because i was voting for the party, not her. Now that we've seen what shes done, or lack of, i do not support her at all, however i probably would still vote for her if she were conservative, but thats cause i vote party, not candidate.
I think i'd be more happy to see belinda lose, than see the conservatives win as a party lol....j/k |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Wyndham
agreed, i voted for belinda last time because i was voting for the party, not her. Now that we've seen what shes done, or lack of, i do not support her at all, however i probably would still vote for her if she were conservative, but thats cause i vote party, not candidate.
I think i'd be more happy to see belinda lose, than see the conservatives win as a party lol....j/k |
u live in aurora? we should have a political discussion over a beer sometime hehehe |
|
|
| nacarter |
I have to agree with you Wyndham... Although I don't like either party at the moment, I could at least tolerate a Conservative minority. A change in political scenery would be beneficial and it would give the Liberals a chance to get rid of the rot. It's time for the new blood to step up and purge the old guard. Sometimes political bulimia is a good thing.
Time will tell on issues such as abortion. There is no doubt that under a Conservative majority, that same-sex marriage dies. That will last for about six months until the Supreme Court gets it and hands the social conservatives yet another resounding defeat.
One might be surprised by the clout of the activists that I listed in my previous post. Remember that they are CENTRAL members of the policy circle, not just influential lobbyists. As for the party platform suggesting that they won't open up the abortion issue. That definitely remains to be seen. Party platforms are decided at the annual policy convention by delegates from all across the country. Delegates from the more populous regions of Quebec and Ontario have more clout at this level and moderate the policy initiatives considerably.
Once in power, policy initiatives come from cabinet (in theory) and certainly not from party policy conventions. Several political scientists in the last twenty years have modified the above to suggest that policy initiatives actually come from the PMO - this was clearly illustrated in the Chretien era. With policy coming from a smaller and smaller group of people, the influence of insiders (such as those named earlier) increases. If the policy insiders think they can figure out how to sell a controversial policy such as banning abortion, there is no reason why Harper wouldn't consider legislation.
In all liklihood, abortion wouldn't be banned with one stroke of the pen. It would be eroded, such as what's happened with abortion laws in the US. You get legislation such as parental notification, mandatory pre-abortion counselling, and a mandatory waiting period between counselling and abortion. You also have backdoor policies, such as limiting funding to organizations such as Planned Parenthood, and rigging Health Canada programs so that sexual health funding only goes to those initiatives that promote abstinence instead of safe-sex and abortion as an option.
This isn't radical speculation, it's exactly what's happened in the US. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
but we arent the US. and im sick of everything being compared to the US. there are 153 other countries to compare to that do things differently. Why do we always say "well the US is like that so we better not be"
.... what about what europe or australia is doing? What about our own unique way of doing it that while different from how things are now, is still a made in canada solution?
Life isnt as simple as "our way" or the "US way".
Its like how we compare our dollar to the US dollar. Yeah we could have €1 = $3.20 canadian but its all good as long as our dollar is 87 cents US.
I dont buy it. |
|
|
| Abercrombie |
| Let's start an Aurora TA posse! |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
I don't get this "Harper will make us more American" slant either??
Are people that naive in mouthing those words when they know (or conveniently forget) that the U.S. is our largest trading partner??
| quote: |
United States–Canada: The World's Largest Trading
Friends, Neighbors — and Business Partners
Trade and economic interests span the globe, but the scope and scale of the movement of goods, services, investment, people and ideas between the United States and Canada make this a unique partnership. Trade between the U.S. and Canada contributes to making both countries more internationally competitive, provides consumers and producers with a greater variety of goods and services at lower prices and generally improves the standard of living in both countries.
Co-operation has produced tremendous benefits to both nations: in 2003, two-way trade in goods and services surpassed $441.5 billion, making the U.S.–Canada trading relationship the largest in the world.
In 2003, the U.S. sold $195.8 billion worth of goods and services to Canada and received $245.8 billion worth of goods and services from Canada.
37,000 trucks cross the border between the two countries each and every day. 58% of these cross at only five key border crossings — the Ambassador Bridge, Sarnia, Fort Erie, Lacolle and the Pacific Highway.
Since 1989, when the U.S. and Canada implemented the Canada–U.S. Free Trade Agreement, trade between the two countries has accelerated, more than doubling from $192.4 billion to $441.5 billion in 2003.
Canada has been the leading destination for U.S. exports since 1946! From cars to computers — Canada buys more goods and services from the U.S. than any other country in the world. One-fifth of all U.S. exports went to Canada in 2003.
Thirty-seven states count Canada as their number one foreign customer; Canada is the most important destination of exports for most of the states along the border as well as the northeast and central U.S., and as far south as Missouri and Georgia. Twenty-three states sent more than one-quarter of their exports to Canada in 2003.
Since the implementation of the Canada–U.S. Free Trade Agreement in 1989 and the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1994, there has been a dramatic increase in two-way interdependence between the two economies.
U.S. exports bound for Canada more than doubled between 1989 and 2003, from $79.9 billion to $169.8 billion. Over the same period, U.S. imports from Canada increased from $89.9 billion to $226.9 billion.
In 2003, merchandise trade accounted for 86.7% of total U.S. exports to Canada and 92.3% of total imports from Canada.
Canada provides close to one-fifth of U.S. imports used in the production process or directly consumed. Nearly 60% of U.S. wood and paper imports came from Canada in 2002, despite the softwood lumber dispute between the two countries.
These trade numbers are due, in part, to the high degree of integration between Canadian and U.S. industry. Over 40% of U.S. trade with Canada is intra-firm, that is, trade occurring between parts of the same firm operating on both sides of the border.
The automotive industry is a prime example of this integration: every vehicle assembled in North America now contains nearly $1,250 of Canadian-made parts.
Merchandise Trade
Trade and economic interests span the globe, but the scope and scale of the movement of goods, services, investment, people and ideas between the United States and Canada make this a unique partnership. Trade between the U.S. and Canada contributes to making both countries more internationally competitive, provides consumers and producers with a greater variety of goods and services at lower prices and generally improves the standard of living in both countries.
Co-operation has produced tremendous benefits to both nations: in 2003, two-way trade in goods and services surpassed $441.5 billion, making the U.S.–Canada trading relationship the largest in the world.
In 2003, the U.S. sold $195.8 billion worth of goods and services to Canada and received $245.8 billion worth of goods and services from Canada.
37,000 trucks cross the border between the two countries each and every day. 58% of these cross at only five key border crossings — the Ambassador Bridge, Sarnia, Fort Erie, Lacolle and the Pacific Highway.
Since 1989, when the U.S. and Canada implemented the Canada–U.S. Free Trade Agreement, trade between the two countries has accelerated, more than doubling from $192.4 billion to $441.5 billion in 2003.
Canada has been the leading destination for U.S. exports since 1946! From cars to computers — Canada buys more goods and services from the U.S. than any other country in the world. One-fifth of all U.S. exports went to Canada in 2003.
Thirty-seven states count Canada as their number one foreign customer; Canada is the most important destination of exports for most of the states along the border as well as the northeast and central U.S., and as far south as Missouri and Georgia. Twenty-three states sent more than one-quarter of their exports to Canada in 2003.
Since the implementation of the Canada–U.S. Free Trade Agreement in 1989 and the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1994, there has been a dramatic increase in two-way interdependence between the two economies.
U.S. exports bound for Canada more than doubled between 1989 and 2003, from $79.9 billion to $169.8 billion. Over the same period, U.S. imports from Canada increased from $89.9 billion to $226.9 billion.
In 2003, merchandise trade accounted for 86.7% of total U.S. exports to Canada and 92.3% of total imports from Canada.
Canada provides close to one-fifth of U.S. imports used in the production process or directly consumed. Nearly 60% of U.S. wood and paper imports came from Canada in 2002, despite the softwood lumber dispute between the two countries.
These trade numbers are due, in part, to the high degree of integration between Canadian and U.S. industry. Over 40% of U.S. trade with Canada is intra-firm, that is, trade occurring between parts of the same firm operating on both sides of the border.
The automotive industry is a prime example of this integration: every vehicle assembled in North America now contains nearly $1,250 of Canadian-made parts.
Services Trade
Canada bought about $26.0 billion worth of services from the U.S. in 2003, including $14.4 billion in commercial services, $6.7 billion in travel services and $4.9 billion in transportation and government services. Commercial services consist of high value added services such as Business and Other Professional Services as well as Finance and Insurance.
The U.S. purchased $18.9 billion worth of Canadian services in 2003. That included $8.4 billion in commercial services, $6.3 billion in travel services, and close to $4.3 billion in transportation and government services.
The U.S. has traditionally maintained a large trade surplus with Canada in services. In 2003, the U.S. exported $7.0 billion more in services to Canada than it imported.
In 2003, 13.3% of U.S. exports to Canada and 7.7% of U.S. imports from Canada were services. While this is down somewhat from the early 1990s, it is largely due to particularly rapid growth in goods trade rather than poor performance in services.
Foreign Direct Investment
Canada and the U.S. have built one of the world's largest direct investment partnerships: the U.S. is the largest foreign investor in Canada, and the most popular destination for Canadian investment. Foreign direct investment (FDI) stocks between the two countries reached $244.6 billion in 2002.
Canadian FDI in the U.S. increased tremendously between 1989 and 2002; growing from $30.4 billion in 1989 to $92.0 billion in 2002 — a more than three-fold increase, and at an average annual rate of growth of 8.9% significantly outpaced growth in trade.
Nearly half of Canadian direct investment is located in the U.S., making the U.S the single most important destination for Canadian direct investment.
Canada is second only to the U.K. as a destination for U.S. outward direct investment, which grew from $63.9 billion in 1989 to $152.5 billion in 2002, contributing to the competitiveness of both countries.
Trade Energizes the U.S.
Trade and investment in energy, as well as expansion and improved efficiency of joint energy markets, are critical to the economic health of both countries.
Canada is the single largest supplier of energy to the U.S. at more than $41 billion in 2003 – nearly three times as much as Saudi Arabia. Canada supplied the U.S. with 88% of its natural gas imports, and 17% of its oil in 2003 — more than any other country.
Canada supplies close to 100% of the United States' electricity imports, and is the major provider of electricity to the Northeastern U.S., including New England and New York, as well as the Upper Midwest, the Pacific Northwest and California.
Notes:
1. All figures are in U.S. dollars.
2. Percentages may not add up due to rounding.
|
>>Source<<
So at what point are we becoming, "More American" again? :wtf: |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Abercrombie
Let's start an Aurora TA posse! |
sounds good LOL |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
the latest liberal attack ad is VERY VERY anti US. Dont think that wont make cnn. You can bet the right wing in the US is all over that ad. And all that will do is cost us a lot of money and jobs.
Im not a republican supporter by any means but im sick of the liberal american bashing that is widespread in the name of votes. Its foolish and irresponsible.
Imagine if the US republicans ran an ad against the democrats calling them "canada loving commies". Wed all be freaking out! |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
Imagine if the US republicans ran an ad against the democrats calling them "canada loving commies". Wed all be freaking out! |
lol...good point.... |
|
|
|
|
