Anti-American topics (Merged)
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Streaker Streaker:
Why are we linking ourselves so closely to a sinking ship? We should be doing just the opposite.
Something to do with the 6,000 mile common border (including Alaska), billions in trade every month, not wanting to make an enemy out of a friend just to please asshat leftists like you, reasons like that would be
why I'm sure.

Opposing deep integration with the US doesn't mean wanting to make an enemy of the US.
Honestly, sometimes you right-wingers are so dumb.
Robair @ Fri Apr 25, 2008 12:55 pm
Streaker Streaker:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Streaker Streaker:
Why are we linking ourselves so closely to a sinking ship? We should be doing just the opposite.
Something to do with the 6,000 mile common border (including Alaska), billions in trade every month, not wanting to make an enemy out of a friend just to please asshat leftists like you, reasons like that would be
why I'm sure.

Opposing deep integration with the US doesn't mean wanting to make an enemy of the US.
Honestly, sometimes you right-wingers are so dumb.

If you two would cut the partisan crap, you would probably agree on this topic. I've seen Bart post that he is opposed to the idea of Canada joining the union...
Mr_Canada Mr_Canada:
commanderkai commanderkai:
Mr_Canada Mr_Canada:
RUEZ RUEZ:
I can't wait until we become one country.
*loads gun*
Oh, yeah, me neither...
*cocks gun*
The day I see a Yankee flag flying in place of the Canadian Flag on Parliament Hill......
I'm not sure if you're threatening to kill yourself or start an armed resistance with the muskets that the Canadian government legally only lets us own.
Suicide? No. Legal Firearms? Oh come on. If I see the Maple Leaf replaced by those Blood Smears n' Death Stars, it's war,

Now I'm wishing for it to happen just to see how creative people can get lol
I'm more concerned about the 'security' aspect of the SPP. The US should not serve as a model for combating terrorism because their methods do not fully respect civil liberties granted to them by their constitution - it would pain me if Canada were to follow in those footsteps.
Streaker Streaker:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Streaker Streaker:
Why are we linking ourselves so closely to a sinking ship? We should be doing just the opposite.
Something to do with the 6,000 mile common border (including Alaska), billions in trade every month, not wanting to make an enemy out of a friend just to please asshat leftists like you, reasons like that would be
why I'm sure.

Opposing deep integration with the US doesn't mean wanting to make an enemy of the US.
Honestly, sometimes you right-wingers are so dumb.

And what was your post again?
Streaker Streaker:
Why are we linking ourselves so closely to a sinking ship? We should be doing just the opposite.
To implement the
opposite of closer trade ties, closer economic ties, closer defense ties would necessitate
ending trade agreements, ending economic agreements, and ending mutual defense agreements.
All of which are considered
unfriendly acts between nations. I know that you're totally ignorant about international diplomacy and that you'll ignorantly laugh or mock my post here, but I'll say it anyway that such actions are typically responded to with diplomatic notes featuring terms such as "grave" and "national interest".
Going back to my observation that such actions are considered unfriendly acts between nations, the US response to such actions will be completely understood by the career diplomats in the Foreign Affairs and International Trade Ministry.
The USA will predictably follow up the severance of Canada-US mutual defense pacts by terminating the access of Canadian personnel to sensitive US systems. Canadian personnel will be denied access to US military facilities and Canadian military liason projects will be summarily ended. Our policticians will respond to arbitrary withdrawals from trade agreements by acting to protect American markets and businesses at the extreme expense of Canadian businesses. Canadian lumber will be totally shut out of our markets. Canadian grain and beef will likewise be shut out of our markets. The auto factories in Canada will close when we shut our border to cars imported from Canada. Canadian fish products will be shut out of our markets.
In addition, the tempo of preparedness and training for US units along the border will be stepped up as part of the correct response to what is internationally considered to be provocative actions. Again, I don't expect you to know fuc*all about the machinations of international diplomacy, but the way this works is when friends stop being friends it is
expected they'll start being enemies.
So when Canada predictably bitches to the UN about the USA being unfriendly the UN will collectively ask you what you were thinking when you ended all the treaties that defined the long-time friendship? I doubt even the Iranians will be sympathetic to you. And if they are it'll just be one more reason for the USA to be less friendly to Canada.
As to the USA - we'll miss the trade but where the country with the net trade surplus is Canada you'll be doing the American worker a great service by effectively closing the border.
In sum, most of the ramifications from ending these military and trade ties will not hurt the USA, they'll hurt Canadians.
And you're stupid enough and spiteful enough to want to do all of this anyway.
Robair Robair:
If you two would cut the partisan crap, you would probably agree on this topic. I've seen Bart post that he is opposed to the idea of Canada joining the union...
I am.
Vehemently. I'm also against Canada needlessly antagonizing the USA (as Streaker would have) for the reason that it is principally Canadians who would suffer.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Streaker Streaker:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Streaker Streaker:
Why are we linking ourselves so closely to a sinking ship? We should be doing just the opposite.
Something to do with the 6,000 mile common border (including Alaska), billions in trade every month, not wanting to make an enemy out of a friend just to please asshat leftists like you, reasons like that would be
why I'm sure.

Opposing deep integration with the US doesn't mean wanting to make an enemy of the US.
Honestly, sometimes you right-wingers are so dumb.

And what was your post again?
Streaker Streaker:
Why are we linking ourselves so closely to a sinking ship? We should be doing just the opposite.
To implement the
opposite of closer trade ties, closer economic ties, closer defense ties would necessitate
ending trade agreements, ending economic agreements, and ending mutual defense agreements.
All of which are considered
unfriendly acts between nations. I know that you're totally ignorant about international diplomacy and that you'll ignorantly laugh or mock my post here, but I'll say it anyway that such actions are typically responded to with diplomatic notes featuring terms such as "grave" and "national interest".
Going back to my observation that such actions are considered unfriendly acts between nations, the US response to such actions will be completely understood by the career diplomats in the Foreign Affairs and International Trade Ministry.
The USA will predictably follow up the severance of Canada-US mutual defense pacts by terminating the access of Canadian personnel to sensitive US systems. Canadian personnel will be denied access to US military facilities and Canadian military liason projects will be summarily ended. Our policticians will respond to arbitrary withdrawals from trade agreements by acting to protect American markets and businesses at the extreme expense of Canadian businesses. Canadian lumber will be totally shut out of our markets. Canadian grain and beef will likewise be shut out of our markets. The auto factories in Canada will close when we shut our border to cars imported from Canada. Canadian fish products will be shut out of our markets.
In addition, the tempo of preparedness and training for US units along the border will be stepped up as part of the correct response to what is internationally considered to be provocative actions. Again, I don't expect you to know fuc*all about the machinations of international diplomacy, but the way this works is when friends stop being friends it is
expected they'll start being enemies.
So when Canada predictably bitches to the UN about the USA being unfriendly the UN will collectively ask you what you were thinking when you ended all the treaties that defined the long-time friendship? I doubt even the Iranians will be sympathetic to you. And if they are it'll just be one more reason for the USA to be less friendly to Canada.
As to the USA - we'll miss the trade but where the country with the net trade surplus is Canada you'll be doing the American worker a great service by effectively closing the border.
In sum, most of the ramifications from ending these military and trade ties will not hurt the USA, they'll hurt Canadians.
And you're stupid enough and spiteful enough to want to do all of this anyway.

All of this, just to say "Be our friends - or else!"
No wonder America is so alone.
Streaker Streaker:
All of this, just to say "Be our friends - or else!"
No wonder America is so alone.
You don't get it, do you?
We
ARE friends and that friendship is reflected in the very same trade and defense pacts you suggest should be reversed.
Again, we are friends. You want to change that. Yet you inexplicably expect our two nations to remain friendly while the foundations of that friendship are erased.
I think we are both in agreement that we don't want a North American Union or anything resembling a transnational government.
But we consistently diverge when the question comes to the ties that Canada and the USA already have.
Sometimes, you and your anti-American minions remind me of Ahab with your self-consuming hatreds.
Ok. Streaker.. I read that and I wat my time back.
So MMT is a harmfull gas additive that's only used in Canada. The government moves to ban it but the company who makes the stuff sues us because it will hurt their livelyhood. Rulings under NAFTA are not carved in stone and I can't see this holding up in court anyways. Seriously.. if it's a dangerous product but we have to pay to have it removed from our gas?
Rationalist: Since when do packaging and car bumpers change our courts and our rules. We don't even measure thingsby the same yardstick so why do you expect we're suddenly going to unify our justice system.
This is just another nytty excuse for anti-American protectionism.
Do they still use MMT in gasoline in Canada? I think the majors voluntarily stopped using it. Not only for liability, but also because automakers complained that MMT caused higher hydrocarbon emissions out the tailpipe.
Ethyl Corp is evil--no doubt about that. But the Canadian government was spineless not to ban it anyways if they thought it was so bad. NAFTA has no teeth; Canada could have just delayed and stalled a la the US position on softwood lumber.
Personally, I know that manganese (like lead) is a potent neurotoxin, but the levels of MMT are way lower than the (tetra-ethyl) lead levels were in leaded gasoline, and I agree with Health Canada's conclusion that MMT contributions to ambient manganese levels probably wouldn't have much effect.
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Robair Robair:
If you two would cut the partisan crap, you would probably agree on this topic. I've seen Bart post that he is opposed to the idea of Canada joining the union...
I am.
Vehemently. I'm also against Canada needlessly antagonizing the USA (as Streaker would have) for the reason that it is principally Canadians who would suffer.
Of course! Because (with the exception of Alberta) Canada would be a vote bloc for the Democrats, that would kill the GOP.
RUEZ @ Fri Apr 25, 2008 5:20 pm
Robair Robair:
RUEZ RUEZ:
I can't wait until we become one country.
Don't hold your breath.
Actually I was just trying to see what reaction I would get, I like being a Canadian.
westmanguy westmanguy:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Robair Robair:
If you two would cut the partisan crap, you would probably agree on this topic. I've seen Bart post that he is opposed to the idea of Canada joining the union...
I am.
Vehemently. I'm also against Canada needlessly antagonizing the USA (as Streaker would have) for the reason that it is principally Canadians who would suffer.
Of course! Because (with the exception of Alberta) Canada would be a vote bloc for the Democrats, that would kill the GOP.
No, I'm not as simple as all that.
#1 - I like Canada the way it is - liberals and all.
#2 - I do not want the national identities of either the USA or Canada erased and replaced with the bland kind of autocratic state the Euroweenies are suffering under.
RUEZ @ Fri Apr 25, 2008 7:05 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
#1 - I like Canada the way it is - liberals and all.
#2 - I do not want the national identities of either the USA or Canada erased and replaced with the bland kind of autocratic state the Euroweenies are suffering under.
Amen.