Open Letter to Young Libs on CKA
ShepherdsDog @ Sat Dec 10, 2005 7:12 am
Most of them, given half the chance, will rob you blind irregardless of party affiliation.
DerbyX @ Sat Dec 10, 2005 7:42 am
ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:
Most of them, given half the chance, will rob you blind irregardless of party affiliation.
I used "irregardless" all the time until Bluenose pointed it out that it wasn't really a word.
$1:
ir·re·gard·less Audio pronunciation of "irregardless" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-gärdls)
adv. Nonstandard
Regardless.
[Probably blend of irrespective, and regardless.]
Usage Note: Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.
adv. Nonstandard
Regardless.
[Probably blend of irrespective, and regardless.]
Usage Note: Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.
I still think its a perfectly cromulant word.
Rev_Blair @ Sat Dec 10, 2005 7:49 am
MotorcycleBoy: Regarding your original post in the thread....I've seen the same at other sites by all four parties. In other words, the Conservatives do it too. If they perceive a site to be left-leaning, chances are that site has some new Conservative members and some it hasn't heard from since the last election. It's part of elections now.
I'm not sure how organised it is, whether the parties ask people to do it or whether they do it on their own, but it's here to stay.
Motorcycleboy @ Sat Dec 10, 2005 8:32 am
Delwin Delwin:
I can't believe there is a Canadian alive who believes thAT NAFTA has helped the country.
Does Paul Martin count? After all, when he co-authored the Liberal Red Book of Campaign Promises (aka the book of lies volume 1), he promised to scrap NAFTA and the GST, as they were allegedly dragging the country down.
Yet, here we are, after 12 years of Liberal rule, and both NAFTA and the GST are still going strong.
Answer me this Dilbert. If NAFTA is such a disaster, why haven't the Liberals revoked it? After all, this softwood dispute would have been a perfect chance to do so if they really thought it was putting Canada at a disadvantage.
While we're at it, perhaps you could explain how an agreement which eases the free flow of goods across the border could be bad for an export driven economy like Canada's. Maybe you could tell us why, if NAFTA's been such a disaster, that Canadian productivity is up and unemployment has dropped to half the levels it was at before NAFTA came into effect?
But maybe your right. Perhaps we could rescind all our bilateral trade agreements. Let's get rid of Diefenbaker's AUTOPACT! Hey, that's been a disaster for this country if ever there was one. Wouldn't it be great if Canada had stayed out of it! Then we could have a home grown auto industry! Of course we'd all be paying $80 000 dollars for the equivilant of a Dodge Neon, but what the fuck? At least we'd have our own home labelled industry!
You can quote a few reports written by CAW economists and Maude Barlow all you want. The facts speak for themselves. If NAFTA was such a bad thing, the Libs would have revoked it. They didn't. That tells you everything you need to know.
Motorcycleboy @ Sat Dec 10, 2005 8:38 am
Rev_Blair Rev_Blair:
MotorcycleBoy: Regarding your original post in the thread....I've seen the same at other sites by all four parties. In other words, the Conservatives do it too. If they perceive a site to be left-leaning, chances are that site has some new Conservative members and some it hasn't heard from since the last election. It's part of elections now.
I'm not sure how organised it is, whether the parties ask people to do it or whether they do it on their own, but it's here to stay.
I'm not sure how organised it is, whether the parties ask people to do it or whether they do it on their own, but it's here to stay.
I don't follow any other sites, so I can't comment on that. But I think it's pretty hard not to notice the influx of Libs we've just had onto this site in the last couple of days.
As I said, I'm all for it. It gives one a chance to expose the errors in their logic.
It's just such an obvious tactic, that's all.
Motorcycleboy @ Sat Dec 10, 2005 8:41 am
Dayseed Dayseed:
This is Canada and this is an election. It's not a Bloods/Crips turf war.
No, it's not a gang war. But I haven't heard that Hwacker did a drive by shooting on Blue Nose's house either.
An election is a time for people to take a good hard look at the party's positions and debate them vigorously. That's all this is about.
Why do you have a problem with that?
Delwin @ Sat Dec 10, 2005 9:08 am
Motorcycleboy Motorcycleboy:
Delwin Delwin:
I can't believe there is a Canadian alive who believes thAT NAFTA has helped the country.
Does Paul Martin count? After all, when he co-authored the Liberal Red Book of Campaign Promises (aka the book of lies volume 1), he promised to scrap NAFTA and the GST, as they were allegedly dragging the country down.
Yet, here we are, after 12 years of Liberal rule, and both NAFTA and the GST are still going strong.
Answer me this Dilbert. If NAFTA is such a disaster, why haven't the Liberals revoked it? After all, this softwood dispute would have been a perfect chance to do so if they really thought it was putting Canada at a disadvantage.
While we're at it, perhaps you could explain how an agreement which eases the free flow of goods across the border could be bad for an export driven economy like Canada's. Maybe you could tell us why, if NAFTA's been such a disaster, that Canadian productivity is up and unemployment has dropped to half the levels it was at before NAFTA came into effect?
But maybe your right. Perhaps we could rescind all our bilateral trade agreements. Let's get rid of Diefenbaker's AUTOPACT! Hey, that's been a disaster for this country if ever there was one. Wouldn't it be great if Canada had stayed out of it! Then we could have a home grown auto industry! Of course we'd all be paying $80 000 dollars for the equivilant of a Dodge Neon, but what the fuck? At least we'd have our own home labelled industry!
You can quote a few reports written by CAW economists and Maude Barlow all you want. The facts speak for themselves. If NAFTA was such a bad thing, the Libs would have revoked it. They didn't. That tells you everything you need to know.
Canada's growth profile is being reshaped by a rising currency and strong commodity markets. The appreciation of
the Canadian dollar has already dampened exports, production and job creation in the manufacturing sector. At the
same time, high commodity prices are supporting the resource sector. Overall, we expect growth to average a fairly
tepid 2½% this year and next — lagging the U.S. performance by half a percentage point.
Canada's export-oriented manufacturers are facing a number of growth-sapping hurdles, not the least strong competition
from lower-cost overseas producers, a high-valued currency and rising input costs. A relatively high level of finished
product inventories is also constraining production. The deceleration in foreign shipments that began to emerge in mid-
2004 will likely persist into 2006 as U.S. consumers rein in purchases and global growth moderates.
On a more positive note, business capital spending is on the upswing, supported by the lower cost of imported machinery
and the desire to bolster operational efficiencies, a development that will hopefully generate stronger productivity
gains. The focus on cutting costs, however, is also constraining the pace of hiring. Manufacturers have shed just over
50,000 jobs in the past two years, or 2% of its workforce, and further cutbacks are likely.(This was from scotiabanks groups nafta quarterly winter 2005)
I think our best bet now is to amend the current legislation and not rush into some huge new trade deal without considering the ramifications the way that "others" have.
PluggyRug @ Sat Dec 10, 2005 9:28 am
Delwin Delwin:
Motorcycleboy Motorcycleboy:
Delwin Delwin:
I can't believe there is a Canadian alive who believes thAT NAFTA has helped the country.
Does Paul Martin count? After all, when he co-authored the Liberal Red Book of Campaign Promises (aka the book of lies volume 1), he promised to scrap NAFTA and the GST, as they were allegedly dragging the country down.
Yet, here we are, after 12 years of Liberal rule, and both NAFTA and the GST are still going strong.
Answer me this Dilbert. If NAFTA is such a disaster, why haven't the Liberals revoked it? After all, this softwood dispute would have been a perfect chance to do so if they really thought it was putting Canada at a disadvantage.
While we're at it, perhaps you could explain how an agreement which eases the free flow of goods across the border could be bad for an export driven economy like Canada's. Maybe you could tell us why, if NAFTA's been such a disaster, that Canadian productivity is up and unemployment has dropped to half the levels it was at before NAFTA came into effect?
But maybe your right. Perhaps we could rescind all our bilateral trade agreements. Let's get rid of Diefenbaker's AUTOPACT! Hey, that's been a disaster for this country if ever there was one. Wouldn't it be great if Canada had stayed out of it! Then we could have a home grown auto industry! Of course we'd all be paying $80 000 dollars for the equivilant of a Dodge Neon, but what the fuck? At least we'd have our own home labelled industry!
You can quote a few reports written by CAW economists and Maude Barlow all you want. The facts speak for themselves. If NAFTA was such a bad thing, the Libs would have revoked it. They didn't. That tells you everything you need to know.
Canada's growth profile is being reshaped by a rising currency and strong commodity markets. The appreciation of
the Canadian dollar has already dampened exports, production and job creation in the manufacturing sector. At the
same time, high commodity prices are supporting the resource sector. Overall, we expect growth to average a fairly
tepid 2½% this year and next — lagging the U.S. performance by half a percentage point.
Canada's export-oriented manufacturers are facing a number of growth-sapping hurdles, not the least strong competition
from lower-cost overseas producers, a high-valued currency and rising input costs. A relatively high level of finished
product inventories is also constraining production. The deceleration in foreign shipments that began to emerge in mid-
2004 will likely persist into 2006 as U.S. consumers rein in purchases and global growth moderates.
On a more positive note, business capital spending is on the upswing, supported by the lower cost of imported machinery
and the desire to bolster operational efficiencies, a development that will hopefully generate stronger productivity
gains. The focus on cutting costs, however, is also constraining the pace of hiring. Manufacturers have shed just over
50,000 jobs in the past two years, or 2% of its workforce, and further cutbacks are likely.(This was from scotiabanks groups nafta quarterly winter 2005)
I think our best bet now is to amend the current legislation and not rush into some huge new trade deal without considering the ramifications they way "others" have.
That was the back page of the liberal times, it's old stuff
Canada has huge natural resources (our largest export). The rise in the Canadian dollar as boosted the revenue from these exports.
Manufacturing jobs are being lost because of cheap Asian imports, nothing to do with NAFTA.
US consumers are not reining in purchases.
That article sounds like it was written by someone straight out of university with a BA in Propaganda, who was using the Globe and Mail as his source.
Oh... and this Canadian believes NAFTA has helped the country, so there is at least one (1).
Delwin @ Sat Dec 10, 2005 9:39 am
What good are natural resource exports, when our trading partners are slapping illigal tarrifs on our lumber, banning the imports of our beef and likely about to ban the import of our poultry?Almost forgot, overfishing our waters.
Streaker @ Sat Dec 10, 2005 9:57 am
$1:
But maybe your right. Perhaps we could rescind all our bilateral trade agreements. Let's get rid of Diefenbaker's AUTOPACT!
uhh... MCB, just to set the record straight, the Auto Pact was Pearson's doing, not Diefenbaker's.
ridenrain @ Sat Dec 10, 2005 9:59 am
Although I do agree with Motorcycleboy about the sudden rash of "newer" posters, I suppose some might include me also in that group. I don't think anything can be done about it, and webmaster permitted, they are allowed to do it.
I simply will refuse to grant credibility to someone who logs in a guest or anonymous. If they can't bother to log in properly, they've shown little commitment to the community.
And Delwin: I believe Adolph Hitler was part of a National Socialist party.
That would ally him closer to the NDP wouldn't it? 
Delwin @ Sat Dec 10, 2005 10:03 am
ridenrain ridenrain:
Although I do agree with Motorcycleboy about the sudden rash of "newer" posters, I suppose some might include me also in that group. I don't think anything can be done about it, and webmaster permitted, they are allowed to do it.
I simply will refuse to grant credibility to someone who logs in a guest or anonymous. If they can't bother to log in properly, they've shown little commitment to the community.
And Delwin: I believe Adolph Hitler was part of a National Socialist party.
That would ally him closer to the NDP wouldn't it?
I can live with that. I simply will refuse to grant credibility to someone who logs in a guest or anonymous. If they can't bother to log in properly, they've shown little commitment to the community.
And Delwin: I believe Adolph Hitler was part of a National Socialist party.
That would ally him closer to the NDP wouldn't it?
RedBull @ Sat Dec 10, 2005 10:08 am
Dear Motorcycleconspiracytheorist,
Contrary to what you would like to believe, there are people out there other than hardcore neo-conservatives who have opinions. When an election is called the media bombards us with election coverage and all of a sudden the different platforms of the parties are beamed right into our living rooms ad nauseum. Its only natural that this stirs the fires of political debate and willingness to publicly discuss ones views.
To say that the increase in liberally-minded posters on this site is some sort of Liberal conspiracy is bullshit. You put your own credibility into question when you propose such a thing.
PluggyRug @ Sat Dec 10, 2005 10:08 am
Delwin Delwin:
What good are natural resource exports, when our trading partners are slapping illigal tarrifs on our lumber, banning the imports of our beef and likely about to ban the import of our poultry?Almost forgot, overfishing our waters.
Beef and poultry are not natural resources.
Water, oil, mineral ores, are our natural resources. Which we export in massive quantities. The higher Canadian dollar has had no impact on these exports except for an increase in revenue's.
Agreed softwood lumber tariff's are a problem. The Liberal government lacks the guts to correctly deal with it.
Beef is currently not a problem.
Delwin @ Sat Dec 10, 2005 10:18 am
PluggyRug PluggyRug:
Delwin Delwin:
What good are natural resource exports, when our trading partners are slapping illigal tarrifs on our lumber, banning the imports of our beef and likely about to ban the import of our poultry?Almost forgot, overfishing our waters.
Beef and poultry are not natural resources.
Water, oil, mineral ores, are our natural resources. Which we export in massive quantities. The higher Canadian dollar has had no impact on these exports except for an increase in revenue's.
Agreed softwood lumber tariff's are a problem. The Liberal government lacks the guts to correctly deal with it.
Beef is currently not a problem.