Hugo Chavez, the Richard and Judy tyrant who has brought Marxism back from its grave

[Albertabound]

Since I doubt you have read all 1800 pages of the agreement (or maybe you have) with an equal amount of fervor as defending your position, is it any at all possible you have been misled by editorials and misinformation? Just throwing it out there.

No, you are absolutely right. I have not read all 1800 pages, and yes most of my arguement does come from editorials and such. I am an honest person, but at the same time I still claim that you can not take one page out of an 1800 page document and try to defend a statement using it. Especially when it comes from a government document. I have read all of my provincial traffic act and enough of NAFTA and of the CC of Canada to know that you can not base a statement off of one page of such a document.

I commend you on being polite about it though, unlike some people that would say "you don't know what you're talking about, where do you get your information" and with arrogance, only to be fully dicredited when the proof is provided.

And the only reason why I bring this up is because I have repeatedly heard similar claims, even by a few right wingers and moderates, that take the same position you do, but can NEVER, and I mean NEVER point to the specific article or articles that substantiate that claim.

Well, it sounds like I have a new task at hand. Don't forget all of these acts are written with the intention that you "don't" understand them.

At the same time I feel the claim by Toro is not factual or has any claim to it based on the portion of the ACT mentioned by himself. After reading so many ACTS....it is my personal believe.

 

[Albertabound]

I guess while I am at it, I might as well ask for full documentation backing up Toro's claim. Nothing personal buddy....

 

[CDNBear]

No, you are absolutely right. I have not read all 1800 pages, and yes most of my arguement does come from editorials and such.

Nuff said...

Try an original thought. It won't kill ya.

 

[Albertabound]

Nuff said...

Try an original thought. It won't kill ya.

I know I've read more of it than you so take a long hard suck on it. But thanks for your 2 cents of shiit. You probably think the Transcanada pipeline carries oil also.

The important point to ensuring oil supply to all parts of Canada is sufficient infrastructure. If shipping terminals and pipelines (with sufficient capacity) exist, then consumers across Canada will have access to world oil supplies (including those in Western Canada) at world oil prices. The only way a local shortage could exist, then, would be because there was a global shortage.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb0633-e.htm

Is there not a present debate going on in regards to global oil shortage..."peak oil" by the oil companies.

 

[Albertabound]

Nuff said...

Try an original thought. It won't kill ya.

If that's the extent of your contribution, go find another place for your dribble.

 

[CDNBear]

I know I've read more of it than you so take a long hard suck on it. But thanks for your 2 cents of shiit. You probably think the Transcanada pipeline carries oil also.

Did I strike at your soft spot there AB?

Need a hug lil man?

 

[Toro]

I guess while I am at it, I might as well ask for full documentation backing up Toro's claim. Nothing personal buddy....

The full documentation is the agreement. Its right there for you to read.

I have read every every page of the agreement, or at least the old Canada-US free trade agreement, from which the energy portion quoted was lifted. I have read most of the new provisions added when Mexico joined for the agreement to become NAFTA.

The onus is on those making the claim to show that Canada is locked into some export agreement different from what I posted above.

But nobody can. And there are a lot who make this or some other similar claim. I have never had anyone present anything in the agreement or even a legal interpretation that this is the case.

At some time, some opponent of the agreement started saying this to scare Canadians, either because they mis-read the agreement or because they were deliberately lying. Now, people read this claim on the Internet and think its true.

 

[CDNBear]

If that's the extent of your contribution, go find another place for your dribble.

Wow!!! I did hit a sore spot!!!


What you know about NAFTA isn't worth replying to AB.

I'm surprised Toro and ITN have even bothered.

As usual and par for the course, your an ideologically driven OP/Ed follower.

There is no point in debating shyte with people like you. Your firmly planted in your own reality and nothing else matters.

Hence your argument based on Op/Ed pieces, you only read the ones that support your views and all others are vacuous. Kind of like you.

 

[Albertabound]

And if Canada doesn't impose export controls,

It also states that we can not impose export controls.

 

[Albertabound]

I listen to all views and try to as much as possible and where possible to provide facts. What facts have you provide here....oh yeah....none. Why are you here? The only nerve you hit was the one of people such as yourself that comment on other people's posts with out having a valid point other than agreeing or disagreeing with other valid and factual posts....so like I said, "if you don't have anything of value to add....don't add anything.

Go post something on the "how many times I jerk off a day" post....What...it's not there...well go make one. At least we are discussing the matter. What the f*ck are you doing? Picking out spelling arrears.

 

[CDNBear]

I listen to all views and try to as much as possible and where possible to provide facts. What facts have you provide here....oh yeah....none. Why are you here?

Reading along, learning, unlike yourself.

The only nerve you hit was the one of people such as yourself that comment on other people's posts with out having a valid point other than agreeing or disagreeing with other valid and factual posts....so like I said, "if you don't have anything of value to add....don't add anything.

What exactly have you added? Besides others flawed opinions of course.

Go post something on the "how many times I jerk off a day" post....What...it's not there...well go make one. At least we are discussing the matter. What the f*ck are you doing?

Wow, such intelligent language.

Am I not allowed to post here?

Am I not allowed to read here?

Can I not post my opinion of your tripe?

Who made you the forum Gestapo?

Picking out spelling arrears.

I'll leave that to hacks like you.

So where is all the proof you keep talking about..? I've yet to read any in this thread.

Accept from Toro and ITN.

 

[CDNBear]

Then tell me why most all wells in Alberta are now capped and not flowing, the demand and supply thing doesn't fly with me.

Got any proof?

 

[Albertabound]

Reading along, learning, unlike yourself.

Nuff said...

Try an original thought. It won't kill ya.

Is this part of your learning program.

So where is all the proof you keep talking about..? I've yet to read any in this thread.

I have presented my views and opinions and interpretation.....yes opinion using the NAFTA document. Once again I ask. What have you added to this post?

Nuff said...

So now you are the moderator, and now you are the one that states whether or not one can post here.

 

[I think not]

No, you are absolutely right. I have not read all 1800 pages, and yes most of my arguement does come from editorials and such. I am an honest person, but at the same time I still claim that you can not take one page out of an 1800 page document and try to defend a statement using it. Especially when it comes from a government document. I have read all of my provincial traffic act and enough of NAFTA and of the CC of Canada to know that you can not base a statement off of one page of such a document.

I commend you on being polite about it though, unlike some people that would say "you don't know what you're talking about, where do you get your information" and with arrogance, only to be fully dicredited when the proof is provided.



Well, it sounds like I have a new task at hand. Don't forget all of these acts are written with the intention that you "don't" understand them.

At the same time I feel the claim by Toro is not factual or has any claim to it based on the portion of the ACT mentioned by himself. After reading so many ACTS....it is my personal believe.

We're all victims of misinformation, it's having the fervor to decypher fact from fiction with everything thrown at us. Many times I have "caught" editorials distorting the truth to sucha degree where fiction turned into "fact".

I'm not accusing you of NOT reading NAFTA in its entirety, all I am saying is if your position was as crystal clear as many have sought out to make it, it would have been easily cited repeatedly. But they never tell us that part do they?

If indeed you are correct (personally I believe you are incorrect) I would be bent out of shape about it as much as you appear to be. I would not tolerate such abuse in the agreement. It would weaken a nations sovereignty tenfold.

I have also read many of your other posts, and I know where your position generally stands with the US. Do not permit issues where you most certainly have a point interfere with issues you may be wrong. You would be doing yourself an injustice.

My 2 cents.

 

[MikeyDB]

ITN

Does it say anywhere in the NAFTA "agreement" that the lumber barons of the United States have a unilateral "right" to ignore this agreement whenever they choose?

What's the point of continuing this charade when Americans aren't prepared to honor it?

 

[CDNBear]

Is this part of your learning program.

Sorry you feel hurt, but I just had to comment on the lack of thought on your part.

What have you added to this post?

A question, I'm still waiting to see answered.

Got any proof?

So now you are the moderator, and now you are the one that states whether or not one can post here.

If your reading comprehension is of such poor ability then there is no wonder I am and most others, are still waiting for proof, rather then conjecture.

Nuff said.

 

[CDNBear]

ITN

Does it say anywhere in the NAFTA "agreement" that the lumber barons of the United States have a unilateral "right" to ignore this agreement whenever they choose?

What's the point of continuing this charade when Americans aren't prepared to honor it?

Mikey, Canada is and has been abusing loop holes in the treaty for some time regarding lumber.

 

[Albertabound]

Quoting Albertabound Then tell me why most all wells in Alberta are now capped and not flowing, the demand and supply thing doesn't fly with me.
​

Got any proof?

None other than I spend my winters there in the oil industry, talking to oil consultants and such. Along with my knowledge of all the people I know in the oil industry such as drillers that are now looking for work elsewhere because they can't find work in Alberta, also all the layoffs by such companies such as Apache Canada, ....that's my proof...I am there in the thick of it. I travell all of Alberta and simply report my observations. How about you been there lately?​

 

[CDNBear]

None other than I spend my winters there in the oil industry, talking to oil consultants and such. Along with my knowledge of all the people I know in the oil industry such as drillers that are now looking for work elsewhere because they can't find work in Alberta, also all the layoffs by such companies such as Apache Canada, ....that's my proof...I am there in the thick of it. I travell all of Alberta and simply report my observations. How about you been there lately?​

Yep that's it, I'm going to take the word of someone that thinks swearing at someone is a valid form of debate...:roll:

You have to excuse me if I call BS on your BS.

I searched the notion, found nothing supporting your claim.

So, again I ask, "Got any proof?"

 

[I think not]

ITN

Does it say anywhere in the NAFTA "agreement" that the lumber barons of the United States have a unilateral "right" to ignore this agreement whenever they choose?

What's the point of continuing this charade when Americans aren't prepared to honor it?

When the "beer barons" in Ontario discounted NAFTA and "rulings" were you equally as vocal at the time? Just curious.

BTW, do you know how you ended up with Candian Content Laws? Canada bargained the implementation of Canadian Content Laws while the US excluded sfotwood from NAFTA.

Any other questions before you veer way off topic and start talking about American Imperialism in the 17th century?