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

[MikeyDB]

Sorry Eaglesmack

There's never been anyone more arrogant than an American. EVER

Do you honestly think that titles like "The Ugly American" fell like rain or gentle mercy from the clouds above..?

Americans are so insecure about who they are and so subconsciously ashamed of their history of racism and slavery that their over-compensation for a lack of history and embarassment at the history they do have...that they swagger like pimps across the planet.

It's been this way for as long as I can remember and there are enough folk participating here at CC to demonstrate that nothing has really changed in this regard. It doesn't matter that your involved in an ilegal war in Iraq, it doesn't matter that your governors senators and congressmen frequent wh0re houses and invite excitement in public washrooms....It doesn't matter that your nation is repeating the same mistake with China that it made with Saudi Arabia, it doesn't matter that your nation is facing a disasterous domestic situation because your political machinery is as corrupt as any ever seen....

OH no...Americans will still swagger and pontificate like they think anyone's really interested in their opinion....

 

[I think not]

There's never been anyone more arrogant than an American. EVER

Interesting that you attach arrogance to a passport. What does that say about you I wonder.

Eaglesmack, 70% of Canadians have endorsed NAFTA in a 2004 poll conducted by a Canadian company. You're wasting bandwidth arguing with people that will never see it any other way other than America is the cause of ALL of humankinds ills. And I mean everything.

You're better off talking to the hand.

 

[Albertabound]

I do get it. Maybe I was not clear enough. The Chinese have backed out the deal with investing in that LAND pipeline. You are on your own.

This back out you talk about was in 2005. As far as I know the talks are back on.

Because you fantasize about a US attack.

WTF.....Are you on crack or what? Who in their right mind would say something like that?
The only thing we do as Canadians in regard to the US is "look over our shoulder constantly". There is no Canadian other than crack heads like you that hopes, wishes or fantasizes about a US attack. I have never heard of something so ridiculous and I don't even know why I am wasting my time responding to it. Crack, crack, cracker.

And since you brought up soft wood lumber, just take a look at our lumber industry right now. It is basically none existant due to NAFTA

You live in a different world if you think that you would just shut off the taps. But if you did we would not go and bomb you! We have our own stuff. It is just cheaper to buy yours. Yeah it would suck if you did. We would have to seek other resources but we wouldn't attack you. Those thoughts are just childish. But if it makes you feel more important then keep thinking that.

Of course we can't just shut off the taps, it's hypothetical for the sake of arguement. You have not however answered my question. You stated what the US would "not" do. Now tell me what the US "would" do, or do you believe that they would do "absolutely" nothing, according to your previous answer that is exactly what you are saying. That there would be "no" consequences. Kind of like saying "thanks for doing business with us, shake and wake away.........Hahhhh. I doubt it. There would be a form of punishment in one way or another. Just for a second get the bombing out of your head.....cracker. Yeah...and I ....live in a different world?

 

[Albertabound]

You are on your own.

Well let's see, we have postash, uranium, diamonds, lumber, nickle, silver, iron ore, zinc, copper, gold, grain, coal, and the three most important in order. Natural gas, oil, and the most important......Fresh Water.

Well, if we're on our own.....we're on our own. I hope as soon as you are finished building your wall in the south, you will begin building one in the north.

 

[Toro]

NAFTA has caused our energy prices to sky rocket. Before NAFTA it was cheaper to heat your house with N/G than electricity. Today the opposite is true.

NAFTA is completely irrelevant. The world is warmer than it was before Canada and the US signed the FTA. Is that because of NAFTA too?

The price of oil is higher because demand has grown faster than supply, full-stop. There is no other reason.

 

[Toro]

No....America is the problem. What do YOU think would happen if we quit selling oil to the US and started selling it to China. For one, we can't because of NAFTA, we are bound to the US.

This is totally wrong. There is nothing in NAFTA that says this.

Here is the article on energy in NAFTA. Show me where it says this?

http://www-tech.mit.edu/Bulletins/Nafta/06.energy

 

[Toro]

Have any of you Canadians heard of the recently discovered - and soon to be developed
Barnett Shale? Perhaps we won't be so dependent on others after all.

The Barnett Shale is a geological formation of economic significance. It consists of sedimentary rocks of Mississippian age (354-323 million years ago) in the U.S. State of Texas. The formation is estimated to stretch from the city of Dallas to west of the city of Fort Worth and south, covering 5,000 square miles (13,000 km²) and at least 17 counties.
Some experts have suggested the Barnett Shale may be the largest onshore natural gas field in the United States. [1] The field is proven to have 2.5 trillion cubic feet (59 km³) of natural gas, and is widely estimated to contain as much as 30,000,000,000,000 cubic feet (850,000,000,000 m³) of natural gas resources.[2] Oil also has been found in lesser quantities, but sufficient enough (with recent high oil prices) to be commercially viable.

URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_Shale

Looks like we are sitting on top of the Mother Lode in my home town. :lol:

Uncle

Its still a few decades away from being commercially and technologically viable. But there are several shale deposits in the US where the eventual recoverable reserves could be in the trillions of barrels.

 

[Toro]

Do you realize that there are 4 major pipelines leading into the US, however there is not "one" going to the east in our own country....WTF.

Where do you get your information?

This is TransCanada Pipelines's system. Why do you think they call it "TransCanada" Pipelines?

 

[Toro]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO305A.html

www.globalresearch.ca Centre for Research on Globalisation Centre ​

​

Another example of the hilariously gross ideological bias and extremist and rabid anti-Americanism of globalresearch. Its hard to believe anyone takes it seriously.

I'd refer you to the book The Fate of Africa which details the slaughter in Rwanda in depth. The country with the most influence in Rwanda was France, followed by Britain.

http://www.amazon.com/Fate-Africa-Hopes-Freedom-Despair/dp/1586482467

 

[Albertabound]

Article 607: National Security Measures

1. No Party shall maintain or introduce a measure restricting
imports of an energy or basic petrochemical good from, or exports
of an energy or basic petrochemical good to, another Party under
Article XXI of the GATT or under Article 2102 (National
Security), except to the extent necessary to:

(a) supply a military establishment of a Party or enable
fulfillment of a critical defense contract of a Party;

(b) respond to a situation of armed conflict involving the
Party taking the measure;

(c) implement national policies or international agreements
relating to the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons or
other nuclear explosive devices; or

(d) respond to direct threats of disruption in the supply
of nuclear materials for defense purposes.

2. The Parties recognize the provisions of Annex 607.2.

Is it just me or does it not say "No party may maintain or introduce a measure restricting imports or exports."
It's a matter of national security. [Edited]... unless it is a matter of national security

 

[Albertabound]

This is TransCanada Pipelines's system. Why do you think they call it "TransCanada" Pipelines?

The TransCanada pipeline system carries natural gas not oil.

 

[Albertabound]

The price of oil is higher because demand has grown faster than supply, full-stop.

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. Oil companies control the supply, that's why prices are high.

Alot of people in Alberta are in economic trouble due to the capping of these wells.

 

[Toro]

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. Oil companies control the supply, that's why prices are high.

Alot of people in Alberta are in economic trouble due to the capping of these wells.

Oil is a fungible product. It is a pure commodity. The price is set in the open market.

If it weren't, why was it $10 a barrel a decade ago? Why wasn't $100 then?

 

[Toro]

Is it just me or does it not say "No party may maintain or introduce a measure restricting imports or exports."
It's a matter of national security. [Edited]... unless it is a matter of national security

Restricting trade does not preclude freely negotiable contracts. It refers to specific trade restrictions passed through laws by either government. If a company wants to sell to any other company, there is nothing in the laws that say otherwise.

Article 603 defines the scope of "restrictions"

Article 603: Import and Export Restrictions

1. Subject to the further rights and obligations of this
Agreement, the Parties incorporate the provisions of the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), with respect to
prohibitions or restrictions on trade in energy and basic
petrochemical goods. The Parties agree that this language does
not incorporate their respective protocols of provisional
application to the GATT.

2. The Parties understand that the provisions of the GATT
incorporated in paragraph 1 prohibit, in any circumstances in
which any other form of quantitative restriction is prohibited,
minimum or maximum export-price requirements and, except as
permitted in enforcement of countervailing and antidumping orders
and undertakings, minimum or maximum import-price requirements.

3. In circumstances where a Party imposes a restriction on
importation from or exportation to a non-Party of an energy or
basic petrochemical good, nothing in this Agreement shall be
construed to prevent the Party from:

(a) limiting or prohibiting the importation from the
territory of any Party of such energy or basic
petrochemical good of the non-Party; or

(b) requiring as a condition of export of such energy or
basic petrochemical good of the Party to the territory
of any other Party that the good be consumed within the
territory of the other Party.

4. In the event that a Party imposes a restriction on imports
of an energy or basic petrochemical good from non-Party
countries, the Parties, upon request of any Party, shall consult
with a view to avoiding undue interference with or distortion of
pricing, marketing and distribution arrangements in another
Party.

5. Parties may administer a system of import and export
licensing for energy and basic petrochemical goods provided that
such system is operated in a manner consistent with the
provisions of this Agreement, including paragraph 1 and Article
1502 (Monopolies and State Enterprises).

6. In addition, the Parties recognize the provisions of
Annex 603.6.

Absolutely nothing precludes Canadian companies from selling to anyone whom they choose.

Think about that. If what you are saying is true - that Canada must sell to America, then why would America buy oil for $100 a barrel? Why wouldn't they "demand" Canada sell to them for $10 a barrel?

Why? Because there is nothing in NAFTA that says Canada must sell to America.

With one exception. And that is if Canada imposes export restrictions, then it must not reduce the proportion of exports relative to reserves. That is Article 605

Article 605: Other Export Measures

A Party may maintain or introduce a restriction otherwise
justified under the provisions of Articles XI:2(a) and XX(g), (i)
and (j) of the GATT with respect to the export of an energy or
basic petrochemical good to the territory of another Party, only
if:

(a) the restriction does not reduce the proportion of the
total export shipments of a specific energy or basic
petrochemical good made available to such other Party
relative to the total supply of that good of the Party
maintaining the restriction as compared to the
proportion prevailing in the most recent 36-month
period for which data are available prior to the
imposition of the measure, or in such other
representative period on which the Parties involved may
agree;

(b) the Party does not impose a higher price for exports of
an energy or basic petrochemical good to such other
Party than the price charged for such energy good when
consumed domestically, by means of any measure such as
licenses, fees, taxation and minimum price
requirements. The foregoing provision does not apply
to a higher price which may result from a measure taken
pursuant to subparagraph (a) that only restricts the
volume of exports; and

(c) the restriction does not require the disruption of
normal channels of supply to such other Party or normal
proportions among specific energy or basic
petrochemical goods supplied to the other Party such
as, for example, between crude oil and refined products
and among different categories of crude oil and of
refined products.

But if the government of Canada does not impose export restrictions, then Canadian companies do not have to sell a drop of oil to the US.

However, it is very unlikely that Canada would do so because the US is Canada's closest and most integrated neighbor. Despite the talk of China increasing its imports of Canadian oil, it is not particularly feasible since the cost of transportation to China from the Western Hemisphere is so much greater than almost anywhere else.

 

[Albertabound]

If a company wants to sell to any other company, there is nothing in the laws that say otherwise.

Absolutely nothing precludes Canadian companies from selling to anyone whom they choose.

I never said Canada must sell to the US sole. We most definitely can sell "our" oil to whom ever we wish. However, now that the deal is made, we can not restrict the amount agreed upon in the agreement. This is our saving grace. They can not make us sell a larger amount than currently agreed upon with out renegotiating. Which is the point I am trying to make...we have agreed upon a set # of barrels of oil we must sell to them. Them, Mexico it doesn't matter. We can not now tell the Americans..."you know what, we are only going to sell you half the curent number of barrels of oil that we presently sell you". You can not do that with NAFTA.

Why? Because there is nothing in NAFTA that says Canada must sell to America.

 

[MHz]

I say it because it is fact. The oil fields are there if we really need them. Look at the profits of the oil companies...billions of dollars last year I will say for the third time. Business is good as it is. Our economy may stink but the oil companies are doing just fine. That is ALL that matters to them. If they spend money to develop those fields means they are eating into their profits. A CANCON member from California spoke of natural gas fields in Cali. The oil companies drilled and capped them. It is probably cheaper to get Canadian natural gas than pumping our own. That is why, and sadly, the "We'll sell to China" threat only sound threatening here on CANCON. We have it...we'd just rather buy it on the cheap from others.

Well at least you are admitting it is the will of big-biz that is the will the Gov. pays attention to. Not surprising that the people from both swap jobs back and forth.
Did you know you are probably listed as being 'property of U.S.A. Inc., you became that 'asset' when you got your birth-certificate. You even get a 'potential income over a lifetime' when you start work.

MHz...I stopped at GLOBALRESEARCH. A well known anti-American site whose sole existence is in anti-Americanism and full of BS.

Cry me some more fuking tears. It is based on a book that GR has nothing to do with, since you don't dispute the references then I take it they are correct.

 

[Lester]

Albertabound: Oil , gas it's the same as money, capping wells is the oil company's eay of putting it in the bank- do you take all your money out of the bank and put it under your mattress? of course you don't, you leave it in the bank. The oil companies leave it in the ground until they need it. there is a system they follow- drill , cap, build the transportation network-roads, piplines, oil batterys, then you ship it to the refinerys. Alberta's almost out of conventional oil. My advice to people who are still working on the rigs -Get a Trade, they are going to be buiding a lot of upgraders,Extraction facilities and refinerys. over a hundred billion worth over the next 8 to 10 years and they need people to build them.

 

[Toro]

I never said Canada must sell to the US sole. We most definitely can sell "our" oil to whom ever we wish. However, now that the deal is made, we can not restrict the amount agreed upon in the agreement. This is our saving grace. They can not make us sell a larger amount than currently agreed upon with out renegotiating. Which is the point I am trying to make...we have agreed upon a set # of barrels of oil we must sell to them. Them, Mexico it doesn't matter. We can not now tell the Americans..."you know what, we are only going to sell you half the curent number of barrels of oil that we presently sell you". You can not do that with NAFTA.

We have agreed upon a set proportion of exports if Canada imposes export controls.

What the agreement says is that if Canada decides to set export restrictions, then Canada must continue selling to the US the same proportion relative to reserves it has sold over the past 36 months. That is what it says in Article 605.

Canada exports 2.3 million barrels of oil a day to the US. There are a recognized 174 billion barrels of oil reserves in Canada, including oil sands. If Canada were to implement export controls, then the agreement dictates that Canada must continue selling 0.0013% of its reserve base to the US daily. If the reserve base has fallen dramatically (why else would Canada restrict exports?) to say 100 billion barrels, then Canada would have to sell 1.3 million barrels of oil per day to the US.

And if Canada doesn't impose export controls, then Canadian firms have the option of selling 0 barrels of oil to the Americans. That, of course, wouldn't happen since profit maximization dictates sales to the US. But if Canadian oil companies suddenly became collectively stupid, there is nothing in the agreement that forces them to sell a drop of oil to the United States.

 

[Albertabound]

I would have to disagree with that, and unless you are willing to quote all 1800 pages of the agreement, you can not take one page out of the act and say...this is the way it is. Just as you can not read one page out of the traffic act or criminal code of canada act and say...here it says so on page 46 without referencing other pages of the act.

 

[I think not]

I would have to disagree with that, and unless you are willing to quote all 1800 pages of the agreement, you can not take one page out of the act and say...this is the way it is. Just as you can not read one page out of the traffic act or criminal code of canada act and say...here it says so on page 46 without referencing other pages of the act.

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.

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.