why steven harper will make a good prime minister

[Reverend Blair]

RE: why steven harper wil

There was an international consensus on Kosovo. WWII as well.

Go ahead and bash the UN though...show your ignorance of how things really work.

The only two bit dictators were Saddam and Georgie...a pair of war criminals who don't mind killing women and children to feed their own personal greed.

 

[mrmom2]

He's a fine looking piece of fire wood Throw so gas on him and fire him up :lol:

 

[no1important]

RE: why steven harper wil

Harper would be "W's" lapdog. We would all be but a 51st state in no time. Harper has no vision, but his vision to gain power.

He may be up in the polls now but once people get over their initial anger at Martin and calm down a bit and actually have to go out and vote, things won't be so rosey for Harper. He is pushing for a quick election in the summer (june 27) and people do not want one now. That will cost him some votes as well.

 

[MMMike]

It is not being a lapdog to want to improve relations and trade with our only significant trading partner. It is common sense.

And how do you "get over" the outright theft of our tax dollars to benefit the Liberal elite? How do you get over the massive waste of taxpayer money on the gun registry, HRDC, etc.... This government is rotten to the core and needs to be sent packing.

 

[Reverend Blair]

It is not being a lapdog to want to improve relations and trade with our only significant trading partner.

To quote Gilles Duceppe, "To have a friend does not mean kneeling in front of him."

Relations go both ways, MMMikey. Our relations with the US were good until Bush came to office, which suggests that the problems are his, not ours. Harper doesn't want to negotiate with Bush, he just wants to hand over the keys to candy store.

You want good relations with the US? Play hardball with them. That's the game they play with us. Harper wouldn't even field a t-ball team.

 

[MMMike]

I'm not talking about holding hands and having a sing-along a la Reagan & Mulroney. Our economy is almost 100% dependant on trade with the U.S.. The mood down there is getting more and more protectionist, and security concerns are mounting over the border, both here and with Mexico.

If the border closes, or even tightens up, it will have a devastating impact on our economy. We need a two-pronged approach - aggressively diversifying our trade with other countries, and moving to a common security perimeter with the U.S. We need to open the border, not close it.

 

[snoproblem]

We're not the ones closing the border - they are. Passports - remember that issue?

No, what this country obviously needs is a wider range of trading partners. If we further cozy up with the U.S., we'll just get subjected to more of the same protectionist bull.

...not to mention that it's a dubious strategy to buddy-up with an international pariah.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: why steven harper wil

What you are suggesting is deep integration. That would devastate this country because, as we've seen time and again, the US will just ignore trade rulings it doesn't like. We would be deeply integrated with them, but they would not be integrated with us.

They need us as much or more as we need them, MMMikey. The reality is theat we have three of the aces...oil, gas, electricity...and the forth ace...water...has already been dealt, just not played. Without those commodities they have no industry and cannot even grow enough food to to keep their population nourished.

In the meantime we can sell our goods...raw materials and value added...to other markets. Those markets are already less than enthralled with the US because of its predatory trade policies and it's teetering economy.

 

[I think not]

Most of your trade with the US consists of raw materials (oil, gas etc..) I doubt any strict border control would have any siginificant impact on that section of the economy.
Your trade with the EU and Pacific Rim has been declining even further over the years. The Canadian and US economies are integrated heavily. For example, the soft lumber issue recently, Canada exports most of its soft lumber to the US, the US exports heavy machinery for the timber industry to Canada, so in this case we both lose. Just as the EU countries are heavily dependant on each others economies, so is the case with NAFTA. I don't pretend to understand everything about economic data, but I would assume if the Canadian dollar almost evens out with the US dollar, at that point your products would become more expensive in the US and that is where your economy would be hurt mostly. However that would be the case world wide, not only with trade with the US.

 

[no1important]

RE: why steven harper wil

And how do you "get over" the outright theft of our tax dollars to benefit the Liberal elite? How do you get over the massive waste of taxpayer money on the gun registry, HRDC, etc.... This government is rotten to the core and needs to be sent packing.

People calm down over time. Who sold us off to America with free trade? Who brought in GST? That was the conservatives.

But when "crunch time" comes people start to think more carefully when they actually have to vote.

Last time a great many of people thought Harper was going to win but alas, it seemed the polls were a bit off as people stayed with the devil they knew than the one they did not know.

One benefit this time is Randy White is not running again. He cost Harper the election last time with his big mouth showing what his and what many conservatives true colours really were. It would not surprise if the same type of thing happened again. Conservatives don't usually think to before they go off on a tangent, and shoot their mouths off.

I think some people are going to be suprised how well the NDP do next time. I can see 30 seats minimum and 40 would not even surprise me, especially if people turn away from libs and Tories for forcing an early election.

 

[MMMike]

They need us as much or more as we need them, MMMikey. The reality is theat we have three of the aces...oil, gas, electricity...and the forth ace...water...has already been dealt, just not played. Without those commodities they have no industry and cannot even grow enough food to to keep their population nourished.

Something like 80% of our trade is with the U.S.. This represents something like 8% of their economy. Who will be more affected if this is choked off? Hmmm....

 

[Reverend Blair]

Most of your trade with the US consists of raw materials (oil, gas etc..) I doubt any strict border control would have any siginificant impact on that section of the economy.

The nice thing about oil and gas is that we can sell them anywhere. That would have a significant impact on our economy because we get more money for them on the international market than we can selling them to the US under NAFTA. You can toss potash in there too...you guys can't farm without it.

Your trade with the EU and Pacific Rim has been declining even further over the years.

It has, and yet we know how to get it back. China is buying oil and pre-fab houses from us. Japan and the EU will buy our beef if we start testing every cow. We've kept GM wheat out of the country, so we have vialble markets for it all over the world. South America, Asia, and Africa are all interested in Canadian technologies ranging from water purification to alternative energy.

The Canadian and US economies are integrated heavily.

Our fixation with the United States has made us vulnerable. It's time we changed that.
Given the debt crisis in the US, being too closely tied to the US economy is like playing Russian roulette.

For example, the soft lumber issue recently, Canada exports most of its soft lumber to the US, the US exports heavy machinery for the timber industry to Canada, so in this case we both lose. Just as the EU countries are heavily dependant on each others economies, so is the case with NAFTA.

NAFTA was designed to benefit multi-national corporations. It is not good for the people of the US, Canada, or Mexico.

I don't pretend to understand everything about economic data, but I would assume if the Canadian dollar almost evens out with the US dollar, at that point your products would become more expensive in the US and that is where your economy would be hurt mostly.

It wouldn't hurt those aces I mentioned at all. Those are cheaper than on the world market and will remain so as long as we under NAFTA. Even without NAFTA the transportation costs are minimal, so even at world prices and without any subsidies whatsoever they would remain cheaper.

 

[MMMike]

We're not the ones closing the border - they are. Passports - remember that issue?

No, what this country obviously needs is a wider range of trading partners. If we further cozy up with the U.S., we'll just get subjected to more of the same protectionist bull.

...not to mention that it's a dubious strategy to buddy-up with an international pariah.

That's exactly my point - they are contemplating tighter border controls. Another terrorist attack and it will get even worse. They are putting up walls and with 80% of our trade exclusively with the U.S. we better make sure we are inside the wall, and not outside.

I already said that we need to diversify our trade with more countries.

 

[MMMike]

People calm down over time. Who sold us off to America with free trade? Who brought in GST? That was the conservatives.

Forgive, but never forget. Free trade has been great thing for this country. The G.S.T. was absolutely essential in getting control of our finances. For all their bluster, even the Liberals recognized that: we couldn't have balanced the books without it.

One benefit this time is Randy White is not running again. He cost Harper the election last time with his big mouth showing what his and what many conservatives true colours really were. It would not surprise if the same type of thing happened again. Conservatives don't usually think to before they go off on a tangent, and shoot their mouths off.

Randy White does not speak for Conservatives any more than Hedy Fry or Carrolyn Parrish speak for the Liberals.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Something like 80% of our trade is with the U.S.. This represents something like 8% of their economy. Who will be more affected if this is choked off? Hmmm....

You always skip the pertinent fact....we supply their energy. Without our electricity and natural gas, their industry shuts down. Without our oil, their gas prices double and they lose the ability to grow crops. Without our potash, they lose 1/4-1/2 of yields on the crops they can grow.

8% doesn't mean much because what we supply them impacts the other 92% of their economy so greatly. Similarily, 80% doesn't mean much because we can trade so much of that with others.

The other thing that you are ignoring is that tying ourselves to the US given their economic situation is an extremely dubious move. Their debt is way out of control. Their trade deficit is entering bizarro-land. Their foreign policies could conceivably lead to those who own their debt simply shutting them down.

 

[no1important]

Randy White does not speak for Conservatives any more than Hedy Fry or Carrolyn Parrish speak for the Liberals

Maybe not officially. But the turning point of the last election, was that interview that showed what a narrow minded prick he really is.

It was brilliant on the part of the Liberals to release it 3-4 days before election. That cost Harper dearly last time.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: why steven harper wil

There's lot's like him in the CPC, no 1. I'm sure that somebody else will step up to the plate.

 

[smitty295]

im going back to how you said if steven harper was in power for the Iraqi war than he probably would have went to war which would have been a bad choice for Harper and i would have lost all my confidence in Harper, but the point is he did not go too war nor was he PM at the time, and for him being w's lapdog He's no more of a suck up to the United States than Martin is he only wants BMD and all this other stuff is for the defense of canada. Oh and for all you supporters of Paul MArtin wasnt it he who said if there was a missile incoming over canada w would have to ask martins permission to shoot it down? that soudns kinda stupid eh?

 

[no1important]

RE: why steven harper wil

Well the question I would like to ask Harper is- Would he try to send troops to Iraq if he won a majority? A miniority he could not as he would be defeated asap. But would he actually send troops over now if he had a majority?

 

[smitty295]

why would he send tropps to Iraq when he is or if he is elected? the war is all but over, the most he could do is send humanitarian troops in there to help support the new Iraqui government and help fix up Iraq from what those trigger happy americans did.