PunBB

Everyone's got opinions. Obviously mine differs from yours.

Saying the country's going to fall apart and that we're going to become the 51st U.S. state is just laughable.

And yes, I do believe that more money should be spent on the military. But I do support the rights for any couple no matter their sexual orientation. Everything is not just black and white as some of the Liberal ad campaigns would have you believe. Harper is not the Devil in disguise.

I don't actually mind the Liberals on a whole, but they have a proven track record and that record has a lot of flaws in it, but that's just my opinion.

bauer Wrote:martin - 100
layton - 93
duceppe - 87
harper - 33

it scares the hell outta me that some of you got 100 for harper hock:
I mean come on, more money on military? no gay rights? we are supposed to be moving forward as a nation not backwards. I'm not a huge fan of the liberal but harper?? mon deux! the crazy alliance people are masquerading as p. c.ers and you are falling for it.

I can't wait for the election when our GREAT country falls apart.

Not to pick on you specifically bauer, but I find it funny how the same people who seem to be opposed to military spending and missle defense programs are also quick to assume we'll become the 51st state and fall apart if we fund these things...

You can't have it both ways...if you don't fund your own military, you must rely on someone else (aka. Dubya and Co.) for support...to me, THAT's more likely to drive us to become a "51st state" than anything else (that is, if the US would have us!!)... :wink:

As for the gay rights thing, I have no problem acknowledging the rights of any individual, regardless of their sexual preference...the question asked merely whether the "traditional definition of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples"...I think when you start to biase questions with words like "traditional", you're going to skew the responses you get...

As sherpa said, everyone is entitled to their opinions...regardless of which side of the fence they sit...I think the Liberals are more guilty than any of the other parties of ignoring that fact during this election campaign...

M.

Some interesting and SPOT ON stuff from various media recently:


Paul Wells, Macleans:

These Guys Wanna be PM?

"I may or may not get around to discussing the "substance," if I may torture that undeserving word, of tonight's leaders' debate. But for now I just want to say:

What a bunch of braying jackasses. What a pathetic embarrassment, the lot of them.

These guys had two hours to discuss their plans for governing half a continent. A trillion-dollar economy. A national government for 30 million people. You'd think they'd have a lot on their minds.

And all they did was shout one another down, ask questions they knew could not be answered, declare their opponents unable to answer their bogus questions after the barest of pauses, and otherwise engage in a way that would have shamed the parents of any four-year-old.

Who taught Paul Martin to put his hand in another man's face to shut him up?

Beyond that unique little display of offhand barbarity, Martin was not alone. Give Gilles Duceppe a bye: as far as I can tell, it's his job to be a jackass."


Wells also outlines Harper and Klein's ass-backwards health care ideas here at his bolg: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.macleans.ca/paulwells">http://www.macleans.ca/paulwells</a><!-- m -->. And then there's this from Margaret Wente in today's Globe and Mail:


In politics, you've got to have at least an eensy bit of sales skills. If you don't, you're in the wrong line of work. Where did Mr. Martin's go? Not only can he not turn a negative into a positive, he can't even remind us of the positives. It's as if he's been seized with amnesia of his own accomplishments...At the end of the debate Mr. Martin should have said: My goal is to make sure that Canada is compassionate abroad and secure at home. My Canada is prosperous, tolerant and inclusive. My record is for everyone to see, and I believe that I have earned your trust."

And good 'ole Martin hater Lawrence Martin:

"The mystery was that while repeatedly attacked on the liberal record, Mr. Martin never came to its defence. This country is in as good shape as it has been in decades, but he didn't make the case."

Wow... when even your critics are screaming; REMIND US OF YOUR RECORD! Maybe it's time to start telling us why we should vote for you (And there are plenty of reasons, a few referenced in the other thread...) and stop telling us why NOT to vote for the other guy.

If Harper wins this thing, it'll be because Martin and his coup-makers blew it.

prz Wrote:

bauer Wrote:martin - 100
layton - 93
duceppe - 87
harper - 33

it scares the hell outta me that some of you got 100 for harper hock:
I mean come on, more money on military? no gay rights? we are supposed to be moving forward as a nation not backwards. I'm not a huge fan of the liberal but harper?? mon deux! the crazy alliance people are masquerading as p. c.ers and you are falling for it.

I can't wait for the election when our GREAT country falls apart.

well falling apart is how you look at it. The sponsorship scandal? the gun registry disaster (dont get me wrong I am not saying to have gun freely floating around, but if you say its going to cost 2 million, dont lie about it and then spend over a billion dollars implementing it). It just seems arrogance has gotten the best of the Liberals.

I agree the Liberals are a disgrace , but Harper and the conservatives are/will be worse, everyone seems to be consumed with teaching the Liberals a lesson , in the meantime the people replacing the Liberals will be worse. I fear most the privatisation of healthcare and this big business /US Support from the Conservatives, they support the actions in Iraq, if Harper was PM a year ago we'd have Canadians dying in Iraq to support Bush's agenda. Look at the privatisation of auto insurance and power here in Alberta. Power bills for many people has doubled or tripled, and the service is horredous , the power companies admit they get alot of complaints. Our healthcare sytem is mismanaged and inefficient, the answer to the problem is not privatisation and if Harper and his merry men introduce it , it will be a long fight to get it back, if it ever is restored. Harper wants to commercialise the CBC and cut funding to it, the CBC is the only news media we have closest to being non biased. Here's a quote from Stephen speaking in Winnipeg on May 18th ""I've suggested that government subsidies in support of CBC's services should be to those things that are not . . . do not have commercial alternatives," Mr. Harper said, according to a transcript of his comments. "And I think when you look at things like main English-language television and probably to a lesser degree Radio Two, you could look there at putting those on a commercial basis."

Commercialism means influence and obvious conflict of interest, CBC has suffered enough under the cuts that have gone on , commercialism and privatisation is not the way to go , but that's part of the ideology of the Conservatives.

I don't vote with any political lines, I don't believe the "Us VS them tactic" the conservatives have ran on in this province for the 10+years I've lived here. It's disgusting that we live in a Country where only one province (BC) has legislation making it an offence to lie while campaigning. I'm no political scientist, i don't have a degree in it, and will not pretend to, it just seems to me that when a party, The Conservatives/Reform have ran on a platform here of "the only way to defeat the Liberals is..." They ran on how to get the corrupt powers in the east out of office instead of what they would bring to the table , I guess a ploy that is common , but i have no respect for it. I will never forget when they were reform, they aren't far off from those days , how many times in Alberta have we heard Racist comments coming from the mouth of a reformer ? Their open support for the Iraq invasion. I'll take Martins demons over Harpers, and Martin will not be getting my vote. I'm just sick and tired of the Rhetoric politics and politicians have come to accept as part of plying their trade. This is pretty much an uneducated response , and just plain and simply how I feel about this crap. (oh and this rant wasn't directed at you PRZ , just in general)




Layton 100
Martin 65
Duceppe 59
Harper 41

CC, no worries, I dont take it personal and know you directed to others to.

We obviously have disagreements, but what you wrote about the CP and what would have to Canada looks to me like the same things that were said by the opposition to the PCs in the 1988 when Free Trade was the major issue. People like old Ed Boradbent (whose former riding of Oshawa in the 80s is flurishing because of NAFTA today) and John Turner argued Canada would be lost ie CBC, Health care etc. In fact, this just has not been the case. That is not just some made up facts by me either. If you go back to newspapers and articles from then, its funny to see now what those opponents argued.

CanuckCourage Wrote:

prz Wrote:

bauer Wrote:martin - 100
layton - 93
duceppe - 87
harper - 33

it scares the hell outta me that some of you got 100 for harper hock:
I mean come on, more money on military? no gay rights? we are supposed to be moving forward as a nation not backwards. I'm not a huge fan of the liberal but harper?? mon deux! the crazy alliance people are masquerading as p. c.ers and you are falling for it.

I can't wait for the election when our GREAT country falls apart.

well falling apart is how you look at it. The sponsorship scandal? the gun registry disaster (dont get me wrong I am not saying to have gun freely floating around, but if you say its going to cost 2 million, dont lie about it and then spend over a billion dollars implementing it). It just seems arrogance has gotten the best of the Liberals.

I agree the Liberals are a disgrace , but Harper and the conservatives are/will be worse, everyone seems to be consumed with teaching the Liberals a lesson , in the meantime the people replacing the Liberals will be worse. I fear most the privatisation of healthcare and this big business /US Support from the Conservatives, they support the actions in Iraq, if Harper was PM a year ago we'd have Canadians dying in Iraq to support Bush's agenda. Look at the privatisation of auto insurance and power here in Alberta. Power bills for many people has doubled or tripled, and the service is horredous , the power companies admit they get alot of complaints. Our healthcare sytem is mismanaged and inefficient, the answer to the problem is not privatisation and if Harper and his merry men introduce it , it will be a long fight to get it back, if it ever is restored. Harper wants to commercialise the CBC and cut funding to it, the CBC is the only news media we have closest to being non biased. Here's a quote from Stephen speaking in Winnipeg on May 18th ""I've suggested that government subsidies in support of CBC's services should be to those things that are not . . . do not have commercial alternatives," Mr. Harper said, according to a transcript of his comments. "And I think when you look at things like main English-language television and probably to a lesser degree Radio Two, you could look there at putting those on a commercial basis."

Commercialism means influence and obvious conflict of interest, CBC has suffered enough under the cuts that have gone on , commercialism and privatisation is not the way to go , but that's part of the ideology of the Conservatives.

I don't vote with any political lines, I don't believe the "Us VS them tactic" the conservatives have ran on in this province for the 10+years I've lived here. It's disgusting that we live in a Country where only one province (BC) has legislation making it an offence to lie while campaigning. I'm no political scientist, i don't have a degree in it, and will not pretend to, it just seems to me that when a party, The Conservatives/Reform have ran on a platform here of "the only way to defeat the Liberals is..." They ran on how to get the corrupt powers in the east out of office instead of what they would bring to the table , I guess a ploy that is common , but i have no respect for it. I will never forget when they were reform, they aren't far off from those days , how many times in Alberta have we heard Racist comments coming from the mouth of a reformer ? Their open support for the Iraq invasion. I'll take Martins demons over Harpers, and Martin will not be getting my vote. I'm just sick and tired of the Rhetoric politics and politicians have come to accept as part of plying their trade. This is pretty much an uneducated response , and just plain and simply how I feel about this crap. (oh and this rant wasn't directed at you PRZ , just in general)




Layton 100
Martin 65
Duceppe 59
Harper 41

You're just upset 'cause you can't vote for Reagan.

Your point about health care is absolutely correct, and I don't think many people realize just what a thin edge of the wedge Harper's current plans are. If he sends us down the privitization road today, it will be extremley difficult to reverse the trend tomorrow. Especially if it turns out the way EVERYBODY (Including the Conservative Fraser Institute) thinks it will. Here's some things I hope people will consider before voting:

The Health Care system is suffering for two main reasons.

#1) The utter disregard for the Canada Health Act. If governments would just follow the friggin' rules, outlining 50/50 spending and zero privitisation, there would be no funding crisis. Instead, surpluses have become more important than health spending. No party, not even my own, (Jack wants 25% federal spending) is willing to simply follow the CHA as it is written. Our health system is the envy of much of the world folks. We're lucky enough to be complaining about waiting times for universal quality care.

And #2) "No strings attached" federal grants, including the most recent Health accord grant money to provinces to what they please. Transfer payments weren't part of John A.'s deal, so there is nothing in the Constitution that says the Fed's can't say: "Hey! Stop spending the money we gave you for health on tax cuts (Ralph) or lawn maintenance! (Mike... and I kid you not: Ontario put health funding into grounds keeping.)" So the Fed's have to put there collective foot down on targeted spendning.

If we'd restore funding, streamline and coordinate services (So you could get your check-up, your MRI, and your surgery done in one place instead of three) and invest in home care and preventative R&D and medicine, you'd see waiting times drop by 90% (!!!!) and the funding crisis all but go away in a decade. It sounds rich, I know, but Romanow, Rachlis ("Px for Excellence:" You've gotta see this book if you're intersted in health policy, it'll blow yer mind.) and even Sheila Fraser and the indepenent Fraser institute support the numbers. It's like a solution staring us in the face that we refuse to accept becasue it's not easy, and because it would prevent anybody from making a profit. If anybody is going to prove to the world that universal medicine can be reformed and kept public, it's Canada.

Private medicine is more expensive and of lesser quality. When profit begins to trump treatment and compassion, the argument becomes clear.

This election is about more than a few rogue bureaucrats funneling cash to their friends (And by the way, Canadian Conservatives are still the unidsputed champions of patronage, slime and waste.)

If you want to vote soley based on Sponsorship, go ahead. I understand.

But if you've even looked a little teeny tiny bit into private medicine, then you should realize why Stephen Harper does not want to talk about this issue on the campaign trail: It's not cheaper. It's not more effective. It's not going to create jobs. It's all about ideology.

Conservatives have to realize that not every policy that benefits "all" is a communist conspiracy simply because it cannot produce a profit for "some."

I'm all for open markets.

I'm all for the Third Way.

Bring on Coca-Cola.

I wear Nike shoes.

But keep your hands off of universal, publically funded health care. The cost of every man, woman and child not having to worry about: "What if I get sick" is incalculable.

My only solace is that the Bloq (Irony of Ironies) will keep them in check on health. God forbid a Conservative majority.

I really wish Paul Martin would start saying stuff like this, instead of playing the fear mongering carnival barker. We're intelligent Paul, we'd get it if you gave us a chance...

prz Wrote:CC, no worries, I dont take it personal and know you directed to others to.

We obviously have disagreements, but what you wrote about the CP and what would have to Canada looks to me like the same things that were said by the opposition to the PCs in the 1988 when Free Trade was the major issue. People like old Ed Boradbent (whose former riding of Oshawa in the 80s is flurishing because of NAFTA today) and John Turner argued Canada would be lost ie CBC, Health care etc. In fact, this just has not been the case. That is not just some made up facts by me either. If you go back to newspapers and articles from then, its funny to see now what those opponents argued.

NAFTA allows foriegn multi-nationals to sue the Canadian government over our policies, and ispo-facto for the US and Mexico. NAFTA (As is true with most policies of course...) was flawed then and it's still flawed now. Those raising their voices in opposition had good reason. The sky didn't fall, but if you're a blue collar worker, the bar hasn't risen either.

And please remember that NAFTA is only slightly more than a decade old... towns like Flint, Michigan, Oshawa, Ontario and the $3 dollar a day workers on the Mexican lines would ask you to hang on and see the bigger picture before passing judgement.

Does it need to be removed: no. Reformed: desperatly.

prz Wrote:CC, no worries, I dont take it personal and know you directed to others to.

We obviously have disagreements, but what you wrote about the CP and what would have to Canada looks to me like the same things that were said by the opposition to the PCs in the 1988 when Free Trade was the major issue. People like old Ed Boradbent (whose former riding of Oshawa in the 80s is flurishing because of NAFTA today) and John Turner argued Canada would be lost ie CBC, Health care etc. In fact, this just has not been the case. That is not just some made up facts by me either. If you go back to newspapers and articles from then, its funny to see now what those opponents argued.

I believe you , back in 88 I was collecting hockey cards and listening to the Beastie Boys, so I have no political recollection from that time. I know what you mean by the discrepancies between the predictions and the reality. Rhetoric is meant to persuade not present an accurate prediction. Having said that , my opinion is based on what i've seen here in Alberta , not Liberal ads , I rarely watch TV anymore and have only seen good old Paul standing by the lake trying to look sincere and caring , they should show him on a shipping vessel rolling in some (sponsorship) money. I have heard proponents for and against privatising healthcare (on CBC Radio) and when I hear the daughter of Tommy Douglas (the father of our great health care system) critisizing Stephen Harper for twisting the words of one of Tommy's speeches from way back, to fit his own agenda of privatisation, I take notice. From what i've seen of the privatisation in this province it leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. Let me tell you what I pay for auto insurance. First off the particulars, i'm 32 , single , have had insurance on vehicles on and off , choosing to take transit to save some money. Because my insurance has not been continuos, because i'm 32 and not married, i'm paying $190.00 a month. I have never been in an accident, haven't had a speeding ticket since 92 and have a class 1 license. It doesn't matter , the best price I could find was $150.00 , for $200,000 liability, basic coverage. They only recently froze rates in the province to keep them from escalating. I don't know what people in other provinces are paying, but I was paying alot less when I was 19 and living in B.C. I feel the way I do about the Conservatives because I live here , in conservative country , and am not influenced by the political jargon on TV or elsewhere , guess my ideologies clash with the Conservatives.

Stephen Dame Wrote:

prz Wrote:CC, no worries, I dont take it personal and know you directed to others to.

We obviously have disagreements, but what you wrote about the CP and what would have to Canada looks to me like the same things that were said by the opposition to the PCs in the 1988 when Free Trade was the major issue. People like old Ed Boradbent (whose former riding of Oshawa in the 80s is flurishing because of NAFTA today) and John Turner argued Canada would be lost ie CBC, Health care etc. In fact, this just has not been the case. That is not just some made up facts by me either. If you go back to newspapers and articles from then, its funny to see now what those opponents argued.

NAFTA allows foriegn multi-nationals to sue the Canadian government over our policies, and ispo-facto for the US and Mexico. NAFTA (As is true with most policies of course...) was flawed then and it's still flawed now. Those raising their voices in opposition had good reason. The sky didn't fall, but if you're a blue collar worker, the bar hasn't risen either.

And please remember that NAFTA is only slightly more than a decade old... towns like Flint, Michigan, Oshawa, Ontario and the $3 dollar a day workers on the Mexican lines would ask you to hang on and see the bigger picture before passing judgement.

Does it need to be removed: no. Reformed: desperatly.

OK well you mention a couple negatives but there are also a lot of positives that you left out. Canadian professionals can get a yearly visa to work in the US that is renewable every year. No other country has that benefit, not even Mexico. dont hear that one to often on the cbc. Or how about the protection canada recieved when the US put tarrifs on all steel imports in 2002. Canada was exempt from that because of NAFTA. Moreover, the list goes on.

Please if you are going to make comments about blue collar workers include numbers at least. Have you been to Oshawa? Do you know what GM has built there and added? Do you know what the wages are for workers there? Its been a huge success. GM has moved key production cars there. A technical design center was added, the first in Canada, another production line was added. Ask Ed Broadbend about that. I did once at a Queen's student- faculty event couple years back and he admitted he was wrong about NAFTA.

What does Flint have to do with this? You watch "Roger and Me" or something? I was talking about NAFTA as a Canadian benefit.

As for Mexican workers, have you been to the plants there? if you haven't talk to people who have and see what they tell you. You are heavy on the theory side, really light on the factual side.

C.C., just want to respond to two issues you brought up:universal health care and care insurance. As I see it, one of the problems with the car insurance rates is twofold; there are no common sense cap limits on damages or a way to prevent people defrauding the system(aka insurance companies settling some soft tissue damage claims with the knowledge that some are fraudalent because its cheaper to settle out of court rather than go through the expense of a trial).I belong to Triple A here in the states, that helps me get lower rates because of the negotiating power of this group, even though I havent kept my coverage continously. Impartial, Court-assigned doctors to evaluate the extent of damages is one solution. Health care is a whole other ball of wax. One cause is that the quality of medical care, new technological developments have helped extend human longevity. People want the best quality health care but they get upset when the HMO's or employers want to shift more of the cost on to them. People have to realize that if you demand the best health care, you have the pay what the markets demands. Our societies have to make a choice, ridiciously low tax rates so they can spend their money the way they want to or higher tax rates for funding health care. The key to either is strong public demand for government accountability.

Quote: OK well you mention a couple negatives but there are also a lot of positives that you left out. Canadian professionals can get a yearly visa to work in the US that is renewable every year. No other country has that benefit, not even Mexico. dont hear that one to often on the cbc. [\quote]

I don't know what it is about conservatives and the CBC... perhaps you have to be one. From my experience, the "Liberal" media tag is a farce.

Having worked in the sector, never once have I ever been told by anyone, anywhere how to "slant" a story. I've written pro-union pieces for the VERY conservative Quebecor press and had it run nationwide, and I've had some equally conservative views about constitutional reform air on the National news. The CBC reports, ideologues take from it what they want. If they see something they don't like, they cry bias. If the CBC reported that Paul Martin walked across Lake Ontario, folks would scream: "But they didn't tell us he can't swim! Where's the balance?!" And the same is true of blind Liberals. Folks, you've gotta understand that reporters report, you and I are sophisticated enough to take it how we want.

Quote: Or how about the protection canada recieved when the US put tarrifs on all steel imports in 2002. Canada was exempt from that because of NAFTA. Moreover, the list goes on.

The list goes on alright: Softwood, cod, split-run magazines and areonautic parts just to name a few. We get the shaft far more often than you might think. We benefit a whole helluva lot as well. Does it even out? Today: maybe. In ten years: I really don't think so. The US steel import tarrif was spared because the United States sends their raw material to us, we manufacture it, and then they sell it back to us as a finished good: Mercantalism, it's as old as the two nations themselves. They weren't just being friendly. They also knew that our own domestic steel industry could give them a run for their money internationally and domestically. They're not stupid, it was a smart and savvy business move.

Quote: Please if you are going to make comments about blue collar workers include numbers at least.

Okay... you asked. Lemme go look 'em up... 30,000 manufacturing jobs lost to outsourcing or downsizing since the '94 ratification as of '97. Sorry, nothing moe concrete at my finger tips right now. (Liberal governments on both ends of the table then of course) Is that devestating? To the economy, I guess not, unless you're one of those 30,000... the numbers for blue collar workers are not good. Partly because of innovation, partly because of poor re-training policy in favour of the EI crutch. NAFTA isn't the only devil.

Quote:Have you been to Oshawa?

Yep. Many, many times. Good hockey team, subpar arena.

Quote:Do you know what GM has built there and added? Do you know what the wages are for workers there? Its been a huge success. GM has moved key production cars there. A technical design center was added, the first in Canada, another production line was added.

Something is always better than nothing. GM and their manufacturing plants are a major part of Ontario's economy, no doubt. When a Liberal Prime Minister signed the Auto Pact, that's what Mr. LBP had in mind. To equate the NA auto industry with NAFTA is like giving Jerome Iginla credit for the 1989 Stanely Cup. However, NAFTA has begun to erode the rate of employment, the rate of expansion and the rate of growth in Oshawa because slowly but surely, the East-West, Quebec City-Windsor-Detroit corridor has shifted to a North-South, Oshawa-Windsor-Alabama-Watulco corridor. it doesn't happen over night... but I'll get to that when I get to Flint.

Quote: Ask Ed Broadbend about that.

Will do, Tomorrow.

Quote:I did once at a Queen's student- faculty event couple years back and he admitted he was wrong about NAFTA.

I wonder if he still feels that way now that increasing light has been shed on NAFTA. I'll let ya know.

Quote:What does Flint have to do with this? You watch "Roger and Me" or something? I was talking about NAFTA as a Canadian benefit.

The destruction, or at least the downsizing and eventual dismemberment of indeigineous industries can take years... the wheels are rolling, not so much in prosperous Ontario, but in poorer parts of the manufacturing world including Alabama which has seen it's auto industry dissapear and head South. I'm thinking of NAFTA not in any nationalistic terms, I'm thinking of it as it relates to human beings. Folks in Mexico may sharply disagree with the both of us. Flint is just an example of how one shouldn't judge a book until the back cover has closed... and as for "Roger and Me," loved it the first time. Can't watch it anymore because of the rabbit scene.

Quote:As for Mexican workers, have you been to the plants there? if you haven't talk to people who have and see what they tell you. You are heavy on the theory side, really light on the factual side.

Never been there. Read a lot. You're right, I am heavy on the literature side. And if you've read the stuff that I have and finished the tale of the Mexican Maljedero's workers on the line without pausing to think, then you're a tougher man than I.

Exploitation is better than starvation, If you don't have a choice, you'll take anything. But hey, two cheers for sweat shops. PM me if you'd like some recommended reading, might shock you, and it's always good to see things from the point of view of the others.

And it's not always the sweat shops. Sometimes corporations build magnificent facilities among slums and ghetto's. Paradise inside, hell outisde. They create a culture of dependency, complete with financial conditions that are placed on foreign governments to prevent them from fostering their own businesses while remaining dependant on the corporation for survival and providing a cheap supply of labour. "What's that? Labour standards, minimum wage, child labour regulations? Ya know, the villiage down the road would KILL for a fine plant like this one..."

Curious as to what you've read that paints a positive picture of life on the line?

SD, you make alot of points but you dont answer directly alot of things I mentioned or you twist my point to suit your own.

1. as for my cbc comment I was not talking about the bias, I was trying to make the argument about the NAFTA visa that is granted to canadian professionals in the US. I said, you dont hear about that on the CBC. I meant to demonstrate a very positive part of the agreement that the national tv station forgets. Its a huge positive for canadians who take advantage of it. You twisted my point completely there. If you want to discuss the bias, thats another topic

2. The shaft canada gets from NAFTA is more than I know? So you know more about this than me? Ok, I forgot you were the expert, and I am not, my bad. I do know that yes, softwood lumber is a loser for Canada right now, but they are trying, and failing to convince the the Yanks, about the stumpage fee. But my point was about the steel tariffs. Not softwood.

3. You are not correct about the steel tariffs. So you claim all the materials come to canada and then are sent back to the US? Even if they did, what does that matter. Canada was granted protection to this area of trade. For you to critize the NAFTA agreement in one area, and then say well with regards to steel tarrifs, it didnt really matter because the US had other reasons (cant give nafta credit), its fair reasoning. So you hate it when it doesnt work, and when it does work, you dont give it credit? that is weak.

4. Blue collar job loses is an easy number to throw out. But its not that simple. Downsizing as you mention is part of it and the biggest factor is technological advancements. The same amount of people are not needed to do the job. What might have taken 4 people to drop an engine in a car back in 1987 might take 1 or 2 today. You have to factor that in. If you want to look at growth. You need to look at productivity numbers. For example, how many more cars are being built, how many more assembly lines are up and running. So just dropping a number of how many less jobs isnt fair. (I use the auto industry because I know it well and is a good example since its such a vital part of the Canadian economy).

5. I mention how Oshawa has experienced massive growth in the auto sector and you mention the arena, ok well thanks for that. Point taken there cratch:

6. Yes there is a shift in jobs. But they are not going to Mexico as you claim. You said that Alabama had an auto industry that has seen it disappear. what are you talking about? Alabama since luring Benz a few years back has flurished. There was no auto industry before. Its growing now. More plants are opening in the deep south of the US then any other place. Toyota is opening the newest i believe in Texas. Why are auto makers going to the deep south. For none other reason than to avoid the UAW and CAW. Go check your facts on that. These companies try to avoid the unions with their backward policies. Just ask the toyota workers in Cambridge who voted not to allow the union on their floor a couple years back.

7. you claim the jobs are going to mexico, ok fine, give me a specific example of this. where has a canadian auto maker closed a plant and moved to mexico. if you cant give me one. Dont keep arguing this fact. I look forward to your answer on this.

8. its bad on those mexican lines. Fine they are, but give me an example of it, plus show that its a major company doing this. Granted I will concede that some sketchy firm will do that to workers. But the large ones dont. If they do, they are wrong and should be punished.

prz,

I'm not sure what you mean by professional? or why a visa is such a good thing? I guess i'm too slow.

yeah right now i'm flying over
right now i'm flying home.

Hip lyrics solve everything.

PRZ, no disrespect intended: but your mind is closed. You've already made your decision. Nothing wrong with that, if you choose to believe unquestioningly, so be it. But it renders the entire point of a debate irrelevant.

As for "The Media." There is no such thing. We as journalists have our biases because we're human. An unbaised reporter is an oxymoron. Reporter A (Neil McDonald) may be Liberal and Reporter B (Mike Duffy) may be Conservative, but that does not mean they are supporting a clandestine "media" point of view. We're all individuals. There is no Liberal conspiracy. When you make sweeping generalisations like that, you only undermine your own credibility.

To myself, NAFTA and trade issues are about much more than numbers and stats, they're about people.

In addition to it's economic effects, NAFTA's chapter 11 blithley gives foriegn corporations the right to sue the Canadian government for "lost potential revenue" if our Parliament choses to outlaw their product. (Canadian companies CANNOT do the same) Most famous is the case of US based MMT, a toxic gas company that we outlawed since it's product was proven to cause cancer and needed to be outlawed. They sued, and won... We, trying to protect people, we're forced to pay a fee to a multinational because their "freedom" to our market was impunged. I know how you don't seem to trust anything academic, but trust me, there are VOLUMES of cases like these.

If you can support the above conditions, great. Myself, (and Mr. Broadbent since you brought him up) cannot.

Repeal: No. Reform: Yes.

Have a good one PRZ, I'll see ya in the pits this summer.