---> Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 great. just for the sake of argument though, when you say "I know we exploit the same people Americans do BUT we do not have the type of predatory foreign policy that America has.." you mean exactly what? because i'm having a hard time understanding how you distinguish the means justifying the telos in the context of canada being such a benevolent neighbour while the US is a belligerant asshole. Canada doesn't invade and pillage other countries. America does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
---> Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
---> Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 hey mes, i'm canadian. Liar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted October 2, 2006 Author Share Posted October 2, 2006 damn skippy. pubes is in the islands. canada ain't no island. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
---> Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 If you are bordering the nation with the world's largest economy, of course you're going to benefit. How much does Mexico benefit from us other than what imigrants send home? I'm sure they do to an extent but compare them to Canada. Canada's a rich country. You're trying to make it sound like Canadas financial exsistance is dependant on the US. That's pretty arrogant. Canada would be fine without us. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
---> Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 the trickle down effect is utter bullshit. wealth at the top DOES NOT tricle down. fucking neo liberal rhetoric bullshit and you people are buying into it. nevermind. im not bored anymore. I think you meant "neo conservative". Quite the opposite of Liberal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MESTHREE Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 no. i meant neo liberal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
---> Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 no. i meant neo liberal. Well then the what yall call liberals and conservatives must be the reverse in the U.S. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MESTHREE Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 no. there is a difference between liberal as in the party and liberal as in the ideology. wikipedia it. liberal ideology has little to do with what most people think when they hear 'liberal', Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
---> Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 no. there is a difference between liberal as in the party and liberal as in the ideology. wikipedia it. liberal ideology has little to do with what most people think when they hear 'liberal', I had no idea there was a "liberal party". But I will agree that alot of shit that is labeled "liberal bullshit" doesn't make sense to me. Like how people are called liberal for wanting to ban guns or ban this or that. I always figured "liberal" was a derivative of the word liberty... meaning you stand for freedom and liberty. I'd think that people that are out to ban everything wouldn't be called "liberals". . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted October 2, 2006 Author Share Posted October 2, 2006 liberatarian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
¤Shark¤ Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 THIS WHOLE THREAD IS A LOAD OF SHIT! GO AND TALK TO A CHILD THAT HAS BEEN ABUSED BY BUSH AND I'LL BELIVE U. THATS IF U GIVE ME ANY PROOF AT ALL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obvious Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 How much does Mexico benefit from us other than what imigrants send home? I'm sure they do to an extent but compare them to Canada. Canada's a rich country. You're trying to make it sound like Canadas financial exsistance is dependant on the US. That's pretty arrogant. Canada would be fine without us. . I didn't say Canada's financial existence depends on the U.S... I said Canada benefits greatly economically from the US, and the statistics and facts show that. Sure, if the U.S. disappeared tommorrow, Canada would have to look elsewhere. But, the majority of Canada's current international trade depends on the U.S... But Canada's close proximity to the U.S. is a huge benefactor -- Canada's expenses of shipping the goods are much cheaper than shipping to somewhere across the world, across oceans. Also, the amount/quantity of goods are greater when over land/highways as opposed to the open ocean. So Canada would rather do trading with the U.S. than say Europe if both products are available in both regions. It just makes sense. As far as Mexico -- 85% of international trade is done with the US. The end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted October 2, 2006 Author Share Posted October 2, 2006 THIS WHOLE THREAD IS A LOAD OF SHIT! GO AND TALK TO A CHILD THAT HAS BEEN ABUSED BY BUSH AND I'LL BELIVE U. THATS IF U GIVE ME ANY PROOF AT ALL i don't think you understand. http://movies.crooksandliars.com/yoo-1.mp3 that is from john yoo, chief architect of the patriot act and whitehouse advisor. you also need to read this bill. i posted a link to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
---> Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 I didn't say Canada's financial existence depends on the U.S... I said Canada benefits greatly economically from the US, and the statistics and facts show that. Sure, if the U.S. disappeared tommorrow, Canada would have to look elsewhere. But, the majority of Canada's current international trade depends on the U.S... But Canada's close proximity to the U.S. is a huge benefactor -- Canada's expenses of shipping the goods are much cheaper than shipping to somewhere across the world, across oceans. Also, the amount/quantity of goods are greater when over land/highways as opposed to the open ocean. So Canada would rather do trading with the U.S. than say Europe if both products are available in both regions. It just makes sense. Now just for the record, before you go dragging this into an 8 page arguement with you twisting my words and shit.... I simply said that Canada would be fine without us. And somewhere in that paragraph you admitted that I'm right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted October 2, 2006 Author Share Posted October 2, 2006 mamerro, i mean theo is just trying his republican strategy of double speak with you. watch out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted October 2, 2006 Author Share Posted October 2, 2006 and look at this... http://www.mess.be/george_w_bush_hotmail_hacked/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fermentor666 Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 the trickle down effect is utter bullshit. wealth at the top DOES NOT tricle down. fucking neo liberal rhetoric bullshit and you people are buying into it. nevermind. im not bored anymore. Neo-liberal??? Reagan did the whole trickle-down economics thing and if he was neo-anything it was neo-conservative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obvious Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 mamerro, i mean theo is just trying his republican strategy of double speak with you. watch out. i'm not a republican, fool. i voted for kerry in 04. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted October 2, 2006 Author Share Posted October 2, 2006 and how do you feel about this new bill theo? i don't think i've seen you say much about it. you've been arguing with people about economics Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obvious Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 Now just for the record, before you go dragging this into an 8 page arguement with you twisting my words and shit.... I simply said that Canada would be fine without us. And somewhere in that paragraph you admitted that I'm right. No, you didn't "simply" say that. You accused me of stating that "Canada's financial existance is dependant on the US." Which I never said. I said it benefits from the US. You twist your own words because when called out you slowly change what you said originally and backtrack. Also, I said Canada would have to ADJUST after the US, say, no longer existed. However, Canada would logically prefer the US because it is next door and trade will run smoother than trading with India or Australia or some far off place. You're trying to make it sound like Canadas financial exsistance is dependant on the US. That's pretty arrogant. Canada would be fine without us Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obvious Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 and how do you feel about this new bill theo? i don't think i've seen you say much about it. you've been arguing with people about economics I didn't read much of the first post and it doesn't interest me much. Espcially since it's not from an objective news source but the notoriously opinionated "prisonplanet.com." I pretty much skimmed over it. :shrug: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted October 2, 2006 Author Share Posted October 2, 2006 I didn't read much of the first post and it doesn't interest me much. Espcially since it's not from an objective news source but the notoriously opinionated "prisonplanet.com." I pretty much skimmed over it. :shrug: i posted a link to the actual bill. also, several news outlets (abc, nbc, etc) this thing is trampling on our bill of rights, habeas corpus, etc. and it doesn't interest you? somehow, i'm not surprised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obvious Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 i posted a link to the actual bill. also, several news outlets (abc, nbc, etc) this thing is trampling on our bill of rights, habeas corpus, etc. and it doesn't interest you? somehow, i'm not surprised. I'll read up on it and might comment later. Unlike some people here (like --->), I won't comment on a subject until I do some research. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MESTHREE Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 Neo-liberal??? Reagan did the whole trickle-down economics thing and if he was neo-anything it was neo-conservative. please google neo liberal and look it up. jesus christ. last time Ill say it "Neo LIberal" has nothing to do with the "liberal left" or being left wing. what fuck is wrong with you people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MESTHREE Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 I didn't read much of the first post and it doesn't interest me much. Espcially since it's not from an objective news source but the notoriously opinionated "prisonplanet.com." I pretty much skimmed over it. :shrug: man ther eis no such thing as an objective news source. The only way to get both sides is to read sources from both left and right. The internet is ruining people. Now we can just read shit that caters to our own beliefs and we never have to hear the other side of things. Funny... I have no idea how people can not be interested in the fact theat they are loosing their rights and freedom. ...oh wait yes I do.. thats how the bill got through in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Mamerro Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 Why am I being compared to Theo? I don't get it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RumPuncher Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 Why am I being compared to Theo? I don't get it. because Theo's best friend was called cockroach and you like to dress up like a ladybug. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Mamerro Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 Oh. Well, that makes sense I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Pubes Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 ugh...well i wasn't really talking about private wealth whatsoever when i said 'trickle down', but whatever. it's not bullshit in the context of benefits..the trickle is there, you just need to think about it in the broad terms of the relationship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.