Excerpts From "Beyond The Blame Game:

I am Canadian, i do not believe in torture,or torture planes that carry human cargo,nor throwing out the human csrgo into the middle of the Atlantic ocean, nor do i believe in torturing women and children, I am Canadian, i do not believe in invading sovriegn countires for it's natural resources, based on lies, nor do i believe in the murder of innocent women and children who are labelled terrorists, I am Canadian, i do not believe in interfering in other countries politics,to set up puppet governments for special american interest groups, which has been the norm for Americans for the past 100 years

I am Canadian, and i do not believe in the mass murder of others by polluting their countries with Depleted Uranium, that will murder generations of innocent children, I am Canadian, i do not murder innocent people for power and profits, I am Canadian, who believes in contracts, and does not cry foul when I am caught cheating on my contract, ( the lumber industry issue ), I am Canadian, and i do not beleive in the Patriot Act, nor do i beleive in Bill C36,( Canada's version of the Patriot Act ) which was forced upon my Canadian leaders by my American neigbours,

I am Canadian, where i help my fellow Canadians in time of crisis, and not genocide them for profit ( Katrina and New Orleans ), I am Canadian, where i do not worry yet about my property being stolen from me by corperations for development. I am Canadian, where i still have cheaper drugs for medication, nor do I have to crawl to another country in fear for cheap drugs to cure my sickness,

I am Canadian where i believe in working together with the world and not trying to impose my Canadian lifestyle unto other countries

I am Canadian where i believe that when my polictical representives are caught selling out their country they will be tried and sentenced and not given a pass ( the Plame affair )

I am Canadian, whose country is slowly being forced to accept CAFTA,by my American neigbours which is the slow version of invasion of another sovriegn country, I am Canadian where i will fight to the death to protect my country from traitors and invaders

So you can take your country and it's policies and stick them where the sun don't shine, as for the people of America, i feel sorry for you, because you are losing your rights and are becoming another Soviet style government in the guise of freedom.....

I am Canadian and i can go on even more, but i will let my fellow Canadians carry on with other examples, because i believe in sharing........

I am Canadian where in my country we have fair and honest elections, and where a leader was not elected by courts or questionable computers without a paper trail, and when called on the Diebold computers to have them checked was deiend by crooked politicians, wonder why eh?<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/board-auth.cgi?file=/1954/15595.html">http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/board-auth.cgi?file=/1954/15595.html</a><br />
<br />
you can keep your american ways and it is time for Canada to look elsewhere for trading partners, but alas our canadian political reps are to scared of the Americans which will slow down the pace for looking for other trading partners

Another myth filled Molson commercial rant adopted as political philosophy.

You should expand your literary horizons to include bumper stickers.

VANCOUVER -- Prime Minister Paul Martin faces four opponents in this election campaign, three he did not choose and one he did.

The three inevitable opponents are the Conservatives, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP; the chosen one is the Bush administration.

Beating up on George Bush has become a staple of the Martin government, so it's hardly surprising that some Bush-bashing should feature in Mr. Martin's re-election bid. Nor should it surprise anyone if the Bush administration doesn't appreciate being played for a punching bag and, when the election ends, plays even tougher than usual on issues such as softwood lumber.

Last week, Mr. Martin and Industry Minister David Emerson, both in hyperbolic campaign mode, claimed their strategies had caused the Americans to blink on softwood lumber.

Canadian cabinet ministers have insisted that the U.S. eliminate all duties on Canadian softwood lumber exports, and return to Canadian producers the tariffs already collected.

What caused the Canadian government to rejoice falsely was a lowering of duties announced last week. A few people viewed the U.S. decision as a truce, or at least a subtle sign that the U.S. would be willing to negotiate the return of money collected under tariffs that have been ruled unjustified. What really happened, however, was a routine recalculation of duty based on the higher value of the Canadian dollar.

It might have been hoped that the Bush administration would yield to the Martin government's entreaties to live up to NAFTA rulings that have consistently favoured Canada. But there was little chance of the Americans adhering to the NAFTA rulings even without the Liberals' anti-Bush rhetoric during the campaign. There is no chance of it happening now.

Again last week, Canadians saw what happens when cheap politics runs foreign policy. The attack by Mr. Martin on the U.S. climate-change record represented the height of gall, given that the U.S. record is considerably better than Canada's. So, instead of Canada's being highlighted as one of the world's worst Kyoto offenders, Mr. Martin managed to turn media attention to his assault on the Bush administration.

It was a public-relations triumph in the context of an election campaign, but a foreign-affairs setback in terms of what Canada might later need on other bilateral issues, including softwood lumber.

Ever since the last NAFTA ruling that favoured Canada, Mr. Martin and his ministers have been in high dudgeon. Rather inconvenient -- and thus not mentioned -- was a World Trade Organization decision that suggested Canada was subsidizing its industry.

Mr. Martin insisted that Canada would not even sit down with the Americans unless they abided by NAFTA. At the very moment that Mr. Martin and his ministers were snorting, however, Canadian Ambassador Frank McKenna was scurrying around Washington trying to figure out when and how negotiations could start.

Everyone knows there will be negotiations to reach a softwood lumber compromise. Canada has ruled out retaliation. The Americans won't drop duties, since U.S. policy is de facto run by the lumber lobby and its congressional allies.

That leaves two options. Canada could do nothing, and wait for the appeals against the unfavourable WTO ruling. They might come in 2008. A few hard-liners in the Canadian industry back this sit-tight approach. Most don't. They want a settlement. It could be that each side will agree to nominate one person, and to abide by any recommended settlement. Or government-to-government negotiations will resume.

The settlement would involve one of two options: either a guaranteed share of the U.S. lumber market (say, 34 per cent, up from 32 per cent to 33 per cent today) or a modest excise tax, collected in Canada. In addition, the Americans would give back the money collected since tariffs were imposed. But not all of it. Parse carefully what Mr. Martin has said behind the strong rhetoric: He only wants 70 per cent of the money back.

Such a settlement would be managed, not free, trade. That would mock the Martin government's rhetoric. Climbing down from that rhetoric will be Mr. Martin's trickiest challenge if he stays in office, given how he's run part of his campaign against the Bush administration.

jsimpson@globeandmail.ca

"But think about this: What if one of your best friends criticized you directly and indirectly almost relentlessly? What if that friend's agenda was to highlight your perceived flaws while avoiding mentioning your successes? Wouldn't that begin to sow the seeds of doubt in your mind about the strength of your friendship?

"Canada has so much of which to be proud: from a rich tradition of independence, to a solid foundation of freedom and healthy financial state today. Canada NEVER has to tear US down to build itself up. We have two very different functional democracies that work well independently and work great together. That's what we ought to be talking about. We ought to be accentuating the positive."

"I want to build up this relationship and make it even better. I know so many of you are committed to that same goal. It's hard to do that in the face of so much heated rhetoric."


THOSE BASTARDS!

“It may be smart election-year politics to thump your chest and criticize your friend and your No. 1 trading partner constantly,” he warned. “But it is a slippery slope, and all of us should hope that it doesn’t have a long-term impact on the relationship.” David Wilkins

Gee, that ought to be good for Canada huh? All so the liberals can get elected again...

Well as long as selling all this hate and resentment was for a good cause.

...
As for his statement that : "Between 1990 and 2003, emissions in the U.S.
have increased by 13.3 percent but over that same time period Canada
increased its emissions by 24.2 percent!" ---Indeed their emissions have
decreased percentage wise...because they are now using more of our natural
gas which is a cleaner fuel....while ours have gone up....because in the
process of our oil & natural gas exploration/extraction & export ---our
emissions have gone up. I would hazard, that our emission have gone up in
proportion to the increase of our oil/natural gas exports to the US.

Secondly, lets ask the question: what are the emissions caused within the US
and outside its borders by the activities of the US military...they don't count
the emissions caused by their military adventures around the world - so it is
faulty reasoning to asset that the emissions they caused have only gone up
13.3 percent. .

While no fan of Paul Martin and his 'deep integrationists'...he is right to take
this stand. ...he should also call in the Amb -ass - ador ...and tell him in no
uncertain terms that his conduct during our national election is unwarranted
illegal interference against our sovereignty & democratic
tradition..demand an apology ...and if he doesn't get it ..he better pack his
bags and go home. It is time to revoke NAFTA, slap a surcharge on all our
gas/oil exports, and look elsewhere for more respectful and law-abiding
trading partners.....

George Bush at his first election fund raiser in Texas before he was elected President for the first time was asked what he thought about the Canada US relationship and if he knew that Canada was the US largest trading partner.

He stated that he thought the Canada US relationship was over stated and was not that important to the United States as Americans were lead to believe as well when he becomes President he would deal with Canada and that attitude in Washington.

Paul Cellucci stated that the comments that he made about Canada, Canadians and the Canadian Government were not his own but that of his Boss the President of the United States and the Bush Administration.

The thaw in U.S.-Canada relations, as if no one cares whether Cellucci or Wilkinson pats us on our little heads instead of kicking our butts is the story of Bush’s attitude to Canada that really tells us that the Americans are looking for UN support and the help of countries like France and Germany to ease the U.S. burden in Iraq. Canada is now conveniently seen as useful in this new game of Americans seeking help from the UN and other countries not to mention Canada’s energy reserves that just so happens to be in the US’s back yard.


---
Perception is two thirds of what we perceive reality to be.

Difficult decisions are a privilege of rank.

Celluci and Wilkinson are both hard-line
neo-fascist republican Bush-Lovers.They
really don't want pure Canadian sovereignty.
Which is why they facilitate secret DEA offices
in Vancouver, cheap trade dispute
tactics, warning us not to legalize
or decriminalize pot, American
purchases of our natural resources,
and constant rhetorical warnings,
sometimes subtle, in an attempt
to influence unique Canadian policy.
Not to mention unseen integration strategies.


I hope the Democrats get in next time
so their ambassador can tolerate
differences.The Dems have more respect
for their constitution, which shouldn't
be constantly amended to take away
personal/behavioural liberties
under the guise of security and moral
'righteousness'... (and then they
try to export those anti-libertarian
views north).

>>>He stated that he thought the Canada US relationship was over stated and was not that important to the United States as Americans were lead to believe<<,

You can of course provide some documentation of that. I wasn’t able to find anything to that effect on the net. I know you wouldn’t make something like that up…

>>.as well when he becomes President he would deal with Canada and that attitude in Washington.<<

" Deal with " That sounds ominous. What has he done to “deal with” the fact that your politicians run on platforms that try to out do each other on who is going to be the biggest pain in the ass to the USA? Pretty much nothing.

>>The thaw in U.S.-Canada relations,<<,

What “thaw”? Americans are very slowly starting to resent Canada. If this relationship sours you will have nobody but yourselves and your politicians to blame. The lack of respect is truly becoming mutual.

>>The Americans are looking for UN support and the help of countries like France and Germany to ease the U.S. burden in Iraq.<<,

Yeah, right…whatever. The election in Iraq starts tonight. I am sure the Iraqis will forever be in your debt for all that you are going to do for them.

>>Canada is now conveniently seen as useful in this new game of Americans seeking help from the UN<<

That makes no sense what so ever.

"Fact: Between 1990 and 2003, emissions in the U.S. have increased by 13.3 percent but over that same time period Canada increased its emissions by 24.2 percent!"<<

13.3% of what? compared to 24.2% of what? As the worlds biggest polluter, the 13.3% increase will still be considerably more then Canadas 24.2%.

>>-Indeed their emissions have
decreased percentage wise...because they are now using more of our natural
gas which is a cleaner fuel....<<<

First off, if you sell something it is no longer yours, natural gas or otherwise. Secondly the emissions reductions have nothing to do with natural gas. It has been achieved by employing cleaner coal burning technology and a reduction in the manufacturing emissions. (In part due to a reduction in overall manufacturing.)

>>I would hazard, that our emission have gone up in
proportion to the increase of our oil/natural gas exports to the US.
<<

You would hazard wrong.

>>Secondly, lets ask the question: what are the emissions caused within the US
and outside its borders by the activities of the US military..<<<

Yeah, all those coal fired hummers really drove up the carbon footprint of Afghanistan.

>>While no fan of Paul Martin and his 'deep integrationists'<<<

There is no such thing as “deep integration™”. It is a myth that has been sold to you in order to manipulate the easily lead through fear and bigotry.

>. demand an apology<<<

Go screw yourself.

>. It is time to revoke NAFTA, slap a surcharge on all our
gas/oil exports,<<

Be my guest. People like you have been saying that for years. Why hasn’t it happened? Perhaps because it would shatter your economy? Stop complaining and do it... Lets see what you are capable of. Cut your own throats...

>> and look elsewhere for more respectful and law-abiding
trading partners.....<<

Did you know that the senior negotiators in the softwood dispute have been called back to Ottawa? Could it be that the liberal party wants to keep this going until after the election in order to be able to scapegoat the USA?

>>Not to mention unseen integration strategies.<<<

Maybe they are "unseen" because they do not exist...

>> .The Dems have more respect
for their constitution, which shouldn't
be constantly amended to take away
personal/behavioural liberties
under the guise of security and moral
'righteousness'... (.<<<

The last time the constitution was amended was in 1992, under the Democrats. (The house of Representatives amends the constitution.)

>>As the worlds biggest polluter, the 13.3% increase will still be considerably more then Canadas 24.2%.<<


Per capita guess who is the bigger co2 polluter, the USA or Canada?