What kind of fuckery is this?
Jeff,
I'm gonna have to go ahead and dispute your portrayal of the [original softwood lumber] deal as "giving away" $1B dollars to the Americans. They already had the money, right? Along with another $4B or so. You can't give someone something they've already taken.
Furthermore, the US lost court case after court case, and shockingly, didn't return a single penny, let alone the full $5B that the brave Liberals were so steadfastly holding out for.
I know it's good spin to call it "giving away" money, but if we're going to use the English language as it was intended, it was quite clearly "getting money back", and $4B more than litigation ever won us. Personally, I think that this was the worst deal possible, except for all the other possibilities.
Readers, take it away.
JESUS, OLAF, ARE YOU REALLY THAT CLUELESS? Of the $5 billion that the U.S. stole from Canada in the way of illegal softwood lumber duties, Olaf writes:
... however the US had ownership of that money in every meaningful sense. They held the money in their hands and could spend it at will, with no repercussions regardless of the fact it violated the rulings of international law tribunals. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying it is the case.
"No repercussions," Olaf? Here, let me introduce you to a possible repercussion: a table of the countries that are the top exporters of oil to the United States. Notice anything interesting about that table, Olaf? Why, yes ... right there at the top: "Canada". Which means that, if whoever was running Canada had the fucking cojones, they could have retrieved that money with a phone call.
"George? Hey, how's it going? And, by the way, we want that $5 billion back here by tomorrow morning or we shut off the taps, you ignorant, Texas tumbleweed. And have a nice day."
But you and I know that's not going to happen, Olaf, because Stephen Harper's having too much fun tongue-washing George's pickup truck. And don't start in with that "But ... but ... the Liberals ..." bullshit. Stevie Boy designed his entire campaign around that worthless slogan "Getting things done for Canadians," and all he's done is hand over everything he could get his hands on to the U.S., and bone the rest of us up the ass.
So bugger off with that "no repercussions" rubbish. If Harper truly wanted that money back, he could have gotten it. He chose not to. End of story.
18 comments:
Why don't you quote my entire comment?
Also, I'm not really sure what drives your Olaf-obsession, but I assure you that if you're making a righteous stand to marginalize Richard Evans through marginalizing me through marginalizing anyone who links to me, probably the worst thing you could do is yourself link to me or my comments on a daily basis. Just a thought.
olaf writes:
"Why don't you quote my entire comment?"
Um ... because I presume that my regular readers are smart enough to follow the link and read the entire context for themselves? Could that be it, Olaf?
Yes, Olaf ... intelligent readers. What a concept, eh?
Also, I'm not really sure what drives your Olaf-obsession...
Oh, shut the hell up, Olaf. You're a verbose dunderhead who clogs up every discussion with useless petty-fogging, as you did in this example: After Jeff suggested an alternate articulation of what amounts to the same thing, you proclaimed "satisfaction."
I'm convinced you do this deliberately to move focus away from what is the issue at hand, for reasons I can only speculate about, but probably have more to do with that troll-breeding cesspool you're associated with than you are forthcoming enough to admit.
olaf writes:
"Also, I'm not really sure what drives your Olaf-obsession, ..."
As my regular readers will surely appreciate by now, I do not so much pick on Olaf personally, as I pick on airheaded, conservative wanks who perpetually say or write boneheaded things.
If, Olaf, you find yourself at the head of that line of miscreants on a regular basis, you might ponder what that says about you.
I'm just sayin'.
CC,
Um ... because I presume that my regular readers are smart enough to follow the link and read the entire context for themselves? Could that be it, Olaf?
It certainly could be. But in that case, why did you bother posting any of the comment, if your brilliant readers are going to go read the entire context for themselves?
Also, what say you regarding the apparent inconsistency between loudly making a point of not linking to anyone who would dare link to me, and then linking to me yourself on a regular basis? I'm pretty sure I've gotten more traffic from your frequent linkage than I ever did from merely appearing on someones blogroll. But then again, I'm sure there is a shrewd, dazzling logic to it all... perhaps your brilliant readers could fill me in.
Ti-guy,
My point was simple: you can't give something to someone they already have. If you say "give away", you're implying that Harper wrote a $1B cheque directly to the CFLI, when the $4B money transaction was actually going in the other direction. Not a terribly controversial point, or a big deal, I don't think.
I'm convinced the position Olaf wants to take here is that the system for valuating public resources for exploitation (in this case, forest products out West) needs to be changed, but since that argument doesn't go very far within the legal and democratic processes already in place, it has to be chatted around in an oblique fashion that indirectly supports the CPC's long-term (and hidden) agenda to transform Canada to an extent that we won't recognise it when it's done.
He'd save himself (and the rest of us) a lot of time if he'd just be plain about it.
Ti-guy,
I'm convinced the position Olaf wants to take here is that the system for valuating public resources for exploitation (in this case, forest products out West) needs to be changed...
Where exactly do you come up with this stuff? How do you, ostensibly a lover of reason, logic and empirical evidence, become "convinced" of something for which you have no proof whatsoever. I challenge you to find me quoted anywhere, ever suggesting anything close to the opinion you've here foisted upon me.
You're an oddly hypocritical beast, you know? You routinely censure anyone making an argument the isn't impeccably sourced and verified, and yet you have no problem whatsoever making wildly unsubstantiated claims about what occurs inside my head.
That's because I wasn't born yesterday, Olaf.
You routinely censure anyone making an argument the isn't impeccably sourced and verified
Well, that's because conservatives and Conservatives routinely assert things they have no way of knowing (and that's when they're being honest) and since I detest Conservatives (and most conservatives) and anyone who freely associates with them, I attack that vulnerability.
Ti-guy,
Well, that's because conservatives and Conservatives routinely assert things they have no way of knowing
As opposed to your intimate and precise knowledge of what goes on inside my head. Give it a rest Ti-guy, you're embarrassing yourself.
Olaf;
With all due respect, CC hasn't posted about you in weeks - you've posted a lot of comments here yourself since then without any mention in a post other than as co-organizer of that debate-thingy.
Also, I really do fail to see the distinction between giving something to somebody, and letting them keep something that they've taken but which belongs to you.
If anything, the second is worse because it encourages unlawful behaviour. Regardless, it's the ownership of the money that was given, Olaf, not the money itself. We gave them ownership of that money.
All the same, arguing these petty semantics is a waste of time. I'm actually inclined to agree with T-G's first comment that you're "clogging up discussion with useless petty-fogging".
Give it a rest Ti-guy, you're embarrassing yourself.
I can live with that. However baseless my speculation was about your motives, I at least suggested you were supporting a position that is rational and coherent.
That's certainly not the case with your cohort now, is it?
Adam,
With all due respect, CC hasn't posted about you in weeks - you've posted a lot of comments here yourself since then without any mention in a post other than as co-organizer of that debate-thingy.
In weeks? He referenced my name and linked to me, what, yesterday? But yea, I was referring to the ones about the debate-thingy.
Also, I really do fail to see the distinction between giving something to somebody, and letting them keep something that they've taken but which belongs to you.
You're right, it was a very minor semantic quibble, as I acknowledged there. I was giving Jeff a hard time, in good fun, which I do often. It was CC that tried to make this into something beyond that, writing a post in order to call a semi-facetious comment I made elsewhere of "fuckery", whatever that means.
If anything, the second is worse because it encourages unlawful behaviour. Regardless, it's the ownership of the money that was given, Olaf, not the money itself. We gave them ownership of that money.
I see the point you're making, however the US had ownership of that money in every meaningful sense. They held the money in their hands and could spend it at will, with no repercussions regardless of the fact it violated the rulings of international law tribunals. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying it is the case. To call it a "give away", as if we were providing them with something they didn't already have, seems inaccurate to me given the context.
Also, are you suggesting that the US needs encouragement to violate international law?
Well, I'm all for being facetious and giving people a hard time. Nevertheless:
the US had ownership of that money in every meaningful sense. They held the money in their hands and could spend it at will, with no repercussions regardless of the fact it violated the rulings of international law tribunals. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying it is the case.
You keep saying that you don't believe it's right, but underlying your reasoning here is a definite "might makes right" attitude. If you recognize that we're capitulating, that we're giving up something 'rightfully' ours, then you might as well call it a gift.
Anything else is just spin intended to hide that capitulation.
Adam,
I certainly don't dispute that it's a case of us renouncing a claim to what is rightfully ours, as that certainly seems to be the case (although, full disclosure here, I have a very modest understanding of international trade law and don't really have the expertise to make a definite claim in that regard).
That being said, pragmatic criticism of a deal should be, I think, premised on the fact that there was a better option available. Sometimes, capitulation makes sense when you're holding a queen high and the bruiser across the table has a full house.
I haven't said anything resembling "might makes right", rather, I've just been arguing that in this case we could have held onto the moral and legal high ground to no effect, or we could have gotten $4B dollars. Seems like a no brainer to me, but then again, I'm a conservative and thus fully capable of sacrificing my principles at the alter of the almighty dollar. :)
CC,
I was speaking in the past tense, as in there were "no reprocussions" following the US tariffs, not that it was impossible to impose reprocussions in the future. See how those are different? For the US, there were no meaningful reprocussions, speaking in the past tense.
Now, if you would have calmly provided your comment here instead of updating the post, you could have saved yourself the indignity of sounding like a reactionary lunatic, but to each their own.
Also, I like your idea of starting a trade war with the US. Sounds brilliant and very practical - I think we can definitely win that one. Your grasp of realpolitic would make Kissinger blush.
Starting a trade war? The trade war was already started.
You're a defeatist, Olaf. Typical.
CC,
Why is it that when you write something idiotic in one of your bombastic streams of consciousness, and I point that out, you don't respond? Just curious.
Ti-guy,
If arguing that it wouldn't be politically or economically wise to disrupt a $50+B/year trade flow in a (likely futile) attempt to recoup $1B makes me a defeatist, then so be it.
Are you and CC even serious with this? More than 80% of our trade is done with the US, where as only about 20% of their trade is done with us. Guess who can hold their breath the longest. Also, guess who would love to financially cripple Canada in order to send a message to the EU, China and others not to mess with the the US. Guess who has a relatively protectionist Congress that largely controls trade regulations and doesn't take kindly to counter-threats, so that even if Bush was on board it wouldn't matter. If you said the US in all three cases, you're right. Personally, I don't think it's anywhere close to a practical option, and I'm happy that no Canadian PM has had the "cojones" to start that kind of shit storm.
Seriously, even the NDP would think starting a "trade war" with the US is a terrible idea. But at least you and CC sound highly courageous from the relative obscurity of your home computers.
Post a Comment