We got Saddam!!!!!!!

No, I think it shows how much we want to understand both the world in which we live and the viewpoints of others who live alongside us. Which will ultimately make us smarter. But maybe it will make me an idiot - I really dont know. :|

tom

FlackBait, the point I was making is that it was only passed by the House, it hadn't even made it to Bush's desk yet.

And Spectra, the reason we imposed tariffs on Canadian lumber was to protect our own lumber industry. You were undercutting us on prices and putting Americans out of work. I'm sorry but we need to protect our own first and foremost. Same with the pharmaceutical (sp?) industry. Now I'll be the first to admit that drug prices are WAY too high. I have allergies, there is no reason that my allergy pills should cost $3 each. I'd buy them from Canada if I could do so legally (I can't by the way). The pharmaceutical industry is far from poor, and a little Canadian competition surely wouldn't hurt them too bad, but the lumber industry does not employ people who drive Porches and Cadillacs, it employs people who likely make a maximum of $30,000/year. Those are the people that the tariff set out to protect. And don't get me wrong, I do understand that the people of your country need to make a living too, but as I said before, we need to protect our own first.

About this Canadian Lumber stuff...

First, imposing this rate was against the comercial exchange agremment than USA and Canada sign...

And US was proven worng by doing so (by the International Comercial Association or something like this).

Also, the amin reason than Canadian lumber was cheaper is than the companyy IN US tried to get more profits (charging more so the boss (not the worker) ger more cash)

US often made agreement just to broke tham as soon as they have to pay for wath they get in exchange...

I got nothing against the americain citizen... but your administration is more than corupted...and are very good at blinfidng their own citizen... awake...

ok maybe this post got a little away from the original subject...

Originally posted by casual
Well, the reason i posted that annoying reply was, as said, to be an ass.. If you think about it, that reply wasnt more lame, annoying or stupid than the question, posted by a-pek, was in the first place.

Its just that a question like that is so .. childish? (im really having trouble finding a word) .. but you know what i mean. It would be just about the same to ask someone "how do you know god exist, have you seen him/talked to him?" ...

again, i posted to make it clear that i found that question to be just as, actually even more, pointless than a statement without facts. But lets not get all hostile in here .. and no, im not flaming .. dont get me wrong ;)

some of the words used to describe my post: lame, annoying, stupid, childish...............and no, you're not flaming?

keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better at the end of the day.

and as for my post. i was just pointing out that assumptions like the ones made earlier do no good for the debate. they just bring it down a level.

i understand that without hearing my tone of voice it's hard to interpret what i mean when i say things. but going off and name-calling is uncalled for.

Mattboy:

"The dispute is centred around stumpage fees - set amounts charged to companies that harvest timber on public land. Many in the U.S. see Canadian stumpage fees as being too low, making them de facto subsidies. A U.S. coalition of lumber producers wants the provincial governments to follow the American system and auction off timber rights at market prices."

What that means is that your government is complaining that our logging companies aren't paying enough to log on our own land and they think its unfair. And in turn, your government thinks we need to follow your system. We weren't putting your forestry industry out of work, America needs our lumber, it's a fact. You aren't producing enough to get by. (If you were producing enough, you wouldn't be importing it from us in the first place.) However, it just doesn't look as good getting a good deal from us when local companies are charging more. Hence the punishing 27% tarif imposed. "This means Canadian production will have to drop to equal 31.5 per cent of the U.S. market or face a tariff of $200 US for each additional thousand board feet. As it stands, Canadian lumber accounts for 33 per cent of the U.S. lumber market."

The result, just in BC, 15,000 people (who only make 30 grand a year) are out of work. At least if they had a porche they could sell it.

Now get this, the WTO has told the USA that they are wrong, that the tarifs are way too high. You would think this would be great for Canada? NO. The USA has decided to appeal the the WTO's answer, which will take another year, which means another punishing year for us poor Canadians. Now I know that you have to protect number one, but that doesn't mean choking out the other guy.

Canadian sawmills employ over 80,000 Canadians, 15,000 of those in ONE province are out of work. Now the US wants to run pipelines through Canada to pump oil from Alaska and they want to divert Canadian rivers into America for more water. They are also telling us we can't fish salmon in our own waters because "the salmon may swim into our waters and we want them." Is that not raping and pillaging?

Definition: De facto subsidy; Non legal/established financial assitance from the government. The states want our government to charge more for our companies to log on our own land. The financial assistance is the low stumpage fees.

Originally posted by A-Pek
some of the words used to describe my post: lame, annoying, stupid, childish...............and no, you're not flaming?

keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better at the end of the day.

and as for my post. i was just pointing out that assumptions like the ones made earlier do no good for the debate. they just bring it down a level.

i understand that without hearing my tone of voice it's hard to interpret what i mean when i say things. but going off and name-calling is uncalled for.

i was refering to "annoying, stupid, childish" because i knew that was the way my own reply would be received .. i found your post pointless, therefore i replied .. so no, i didnt flame?, nor do i want to make all of this personal.. I'm not in this thread to flame, attack or throw words like "f**ck, sh*t etc." after others.. Im here to state my point of view ..

SOMEBODY SHOOT THIS THREAD IN THE FACE!

yeah, lets leave it ..

i know I got pretty upset reading something, and maybe i wrote some b-****, so i apologize if someone felt offended as well..

after all, this was about the capture, not the endless bush/bush-administration battle..

*shoots thread in face*

Why do people complain about threads existing?
Don't click your way in here if you find it stupid, how hard can that be?

*gives paavo a gold medal*

(hey thats mine!)

pfftt.. its paavo's now :P