Farmall & IHC Tractors Discussion Board |
Re: Alberta Ca Oil Fields
[ Expand ] [ View Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Return to Forum ]
Posted by Rudi on August 31, 2005 at 13:49:51 from (69.195.156.80):
In Reply to: Re: Alberta Ca Oil Fields posted by Paul in Mich on August 31, 2005 at 05:47:03:
Paul: I am not trying to be cynical either, nor am I being churlish, argumentative or anything else, and assuredly not insulting unlike a couple responses... just my point of view. I have a hard time believing the lack of understanding about the US's longest serving ally, it's most trusted friend, it's largest trading partner and it's family... yeah... many of us are related. It is mind boggling... and it has confused me for nigh on 30 years -- ever since I first became the hubby of a US Citizen and moved there..... "You wrote: Rudi, Im not trying to be cynical, but the short answer is if selling oil to "We Americans" south of the border (west of the border to Hugh) is s drain on the Canadian economy, then don"t sell it to us." Never said it was a drain. What I did say was that most of our resources are sent to the US. IT would be stupid not to sell it to the highest bidder... but gee, it would be nice if some stayed here. Prime example - Sable Island Natural Gas. The US giants who are much bigger fish than our Canadian companies (most of who are subsidiaries of US giants anyways) contracted the whole reserve to US buyers. We had to legislate to get the right to have access to our own resources...... that is what I meant. Same thing with lumber - all the #1 and better gets sold stateside... we end up with the scrap... And I have 20 acres of woodlot. I can only get #1 if I saw it myself... And we get to pay high prices for the stuff we do get. NAFTA has ruled almost a dozen times in Canada's favour and the US has fought it every time. The tarriffs are illegal... that is the point. Just abide by the trade agreements. Not asking for special dispensation - just abide by the binding contracts - we do... in fact show me one trade agreement that Canada has violated ! "You wrote: I believe as Hugh MacKay states below that if you take all things into consideration, it pretty well washes out between Canada and the U.S. " Yup, it usually does, and I am one of the first to support our relationship... but what rankles is the treatment we get. Not just from Bush but even from the Governor of Colorado who used Quebec as an example of how dual languages will not work - this was his argument for not supporting Spanish as the Second Language for the US.... ahhh duhhh... when Wolfe beat Montcalm way back when and the French lost - Wolfe said to Montcalm that they could keep their language, culture, music, religion and there Napoleonic law. It still is in effect today. If I remember correctly it has been what well over 250 years that French and English has co-existed in this country without a Civil War. See where else in the world that happens. By the way, here is a little bit of trivia - I just learned this -- In 1776 when you all decided to toss out the Crown - English became the Official Language of the US -- by one vote. Had it been the other way around, you would all be speaking German.... I thought that was kind of neat....... Check Charles Berlitz for the info.... "You wrote:
We are neighbors, and for the most part, pretty darned good neighbors," Yes we are, and I thank the Lord for that, but we do have disagreements and it is perfectly alright to have them. "You wrote: Quit beliving everything you hear on T.V. or read in the rags. It will only make your blood boil for nothing. " I do not believe everything I read, however - being a small woodlot owner I do know for a fact how much the lumber issue is costing us.. Being a business man (retired) I do understand the definition of a contract..... Being a former US citizen, I understand the differences between Canada and the US as well as or maybe a little better than those in the media who try to sensationalize everything. On the whole, it is a pretty good relationship. It certainly is. The point of the statements was that there needs to be a little more understanding about our differences and our similarities. Nuff said. Sometimes I just need to get some of this off of me chest.... :-)) Besides, family can disagree.. yes??
Follow Ups:
Home
| Forums
Today's Featured Article -
Identifying Tractor Noises - by Curtis Von Fange. Listening To Your Tractor : Part 3 - In this series we are continuing to learn the fine art of listening to our tractor in hopes of keeping it running longer. One particularly important facet is to hear and identify the particular noises that our
... [Read Article]
Latest Ad:
1997 cub cadet 7275 compact utility tractor 4wd hydro trans cracked block 3500
[More Ads]
Copyright © 1997-2024 Yesterday's Tractor Co. All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V. Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor HeadquartersWebsite Accessibility Policy |
|