- Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 


So what do you think of what PM Martin is doing?

October 8th, 2005, 12:13 AM
He says that if nothing is done about the softwood lumber he will basically fight back by restricting oil to the states and trading it to another country instead.

October 8th, 2005, 01:26 PM
Why can't we keep it for ourselves and have cheaper gas? Oh, right we're super capitalists... :rolleyes:

October 8th, 2005, 02:47 PM
Because Prin, then we Albertans wouldn't get checks from the gov, from all the money they made from the gas :D

Rick C
October 8th, 2005, 03:02 PM
Why can't we keep it for ourselves and have cheaper gas? Oh, right we're super capitalists... :rolleyes:

Government price controls have historically led to shortages of product . . . . the most famous and commonly cited example being the Nixon-era price controls on petroleum products, including gasoline, instituted in, I believe, 1973 and carried on by both Ford and Carter.

Capitalism might be an evil but its the lesser of two evils.

Rick C

October 8th, 2005, 07:15 PM
It always irks me that we send more oil to the US than Saudi Arabia and do not get as much credit. Then again, only a few benefit from the wealth in Saudi Arabia and the US props up that tired regime. Not to mention that 19 of the hijackers came from that country - where women cannot even drive cars. I will be interested to see what happens in Venezuala with Chavez.

To respond to the oeriginal question, I think Martin is playing domestic politics while visiting the US and that's a danagerous game. He is threatening the US with something he knows he can never do but he knows it plays well at home. And at the same time, hos own steamships are registered in countries where they pay less tax. Sounds kind of hippocritical to me. If he is serious about softwood lumber, he should negotiate with the US officials and the govt and not threaten them - whatever he thinks of their politics - thru the media.

October 10th, 2005, 01:40 PM
Personally, I think he is the most dishonest piece of crap to ever lead the country. I'm not big on any politicians, but it blows me away how he'll say whatever he thinks needs to be said to the people at that time. I think we need to stand up to the states in regards to the dispute, but I'll believe it when I see it. I have yet to see the guy do something because it should be done, rather that make some promise that will get him re-elected. I realized this when I worked in banking, and every single committee and economist recommended mergers (whether you agree with them or not is another issue for another debate). When he turned it down, several people who were given the task by the Liberals to study the issue said they had no idea why he turned them down, there wasn't anyone with expertise who was saying no. It was further rumbled at that time he was looking to be PM and he knew that that would score him points. Ever since then, I've taken a "I'll believe it when I see it" stance. Why is that he hasn't threatened a harder stance until now, when his party is going through major scandal, again, and there are rumblings of an election being called, rather than when this first became a major issue? Same reason why they suddenly decided that any surplus bigger than forcasted will be spread out among the populous--he wants votes (as someone else said, you can expect to start seeing trillion dollar surplus' being predicted going forward).

As an aside, does anyone else find it strange that in the US you can idict the leader for getting a hummer, yet in Canada, we just bend over and take it until the next election comes up??

Sorry, didn't mean to go off, but this was the topic of conversation yesterday, and I'm still a little worked up.