Ex-Rep Foley's contradiction.

[Xcoder]

Ironically, Foley, who is 52 and single, could be found to have violated a law that he helped to write as co-chairman of the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061002/ap_on_go_co/congressman_e_mails

[Shaggy Hiker]

It is ironic. I was amused to hear that the FBI is attempting to contact the pages to see whether they would be willing to cooperate with a probe. I could hardly believe that the paper would say that. That's all that Foley wanted anyways, and I find it really hard to believe that any writer would overlook that.

[moeur]

Yes,

Foley is going to go down big time.

[demotivater]

Besides being sick / wrong / whatever, how could someone be so friggin stupid?

[Shaggy Hiker]

Besides being sick / wrong / whatever, how could someone be so friggin stupid?

That's a fair question. The man wasn't an idiot to have gotten there. He could not possibly have assumed that this would never come out. Therefore, I would say that these e-mails were a thoroughly irrational act. An act based on desire without the regulation of reason. Very odd.

[nemaroller]

Christ the republicans are going to get their arses handed to them in these upcoming elections.

[crptcblade]

Foley is going to go down big time.
:lol: Its all falling into place...

[moeur]

Now that Foley has resigned, his seat is up for grabs.

[demotivater]

Now that Foley has resigned, his seat is up for grabs.
One could say his seat has been up for grabs for quite a while in light of these revalations. :lol:

[disruptivehair]

Why on earth do the Republicans keep blaming the Democrats for this?

Oh, slightly off-topic; this morning on Hannity & Colmes (comes on at 7am here), I heard Oliver North actually blaming Clinton for what's going on in North Korea when Rummy was on the board of the company that sold the light water reactors to North Korea. *sigh* Makes me just lose all hope.

[Valleysboy1978]

I just hope the next president has an IQ higher than his age (unlike the current President)

[Ex-FB]

One could say his seat has been up for grabs for quite a while in light of these revalations. :lol:
:p Good one!

[MasterBlaster]

Why on earth do the Republicans keep blaming the Democrats for this?

Oh, slightly off-topic; this morning on Hannity & Colmes (comes on at 7am here), I heard Oliver North actually blaming Clinton for what's going on in North Korea when Rummy was on the board of the company that sold the light water reactors to North Korea. *sigh* Makes me just lose all hope.

The deal was the US will build them reactors for energy and they agreed to not build nukes with the leftovers. Clinton was stupid enough to believe Korea would hold up their end of the bargian. Don't throw stones man. It is the same deal Europe is offering to Iran. It'll be the same situation in 5 years with those jerkoffs.

Of course the Republicans will blame the Democrats. They never seem to be on the same page.

[moeur]

One could say his seat has been up for grabs for quite a while in light of these revalations. I hate it when someone has to explain my jokes.

[Shaggy Hiker]

It is very hard to avoid making light of this topic, as serious as it is. By the way, this is his password:

C:<enter>###

What must be totally tough, though, is that the republican selected to stand in for him can't replace his name on the ballot, so he has the unenviable task of convincing people to vote for Foley. That's gotta hurt, but it sounds like he's been pretty philosophic about it.

We can only hope that whoever wins, doesn't take a page from Foley's book.

[disruptivehair]

The deal was the US will build them reactors for energy and they agreed to not build nukes with the leftovers. Clinton was stupid enough to believe Korea would hold up their end of the bargian. Don't throw stones man. It is the same deal Europe is offering to Iran. It'll be the same situation in 5 years with those jerkoffs.

Of course the Republicans will blame the Democrats. They never seem to be on the same page.

Well, the Bush administration also cut off contact with North Korea very early on, so it would be difficult for them to verify, let alone negotiate, if North Korea wasn't holding up their end of the bargain. So, shame on them. Then again, what the hell were we doing helping NK build reactors in the first place? I guess we figured if they're going to build them anyway, might as well let us watch?

And why did we invade Iraq when North Korea is a much bigger threat? I'm not trying to start a fight, these are just rhetorical questions. :duck:

[MasterBlaster]

Well, the Bush administration also cut off contact with North Korea very early on, so it would be difficult for them to verify, let alone negotiate, if North Korea wasn't holding up their end of the bargain. So, shame on them. Then again, what the hell were we doing helping NK build reactors in the first place? I guess we figured if they're going to build them anyway, might as well let us watch?


I'm sorry. I wasn't aware George Bush kicked the inspectors out of Korea? :rolleyes:


And why did we invade Iraq when North Korea is a much bigger threat? I'm not trying to start a fight, these are just rhetorical questions. :duck:

I might be off but I still have a feeling Iraq was chosen based on it's relative location to Iran, Syria, and Israel. I read in the newspaper that Kim Jong Il authorized underground testing on the first page.

[disruptivehair]

I'm sorry. I wasn't aware George Bush kicked the inspectors out of Korea? :rolleyes:


We're hearing here in Blighty that he waived inspections requirements for North Korea.


I might be off but I still have a feeling Iraq was chosen based on it's relative location to Iran, Syria, and Israel. I read in the newspaper that Kim Jong Il authorized underground testing on the first page.

Couldn't have anything to do with oil, could it? Nyuk nyuk! :D

[MasterBlaster]

We're hearing here in Blighty that he waived inspections requirements for North Korea.

The inspections were required by the UN and implemented and enforced by the IAEA. Bush has no say in the matter.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/east/12/27/nkorea.expulsions/index.html


Couldn't have anything to do with oil, could it? Nyuk nyuk! :D

Yes It has everything to do with oil. If Iran and Syria got into a rocket throwing contest with Israel the oil flow would stop. It is my guess that having a significant number of US and/or Israli troops on their western and eastern borders will make Iran and Syria think twice about starting anything.

[Suzzi]

By the way, this is his password:

C:<enter>###



:p

But shouldn't it be
C<Page Down><Enter>:###

:eek2:

[Suzzi]

Yes It has everything to do with oil. If Iran and Syria got into a rocket throwing contest with Israel the oil flow would stop. It is my guess that having a significant number of US and/or Israli troops on their western and eastern borders will make Iran and Syria think twice about starting anything.

Ah, I was wondering why we were in Iraq. All along it was a noble and well crafted move by Bush ( being the cunning statesman that he is ) to maintain peace in the middle east. I feel ashamed to have doubted him. :blush: His masterstroke of genius is undoubtedly one of the pivotal points of this century. Of course, he is too modest to take credit for this noble action and tried to throw us off course with reasons like Weapons of Mass Destruction, Ties to Al-Quieda etc. Thank you MasterBlaster for seeing through this....

[MasterBlaster]

Ah, I was wondering why we were in Iraq. All along it was a noble and well crafted move by Bush ( being the cunning statesman that he is ) to maintain peace in the middle east. I feel ashamed to have doubted him. :blush: His masterstroke of genius is undoubtedly one of the pivotal points of this century. Of course, he is too modest to take credit for this noble action and tried to throw us off course with reasons like Weapons of Mass Destruction, Ties to Al-Quieda etc. Thank you MasterBlaster for seeing through this....

You're giving Bush way too much credit in your lame ass attempt to get me riled up. The last 4 presidents have had the exact same plan to contain Iran, only it used to involve Saddam on the West and an funding an Afghan war on the east to keep Iran in check. Is it a coincedence? Who knows, All I know is WMD's and terrorists were nothing but an excuse to get congress to fund a war that the republicans and democrats in the oval office have been trying to get started since 1980. Any way, when is your ban up so I can call you an asshat to your face? :wave:

[moeur]

I don't think the Bush administration has been trying to hide the reason we went into Iraq: namely to try to bring democracy to the Middle East one country at a time.

When asked why we chose Iraq and not Syria or Iran; then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice stated that we could have gone into any of those countries but we had the clearest legal path into Iraq since they had violated UN resolutions and had fired on our aircraft often.

Oil does have a lot to do with it since we wouldn't be so concerned with what was happening over there if the oil wasn't there.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I don't think the Bush administration has been trying to hide the reason we went into Iraq: namely to try to bring democracy to the Middle East one country at a time.

When asked why we chose Iraq and not Syria or Iran; then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice stated that we could have gone into any of those countries but we had the clearest legal path into Iraq since they had violated UN resolutions and had fired on our aircraft often.

Oil does have a lot to do with it since we wouldn't be so concerned with what was happening over there if the oil wasn't there.

Exactly. This has been the neo-con concept since Gulf War I, and it wasn't such a bad idea. What bothered me is that they tried to come up with all kinds of other reasons to go to war with Iraq, including WMD, ties to 9/11 (publicly denied by Bush, but alluded to repeatedly by Cheney and others, and still believed to be true by the majority of Fox viewers), and ties to al Queda.

They had a sound, and forward thinking, concept, but chickened out when it came to standing on those principles. Basically, they had their heads in a dark space, over their choice, but it was entirely understandable. When Wolfowitz (or however you spell that) stated that Iraq had no history of sectarian conflict, he wasn't lying to America, he was lying to himself. Iraq was the low hanging fruit, and they grabbed at it, while convincing themselves that it was also the ripe fruit. Reality has now set in, and we're in a mess, but not because their general thesis was wrong, just the execution.

The only reason why we care about trying to get long-term stability in the region is because of oil. If there was no oil over there, we'd be just as happy letting them rot, as we do with all of Africa, and most of S. America.

[disruptivehair]

The inspections were required by the UN and implemented and enforced by the IAEA. Bush has no say in the matter.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/east/12/27/nkorea.expulsions/index.html


OK; I haven't been keeping up with this story so I'll take your word for it.


Yes It has everything to do with oil. If Iran and Syria got into a rocket throwing contest with Israel the oil flow would stop. It is my guess that having a significant number of US and/or Israli troops on their western and eastern borders will make Iran and Syria think twice about starting anything.

Let's hope so; the last thing we need is to take over another hostile middle eastern nation. My (perhaps naive) hope is that someday we'll be energy independent, at which point we can flip the middle east the bird and leave them to it. :)

[Ex-FB]

You're giving Bush way too much credit in your lame ass attempt to get me riled up. The last 4 presidents have had the exact same plan to contain Iran, only it used to involve Saddam on the West and an funding an Afghan war on the east to keep Iran in check. Is it a coincedence? Who knows, All I know is WMD's and terrorists were nothing but an excuse to get congress to fund a war that the republicans and democrats in the oval office have been trying to get started since 1980. Any way, when is your ban up so I can call you an asshat to your face? :wave:


Your whole statement is interesting. It looks like the US has been trying to start this war since the 1980's (according to you). Surely, that is a really bad thing? Is it any wonder why the US is seen as the bad guy by a large chunk of the world?

As for installing democracy in the middle east, as was stated many times before this war began, people have to want democracy, you can't thrust it upon them.

People can chose democracy when they have a comfortable existence, involving food on their table, drinking water, personal safety and in this day and age electricty. Until those things are met, the majority of the population will have other things to worry about than whether they can vote one corrupt politician in over another.

Look at Pakistan, since it became a democracy each successive leader has driven the country further and further into poverty. Most of the Pakistanis I spoke to there are over the moon that Musharef siezed power of the country in a coup. He is slowly trying to bring the country back from brink. They actively do not want democracy back until they have food and drinking water and in many cases to have the religous zealots who run some of the more tribal areas removed from power.

I can see the same situation in Iraq, These zealots wield so much power, that come election day, the religous zealots instruct their people that they must vote for the candidate that they endorse. Invariably this is another zealot. Bang, instantly you have a democratically elected fundamental Islamic government who reintroduce shia law.

But it's okay, because it's a democracy eh? In fairness, I am being unfair by using the word fundamentalist, as there are many fundamentalist Muslims out there who are not what most of us associate with the word (i.e. no Burkhas, beatings etc., just a fundamental belief in god). But hopefully you get my point. This is exactly the situation (election wise) that existed in Ireland 100 years ago. When the priest would stand in the pulpit and tell the people what he wanted them to do. Trust me, no matter what your personal misgivings where, you did as the priest instructed, because it was a command from God.

I do not think that the middle east is ready for democracy, and it is upmost foolishness and arrogance of the west to force it upon them. All we do is weaken ourselves and strengthen our enemies.

[MasterBlaster]

Your whole statement is interesting. It looks like the US has been trying to start this war since the 1980's (according to you). Surely, that is a really bad thing? Is it any wonder why the US is seen as the bad guy by a large chunk of the world?


Good guy or bad guy is irrelevant. Bottom line is, if the oil stops flowing right now the worlds economy piesses in the tub. Instead of a couple handfulls of third world countries and a few hundred thousand dead in a war, you end up with an entire planet of starving or dead people. Does fighting and financing wars to keep the oil flowing make the US, EU, Russia, China and India the bad guys? It's a moral dilema that no one can answer correctly. Unfortunatly, it's a global economy now and every country depends on each other to survive. As an example, How would Europe do without imported food? If the big transport ships run out of fuel, I doubt you'll see people swiming across the atlantic with backpacks full of grains to feed everyone. :(

[Suzzi]

Good guy or bad guy is irrelevant. Bottom line is, if the oil stops flowing right now the worlds economy piesses in the tub. Instead of a couple handfulls of third world countries and a few hundred thousand dead in a war, you end up with an entire planet of starving or dead people. Does fighting and financing wars to keep the oil flowing make the US, EU, Russia, China and India the bad guys? It's a moral dilema that no one can answer correctly. Unfortunatly, it's a global economy now and every country depends on each other to survive. As an example, How would Europe do without imported food? If the big transport ships run out of fuel, I doubt you'll see people swiming across the atlantic with backpacks full of grains to feed everyone. :(
Unfortunately, the US has gotten itself into a position where it is dependent on foreign oil. Britain became a net importer of oil a few months ago for the first time in decades. Canada exports most of it's oil to the US.

Few other big nations are as dependent. I think that Europe is (or can be) probably self sufficient on food (does anyone have any facts on this), it is one of the arguments why the government keeps paying farmers not to grow crops... so that in a crunch the countries cannot be held to ransom over food.

So the argument that it is about oil does not justify taking it by force. Become if not self-sufficient, at least less reliant on middle eastern oil. Of course, this doesn't excuse Canada for hiking the price of oil up everytime something goes wrong in the middle east.... that's blatant gouging.... but that's a another discussion entirely.

So yes, the US is very reliant on middle eastern oil. Does that justify killing tens of thousands of people to get it? No. Is the rest of the world reliant on oil, yes, but not neccessarily middle eastern oil.

Now, you could argue that the world depends on the US economy, but whilst that was true 5 years ago, it is not so true now. I have noticed that countries have quickly weaned themselves off the US dollar. Before 5 years ago every contract we were asked to bid on was required to be in US dollars. Now, every single one of them requires the price in Euro's.

So, I disagree that fighting to control the oil is in the interests of humanity. Face facts, you voted in an individual who is either an idiot or completely immoral (I'm not sure which), and he promptly went to war for self serving political, short sighted reasons. I'm afraid to say, the moment he invaded Iraq, he handed Al-Queida their biggest victory ever. No amount of trying to come up with excuses or reasons for the invasion will ever change that.

World good? I don't think so. :(

[MasterBlaster]

Unfortunately, the US has gotten itself into a position where it is dependent on foreign oil. Britain became a net importer of oil a few months ago for the first time in decades. Canada exports most of it's oil to the US.

Few other big nations are as dependent. I think that Europe is (or can be) probably self sufficient on food (does anyone have any facts on this), it is one of the arguments why the government keeps paying farmers not to grow crops... so that in a crunch the countries cannot be held to ransom over food.

So the argument that it is about oil does not justify taking it by force. Become if not self-sufficient, at least less reliant on middle eastern oil. Of course, this doesn't excuse Canada for hiking the price of oil up everytime something goes wrong in the middle east.... that's blatant gouging.... but that's a another discussion entirely.

So yes, the US is very reliant on middle eastern oil. Does that justify killing tens of thousands of people to get it? No. Is the rest of the world reliant on oil, yes, but not neccessarily middle eastern oil.

Now, you could argue that the world depends on the US economy, but whilst that was true 5 years ago, it is not so true now. I have noticed that countries have quickly weaned themselves off the US dollar. Before 5 years ago every contract we were asked to bid on was required to be in US dollars. Now, every single one of them requires the price in Euro's.

So, I disagree that fighting to control the oil is in the interests of humanity. Face facts, you voted in an individual who is either an idiot or completely immoral (I'm not sure which), and he promptly went to war for self serving political, short sighted reasons. I'm afraid to say, the moment he invaded Iraq, he handed Al-Queida their biggest victory ever. No amount of trying to come up with excuses or reasons for the invasion will ever change that.

World good? I don't think so. :(

Dude you are so far from reality that it is almost amusing. Commerce is driven by Oil. Period, end of discussion. When the world reverts to coal burning ships, steam powered railroad engines and the horse and buggy to deliver goods then you may have a point. Until humans can move billions of tons of traded goods every day without the oil generated power then the global economy is dependant on the middle east. England may buy canadian Oil for it's own purpose, but the food and goods coming into it May be arriving via mideast oil or south american or canadian or who knows? The Middle east is the worlds largest Oil provider so odds are that the tanker is burning saudi/Iraqi/Iranian/XXXistan sweet crude diesel. You do have a point about the available farm lands that the government is essentially paying for. So is every one in europe going to show up at the farm every day and pick their own vegetables? How will you ship the produce? how will you plow the field? Ever seen a combine that runs on liquid bullsheit?

BTW, I never tried to pawn this off as "World Good". I think the situation sucks as much as the next guy. I would be the happiest man alive if I was responsible for growing my own food, making my own consumer goods and generating my own fuel. For the most part I do, but due to overpopulation and the current society structure there are some things we have to depend on trade to get just to survive. In fact, In a few months I will be producing my own Bio diesel out of recycled material [seriously].

[Suzzi]

Dude you are so far from reality that it is almost amusing. Commerce is driven by Oil. Period, end of discussion. When the world reverts to coal burning ships, steam powered railroad engines and the horse and buggy to deliver goods then you may have a point. Until humans can move billions of tons of traded goods every day without the oil generated power then the global economy is dependant on the middle east. England may buy canadian Oil for it's own purpose, but the food and goods coming into it May be arriving via mideast oil or south american or canadian or who knows? The Middle east is the worlds largest Oil provider so odds are that the tanker is burning saudi/Iraqi/Iranian/XXXistan sweet crude diesel. You do have a point about the available farm lands that the government is essentially paying for. So is every one in europe going to show up at the farm every day and pick their own vegetables? How will you ship the produce? how will you plow the field? Ever seen a combine that runs on liquid bullsheit?

BTW, I never tried to pawn this off as "World Good". I think the situation sucks as much as the next guy. I would be the happiest man alive if I was responsible for growing my own food, making my own consumer goods and generating my own fuel. For the most part I do, but due to overpopulation and the current society structure there are some things we have to depend on trade to get just to survive. In fact, In a few months I will be producing my own Bio diesel out of recycled material [seriously].

Sorry, I obviously didn't explain myself well enough. The UK is self sufficient on Oil, Canada is self sufficient on Oil. The middle east is Self Sufficient on Oil. Large chunks of Europe are all self sufficient. World trade will not halt because the West does not control the middle east. Canada is constantly ramping up production at an alarming rate, and is still be outstripped by the consumption in the US (great for Canada - not so great for the US). The US's consumption per capita is massive compared to the rest of the world. I think this needs to be brought under control. If the US was self sufficient (or at very least just dependent on Canada and Alaska), then that would go a long way towards the economy being independent. At present the US is giving tons of money to governments that are openly hostile to it. How can that be a good thing?

BTW good for you for the bio-degradable diesel! :thumb:

[disruptivehair]

Few other big nations are as dependent. I think that Europe is (or can be) probably self sufficient on food (does anyone have any facts on this), it is one of the arguments why the government keeps paying farmers not to grow crops... so that in a crunch the countries cannot be held to ransom over food.



As someone who lives in the UK and sees little except foreign food in the supermarkets, I'm not sure we could. Remember that even in a mild climate like the UK, you can only grow food certain times of the year. You COULD grow food in winter, but only if you want to eat cabbage and turnips the whole time.

I don't think there is any way that Europe could realistically feed itself.

[disruptivehair]

Sorry, I obviously didn't explain myself well enough. The UK is self sufficient on Oil, Canada is self sufficient on Oil. The middle east is Self Sufficient on Oil. Large chunks of Europe are all self sufficient.

Uh...not for much longer.

[Ex-FB]

I have noticed that countries have quickly weaned themselves off the US dollar. Before 5 years ago every contract we were asked to bid on was required to be in US dollars. Now, every single one of them requires the price in Euro's.

What does your company do?

[Suzzi]

What does your company do?
I probably shouldn't tell you this incase there's any animal rights people on this website, but they design, build and test ejector seat systems for jet trainers, fighters etc.

[MasterBlaster]

Sorry, I obviously didn't explain myself well enough. The UK is self sufficient on Oil, Canada is self sufficient on Oil.


Not even close. Both countries depend on food and supplies coming from The US, Mexico, East Aisia..... All of which are shipping those goods via mideast oil. Also, over the weekend, while researching Diesel fuel, I came across the reason that the price of Diesel fuel in the US is now higher than regular unleaded gasoline. Five years ago it was not. The US is trading it's diesel fuel in exchange for the UK's regular gasoline. The reason behind it is the higher percentage of diesel cars in the UK compared to the US. So In fact, The UK is burning mideast fuel on it's highways. Not trying to nitpick, Just trying to emphasize that the US is not the only country that will be SOL if the mideast oil stops flowing.

BTW good for you for the bio-degradable diesel! :thumb:

Thnx, I'm still trying to get it to work out financially and setting up my materials sources. There are also a bunch of Tax and Code laws that I need to sort out. The actual making of the fuel is a pretty simple process. Any Europeans driving the new diesel Hondas with an opinion on them would be welcomed. They haven't been released to market here yet and I would prefer to buy a honda if possible. I've always been impressed with the drivability compared to price on Hondas.

[Ex-FB]

Not even close. Both countries depend on food and supplies coming from The US, Mexico, East Aisia..... The reason behind it is the higher percentage of diesel cars in the UK compared to the US. So In fact, The UK is burning mideast fuel on it's highways.
Are you honestly trying to tell me that Canada, the second largest country in the world, with the massive prairies filled with wheat, with the abundant fruit orchards of British Columbia, with the meagre population of 35 million, cannot feed itself? Alberta alone is 3 times the size of the UK and it's pretty much all wheat and beef. :ehh: I would argue that that is a pretty dubious fact.... Infact, the only thing that's more abundant than food is oil (which is promptly sold at a huge premium to the States).

I also fail to see the UK burning mid-east fuel thing as well. Let's get this straight. The UK produces lots of gasoline from the North Sea. They are getting their diesel from the US (according to you), and somehow this equates to them burning middle eastern fuel?

But, like Suzzi, I do applaud you for the bio-diesel stuff.

[Ex-FB]

A quick check on the CIA world factbook shows that Canada keeps 225 square metres of land farmed per person. More than enough to feed a person for a year.... and when you consider that this accounts for just 5% of the country's land (a chunk of the other 95% being the cattle praries etc.) I think I'll rest my case on this point.

[Suzzi]

Yes, and the annual penguin harvest in Canada is a rare treat.

[MasterBlaster]

A quick check on the CIA world factbook shows that Canada keeps 225 square metres of land farmed per person. More than enough to feed a person for a year.... and when you consider that this accounts for just 5% of the country's land (a chunk of the other 95% being the cattle praries etc.) I think I'll rest my case on this point.

So you're trying to tell me that canada only exports goods. They don't depend on trade for anything? Whatever, Your numbers are extremely misleading. 95% of the country is not cattle land. 80% of the land you speak of is covered in freaking snow most of the year. Trust me, it is better to make Iced Cream after the milk has been removed from the cow. The majority of canadians live within only a few hundred miles of the US border. Then there are the canadian "bush" people(not the president), but that is a different thread


I also fail to see the UK burning mid-east fuel thing as well. Let's get this straight. The UK produces lots of gasoline from the North Sea. They are getting their diesel from the US (according to you), and somehow this equates to them burning middle eastern fuel?


How can you fail to see it. They are trading a huge ammount of US refined mideast fuel for eupopean refined unleaded gasoline. They are doing this to keep the diesel in the UK affordable and regular unleaded gasoline in the US affordable. This is my point. Some how or another, If it runs on oil based products, no matter where in the world or who a particular country buys their oil from. Odds are it is tied to mideast oil. This has nothing to do with government decisions, It has to do wiith their simply being more mideast oil on the market. Another example. UK Shipping company sends a boat to china to pick up 115,000 dead weight tonnage of freight. They stop in Shanghai for fuel. They are now burning Mideast Oil, Are they not? :confused:

[Ex-FB]

So you're trying to tell me that canada only exports goods. They don't depend on trade for anything? Whatever, Your numbers are extremely misleading. 95% of the country is not cattle land. 80% of the land you speak of is covered in freaking snow most of the year. Trust me, it is better to make Iced Cream after the milk has been removed from the cow. The majority of canadians live within only a few hundred miles of the US border. Then there are the canadian "bush" people(not the president), but that is a different thread

I never said they only export goods, the original discussion was whether a country is dependent on imports to survive (if the middle east cut off their oil would they be able to survive). I have quite clearly shown that Canada does not need imports to feed itself. This is quite different from importing other types of food as a luxury.

As for the second part of the statement, this is unfortunately a typical US view of Canada. Yes, a massive amount live in the south, almost all centred around the Trans-Canada railroad, but this does not mean that the rest of the land is uninhabitable. Yes, maybe 50% of Canada is snowbound, but that still leaves a very large area which is very arrable. Heck, I was just up in Edmonton (that's some 350 miles north of the US border I believe and it wa sin the mid 30's (Celcius). But that's all besides the point. At present the figures stand at 225 sq metres of crops per person (not including cattle etc.).
and without any extra expansion, that's enough to feed every Canadian.


How can you fail to see it. They are trading a huge ammount of US refined mideast fuel for eupopean refined unleaded gasoline. They are doing this to keep the diesel in the UK affordable and regular unleaded gasoline in the US affordable. This is my point. Some how or another, If it runs on oil based products, no matter where in the world or who a particular country buys their oil from. Odds are it is tied to mideast oil. This has nothing to do with government decisions, It has to do wiith their simply being more mideast oil on the market. Another example. UK Shipping company sends a boat to china to pick up 115,000 dead weight tonnage of freight. They stop in Shanghai for fuel. They are now burning Mideast Oil, Are they not? :confused:

Why would they ship middle eastern fuel to the US just to ship it to UK?
Wouldn't it make much more sense for them to be shipping South American or Canadian fuel to the UK..... given that they are your largest suppliers..... or do they specifically seperate out the middle eastern stuff from your pipelines so that it doesn't contaminate your principles :p The second example is valid, as is the case of a middle eastern tanker stopping in Canada and now burning Canadian oil? But I fail to see the relevance. I believe you are confusing the world of supply and demand with the world of the oil cartels. Supply is deliberately restricted to keep the costs up. Canada could supply all of the US's oil requirements if it really wanted to. Why doesn't it? I would guess that they're happy for OPEC to be the bad guys and keep the supply restricted so that they get a good return on their oil. They would be mad to make the States independent of OPEC. What's oil these days $80 a barrel? Do you really think it costs Canada any more to produce a barrel of oil today than it did 5 years ago?

[MasterBlaster]

As for the second part of the statement, this is unfortunately a typical US view of Canada. Yes, a massive amount live in the south, almost all centred around the Trans-Canada railroad, but this does not mean that the rest of the land is uninhabitable. Yes, maybe 50% of Canada is snowbound, but that still leaves a very large area which is very arrable. Heck, I was just up in Edmonton (that's some 350 miles north of the US border I believe and it wa sin the mid 30's (Celcius). But that's all besides the point. At present the figures stand at 225 sq metres of crops per person (not including cattle etc.).
and without any extra expansion, that's enough to feed every Canadian.


Dude, look at my location underneath my avatar. I can throw a rock and hit Canada from here. 50% is practically uninhabitable and another 25% is so damn cold 9 months out of the year that cow's commit suicide when they hear they're getting sent north. I never said that they couldn't produce enough food to survive if they had to. I just said that your numbers were very misleading. Go back to Edmonton in a month or two and see what I'm talking about.

Whatever, I'll end with this, which was my point to begin with. If any one doesn't believe that the sudden loss of 25% of the worlds oil will have catastrophic economical effects on every globalized country then they are a head smacking retard. :wave:

[nemaroller]

I probably shouldn't tell you this incase there's any animal rights people on this website, but they design, build and test ejector seat systems for jet trainers, fighters etc.

So you're ejecting monkeys at approximately 15 G's?

Christ... you got any video of that?

[Shaggy Hiker]

So you're ejecting monkeys at approximately 15 G's?

Christ... you got any video of that?


:lol: :lol: :lol:

Well, it sure isn't penguins.

[Xanith]

Whatever, I'll end with this, which was my point to begin with. If any one doesn't believe that the sudden loss of 25% of the worlds oil will have catastrophic economical effects on every globalized country then they are a head smacking retard. :wave:

This is exactly why Iran isn’t a smoldering crater right now. Even though the US and a majority of Europe get no oil from Iran taking what they produce off the market would send the price of oil everywhere skyrocketing. Its simple supply and demand, there is someone out there that buys Iranian oil (China) and they are not going to all of a sudden no longer need it, they are going to try and get it somewhere else. This is turn will make oil less available for everyone else thus driving the price of oil well over 100 bucks a barrel.

Also the current price of a barrel of oil is around $60. Oil prices went into free fall because world supply is at an all time high. OPEC seeing this has decided to slow production by 1 million barrels a day which will likely slow the fall of oil prices. Oil is down almost $20 a barrel from its highs, it likely would have dropped another $10 or so had OPEC not taken any action.

X

[Ex-FB]

Dude, look at my location underneath my avatar. I can throw a rock and hit Canada from here. 50% is practically uninhabitable and another 25% is so damn cold 9 months out of the year that cow's commit suicide when they hear they're getting sent north. I never said that they couldn't produce enough food to survive if they had to. I just said that your numbers were very misleading. Go back to Edmonton in a month or two and see what I'm talking about.

This has to be the perfect post :thumb: It starts off with indignation that you should know all about Canada because you live near it, then go on to make the most hillariouslly stereotypical statement about Canada, bbbbbrrrrr. Good job there's igloos up there - eh? :p And beyond all this, you still fail to make your point. You said that Canada was reliant on foreign food imports. I categorically proved that they were not..... so, were you wrong?



Whatever, I'll end with this, which was my point to begin with. If any one doesn't believe that the sudden loss of 25% of the worlds oil will have catastrophic economical effects on every globalized country then they are a head smacking retard. :wave:
What tune are you whistling now, you change it so regularly that I'm having difficulty keeping up.

I believe that nobody has denied that losing 25% of the worlds oil supply would affect trade, however, that gap could be filled by higher production from other nations and better use of the oil. As has been pointed out, this isn't a question of us using up all the available oil as it is produced. This is a question of the cartels restricting the supply of oil to suit the market to keep price's high. Canada is as complicit as the middle-east.

Your original statment implied that wrold economies would crumble if it wasn't for middle eastern oil. Countries would starve (I seem to remember some swimming to the uk with backpacks of food comment), the end of the world is nigh sort of thing. Do you deny that this statement is incorrect now? Or have you changed your tune to "It'll effect the world economy?". Yes, but so would cokecola if it went bankrupt......

All of this I believe came from an original Suzzi comment that the US would do well to wean itself off oil. As someone who is looking into making their own diesel, I would think that you would be able to agree with this statement. Per capita the US uses way more oil than any other country on earth. The reasons aren't hard to see. Most of the US cities I have lived in are full of big cars with one person in them. Cars are used to go everywhere..... I remember slagging our neighbours because they would drive down to work in seperate cars. Come home. Drive out to get a video etc. Then get on the treadmill in the evening..... it's just so damn cheap and convenient. The US would not grind to a halt if it's population had to use more econmical cars, or carpool or just walk every now and again.

Look at Brazil. All the gas there is cut with fuel alchohol that they grow themselves. Don't get me wrong, Canada is just as bad, but Canada (as has been stated) is not reliant on foreign oil.

Look at the countries you buy oil from. Venezula? Saudi? These countries are barely on friendly terms with you, yet they're very happy to take your money. If you could shrug off that yoke around your necks, then suddenly you would be in a far better position to decide what your foreign policy was going to be. Maybe you wouldn't have to start so many wars? Maybe you wouldn't have to give two hoots about what Venezula said about you to the world? Hell, maybe you might even be able to control the price of oil yourselves, rather than let OPEC set it... for those of you who don't know OPEC consists of (Algeria, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Venezuela)..... see many friendly faces there? Yet they have such a grip on your economy. :ehh:

[Ex-FB]

I never said that they couldn't produce enough food to survive if they had to. I just said that your numbers were very misleading.
Er, actually you did. The conversation went something like this:
Good guy or bad guy is irrelevant. Bottom line is, if the oil stops flowing right now the worlds economy piesses in the tub. Instead of a couple handfulls of third world countries and a few hundred thousand dead in a war, you end up with an entire planet of starving or dead people.

The UK is self sufficient on Oil, Canada is self sufficient on Oil.


Not even close. Both countries depend on food and supplies coming from The US, Mexico, East Aisia..... All of which are shipping those goods via mideast oil.

Er, looks to me like you are arguing that Canada and the UK are both dependent on foreign countries for food and oil.......

So, in true FOX TV fashion, let's hear your sound bites again
I never said that they couldn't produce enough food to survive if they had to. I just said that your numbers were very misleading.
and
Both countries depend on food and supplies coming from The US, Mexico, East Aisia.....
Now all I need is the anchor woman to make some witty aside to the anchor man and then both smile at the camera as we cut to adverts (for the new Ford Oil Guzzler F-9000, now with second engine for that extra street cred!) :)

[disruptivehair]

Look at the countries you buy oil from. Venezula? Saudi? These countries are barely on friendly terms with you, yet they're very happy to take your money. If you could shrug off that yoke around your necks, then suddenly you would be in a far better position to decide what your foreign policy was going to be. Maybe you wouldn't have to start so many wars? Maybe you wouldn't have to give two hoots about what Venezula said about you to the world? Hell, maybe you might even be able to control the price of oil yourselves, rather than let OPEC set it... for those of you who don't know OPEC consists of (Algeria, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Venezuela)..... see many friendly faces there? Yet they have such a grip on your economy. :ehh:


*THUNDERING APPLAUSE*

:thumb: :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:

[MasterBlaster]

Er, looks to me like you are arguing that Canada and the UK are both dependent on foreign countries for food and oil.......


I still don't see where I said that canada couldn't produce enough food to survive? I said they are not self sufficient. Their economy depends on imports and exports, just like every other globalized country in the world. How hard of a concept is that for you to grasp? I believe I said that the UK could not be self sufficient and even If I didn't, I'll stand by that.


Now all I need is the anchor woman to make some witty aside to the anchor man and then both smile at the camera as we cut to adverts (for the new Ford Oil Guzzler F-9000, now with second engine for that extra street cred!) :)


Or I can blame all the worlds problems on the US because It's the in thing to do instead of realizing that the country you live in regardless of where your are has the exact same problems.

[Ex-FB]

I still don't see where I said that canada couldn't produce enough food to survive?
Right about where you said that Canada depends on foreign food. If you want, I can come over and draw a big circle around it on yuor screen with felt tip marker pens.... :)


Or I can blame all the worlds problems on the US because It's the in thing to do instead of realizing that the country you live in regardless of where your are has the exact same problems.

That's right. We're all being trendy by blaming all the worlds problems on the US? :ehh: For one thing, we are discussing how to free up the US economy from it's dependence on the middle east. What has this to do with the worlds problems? This is beginning to sound like paranoia.

Secondly, most people do not blame the worlds problems on the US. Most people do blame the US for the mess in Iraq, and for warmongering like nobody has seen since the 1930's, but you can hardly balme them for that can you? Oh, that wasn't us, they tricked us into attacking..... :p

But again, not really relevant to the conversation (mind you none of this is relevant to the original thread :) ). So, stating that the US should wean itself of middle eastern oil is wrong because.....?

[MasterBlaster]

Right about where you said that Canada depends on foreign food. If you want, I can come over and draw a big circle around it on yuor screen with felt tip marker pens.... :)


Me:I can butcher my own meat If I wanted to. I Don't I Depend on a butcher to do it for me.

Canada: I can grow my own food if I wanted to, I Don't I Depend on someone else do the farming. Then I buy it from them because it is affordable that way

Please take a class on "Reading Comprehension" Then start over at the begining of this thread. Thank You.

[MasterBlaster]

But again, not really relevant to the conversation (mind you none of this is relevant to the original thread :) ). So, stating that the US should wean itself of middle eastern oil is wrong because.....?

....Because it will not solve anything.

The world needs to ween itself off of oil. A fixed amount of Oil is necessary to keep the global economy moving. Suddenly removing 25% of that Oil completley without replacing it with another power source will crash that economy. It is not a US problem, It is a global problem.

[Ex-FB]

Me:I can butcher my own meat If I wanted to. I Don't I Depend on a butcher to do it for me.

Canada: I can grow my own food if I wanted to, I Don't I Depend on someone else do the farming. Then I buy it from them because it is affordable that way

Please take a class on "Reading Comprehension" Then start over at the begining of this thread. Thank You.
Ha ha ha :p You are trying very unsuccessfully to squirm out of this. Do you depend on the butcher in the first example? No you do not. Because if he stops butchering for you, you can go to another butcher or do it yourself. You can infact be independent.

Is Canada dependent on foreign food, no, it can (and does) grow enough to feed it's population.

You could argue, oh, I didn't mean it like that, but a few posts previously youe were saying that the world would be starving to death..... Face facts, you are quite simply wrong. Now be a man and admit it :p

[Ex-FB]

....Because it will not solve anything.

The world needs to ween itself off of oil. A fixed amount of Oil is necessary to keep the global economy moving. Suddenly removing 25% of that Oil completley without replacing it with another power source will crash that economy. It is not a US problem, It is a global problem.

You are obviously failing to grasp what I am saying. Yes, I agree the world does need to wean itself of the current oil consumption levels. Yes, suddenly removing 25% of the worlds oil supply would be bad for the economy. Would it result in millions around the world starving to death? No.

It is also a global problem, but for the US it's far worse, as they are by far the biggest users of the stuff and are far more dependent on it than many other countries.

The US needs to wean itself off the Oil, not for the sake of the world, but for the sake of it's own foreign policy. Until it does that, then it is going to be funding the very people who stand to oppose it. How can I say it any slower or clearer...?

[Ex-FB]

Or I can blame all the worlds problems on the US because It's the in thing to do instead of realizing that the country you live in regardless of where your are has the exact same problems.
Oh, and while I'm here, actually, I look at Canada and I don't see the same problems. Funny, they don't hold people indefinetly without trial, they don't kidnap and torture dissidents, they don't actively attack other countries on a regular basis, they don't interfere in other nations internal politics (beyond what is normal), they don't openly try and assassinate other world leaders, they don't actively develop new nuclear "battlefield" weapons while swearing to the world that they're not going to use them........ and Canadians don't live in fear that they are going to be attacked because for some reason the rest of the world views them as a pariah. Why else do Americans sew Canadian flags on their backpacks when they go travelling?

Luckily it's easy to identify the Americans still. All you need is a little American Flag (made in China) and a box of matches. Next thing you know they'll all be running around screaming "Terrorist Alert Fushia. Code Fuisha, I repeat, Code Fuisha. Flag burning in progress" and hiding under tables lest the big bad terrorists get them. :p

Sure Canada is under threat of attack, but we don't let it effect our life or our liberties. As soon as you do that, the terrorists have won. And unforunatly my friend, when I look at the States I see that terrorism has indeed achieved what it set out to do. :(

But none of this has anything to do with the thread, I was just clarify the mistaken view you hold that the rest of the world has the same problems as the US. We don't. Sure, we have plenty of other problems, but that's the fun of the world mosaic. Now if only we hadn't run out of maple syrup.... :wave:

[MasterBlaster]

Ha ha ha :p You are trying very unsuccessfully to squirm out of this. Do you depend on the butcher in the first example? No you do not. Because if he stops butchering for you, you can go to another butcher or do it yourself. You can infact be independent.


I am not trying to squirm out of anything. I was trying to clarify my use of the word dependant. In the case of an individual butcher, yes you can go to another or learn to cut your own. If 25% of the butchers(Oil) are suddenly removed from the marketplace then there is no one to take up the slack. Sure a few(like canada) "could" do it themselvs but most wouldn't even know where to find a cow, let alone to make a steak out of one.



http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/15-515-XIE/2004001/export.htm


Is Canada dependent on foreign food, no, it can (and does) grow enough to feed it's population.


Then what does it do with the 30% of the food it imports? Do they just import it then throw it away?


You could argue, oh, I didn't mean it like that, but a few posts previously youe were saying that the world would be starving to death..... Face facts, you are quite simply wrong. Now be a man and admit it :p


You have presented no facts, All you have done is try to counter what I have said with exagerated half truths and twisting my quotes out of context.

Every forecast I have read that states the impact of the sudden removal of 25% of the worlds oil supply is an economic disaster for everyone with a trade driven economy. That includes Canada.

[Suzzi]

So you're ejecting monkeys at approximately 15 G's?

Christ... you got any video of that?
No, the animal rights people seem to think that monkeys are too cute and friendly. No, we use hamsters. They're cheaper, easier to clean up and have pretty much the same BMI as a human.

Of course, I do get a pang of guilt when I look into their furry little faces on the video feed, their little cheeks twitching away, and then I flick the switch and woosh, they're flattened out, going ballistic.

I honestly think that most of them enjoy it. A pretty high percentage survive no problems at all. They scurry around in their cages on the later launches, eager to begin.

We don't do it out of choice, but many companies and governments won't take our product unless there's been a live fire test.

[Ex-FB]

http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/15-515-XIE/2004001/export.htm

Then what does it do with the 30% of the food it imports? Do they just import it then throw it away?

Please, stop it, I'm laughing so hard :p

Okay, let's take a look at that link you posted...
Canada's exports of processed food products exceed imports by about 30%. In 2003, Canada exported $16.8 billion worth of processed food products and imported $12.6 billion.

The food processing industry accounts for about 4% of Canada's merchandise trade essentially the same as it was in 1995. Canada has always been a major food exporter.

Okay, let's take it very slowly.

Importing is when a country (like C-a-n-a-d-a) buys goods from another country (like the U-S) and brings them into the country. We say that canada is i-m-p-o-r-t-i-n-g them. Does that make sense.

Now when a country (like C-a-n-a-d-a) sells goods to another country, we say that Canada is e-x-p-o-r-t-i-n-g them. Okay, does that make sense so far?

When a countries exports of food exceed their imports, they are producing enough to feed all of their people and then some.

Hey, what do you know, I thought I couldn't say it any clearer, but yet again I managed to out do myself.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the link you just posted, absolutely prove my point (and I would say disprove yours but I know you will have changed your tune again by the next post.... let me guess, you weren't saying that Canada couldn't be self-sufficient, just that if there was a crop blight and an earthquake then maybe Canada would have to import some food to survive......)..... of course, you could argue that these figures are based on monetary value and not quantity of food, but hang on, that doesn't work either does it, because Canada is exporting wheat, which is a dietry staple and very cheap, and I'm betting that a lot of the food it is importing is luxury food (chcoalte etc.) - so Canada would still survive. ;) Maybe, maybe you mean that because Canada imports less food than it exports, that there is some sort of accounting trick going on, sort of smoke and mirrors, ...... I am curious to see what you are changing your tune to now... but I know i won't be dissapointed :)

[MasterBlaster]

Please, stop it, I'm laughing so hard :p

Okay, let's take a look at that link you posted...


Okay, let's take it very slowly.

Importing is when a country (like C-a-n-a-d-a) buys goods from another country (like the U-S) and brings them into the country. We say that canada is i-m-p-o-r-t-i-n-g them. Does that make sense.

Now when a country (like C-a-n-a-d-a) sells goods to another country, we say that Canada is e-x-p-o-r-t-i-n-g them. Okay, does that make sense so far?

When a countries exports of food exceed their imports, they are producing enough to feed all of their people and then some.

Hey, what do you know, I thought I couldn't say it any clearer, but yet again I managed to out do myself.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the link you just posted, absolutely prove my point (and I would say disprove yours but I know you will have changed your tune again by the next post.... let me guess, you weren't saying that Canada couldn't be self-sufficient, just that if there was a crop blight and an earthquake then maybe Canada would have to import some food to survive......)..... of course, you could argue that these figures are based on monetary value and not quantity of food, but hang on, that doesn't work either does it, because Canada is exporting wheat, which is a dietry staple and very cheap, and I'm betting that a lot of the food it is importing is luxury food (chcoalte etc.) - so Canada would still survive. ;) Maybe, maybe you mean that because Canada imports less food than it exports, that there is some sort of accounting trick going on, sort of smoke and mirrors, ...... I am curious to see what you are changing your tune to now... but I know i won't be dissapointed :)

I know what an import and export is, I'm suprised you do considering you cannot grasp a simple economic model. I have not changed my tune yet. You are trying to change my tune. Canada's E-C-O-N-O-M-Y depends on those exports. Those exports depend 25% on M-I-D-E-A-S-T O-I-L to reach their destination.

[MasterBlaster]

When a countries exports of food exceed their imports, they are producing enough to feed all of their people and then some.


Not true. It depends on what is being imported and exported. It may or may not be true in the case of canada but still that is not always and not usually the case.

[Xanith]

Oh, and while I'm here, actually, I look at Canada and I don't see the same problems. Funny, they don't hold people indefinetly without trial, they don't kidnap and torture dissidents, they don't actively attack other countries on a regular basis, they don't interfere in other nations internal politics (beyond what is normal), they don't openly try and assassinate other world leaders, they don't actively develop new nuclear "battlefield" weapons while swearing to the world that they're not going to use them........ and Canadians don't live in fear that they are going to be attacked because for some reason the rest of the world views them as a pariah. Why else do Americans sew Canadian flags on their backpacks when they go travelling?

Last I remember Canada is still a part of NATO and Canadian troops are active in fighting “the war on terror” inside of Afghanistan. They are just as responsible for rounding up suspected terrorists as the US is, therefore Canada should just be equally culpable in your eyes. Canada kidnaps dissidents and hands them over to the US to be tortured and detained forever! Canada sure is evil, a willing partner to torture, tisk tisk.

X

[demotivater]

That's right. We're all being trendy by blaming all the worlds problems on the US? :ehh: For one thing, we are discussing how to free up the US economy from it's dependence on the middle east. What has this to do with the worlds problems? This is beginning to sound like paranoia.

Secondly, most people do not blame the worlds problems on the US. Most people do blame the US for the mess in Iraq, and for warmongering like nobody has seen since the 1930's, but you can hardly balme them for that can you? Oh, that wasn't us, they tricked us into attacking..... :p

Comparing the United States to Nazi Germany? Talk about being trendy. You must have reached the bottom of your bag of barbs. How pathetic.

[demotivater]

Here's a recent comment by Jack Jedwab, executive director of the Association for Canadian Studies:
There are a lot of people who think we should be listening closely [to extremist groups] and that there is an opportunity to dialogue with these sort of groups
LOL - Good luck with that. Go Canada! :lol:

[Shaggy Hiker]

No, the animal rights people seem to think that monkeys are too cute and friendly. No, we use hamsters. They're cheaper, easier to clean up and have pretty much the same BMI as a human.

Of course, I do get a pang of guilt when I look into their furry little faces on the video feed, their little cheeks twitching away, and then I flick the switch and woosh, they're flattened out, going ballistic.

I honestly think that most of them enjoy it. A pretty high percentage survive no problems at all. They scurry around in their cages on the later launches, eager to begin.

We don't do it out of choice, but many companies and governments won't take our product unless there's been a live fire test.

:lol: :lol: :lol:
That's even funnier. I even like animals, and the image you present is STILL hilarious.

(don't know about that BMI thing, though, that makes me nervous)

[Ex-FB]

I know what an import and export is, I'm suprised you do considering you cannot grasp a simple economic model. I have not changed my tune yet. You are trying to change my tune. Canada's E-C-O-N-O-M-Y depends on those exports. Those exports depend 25% on M-I-D-E-A-S-T O-I-L to reach their destination.
Hahaha - once again, you've changed your tune! What happened to the hundred of thousands starving, Canada is dependent on foreign food, oh hang on, now it's just going to hurt the economy. Keep this up and pretty soon it will be "well I said that the polar bears might be effected..." :)

But let's look at the scenario you paint and see how it fits. You can be the US and I'll be Canada. Now, remember that by far Canada's biggest trading partner is the US. And, I'm sure you are aware that the two countries border each other. So transport is easy.

Canada: "Why so glum chum? Turn that frown upside down etc."
US: "But I'm glum because the middle east has turned off the oil."
Canada: "Really? Now that is interesting... did I mention we have loads of the stuff up here. And it's going on special this week only one hun... er I mean two hundred dollars a barrel. Get it while it's still fossilised."
US: "Wow that's expensive!, but I guess we have no choice."
Canada: "Nope. Do you need any gas to go withthat for your power stations."
US: "Is it going to be expensive?'
Canada: "Tell you what unbuckle your pants and turn around and I'll tell you the price....."


Well maybe not the last bit, but you get the picture....

The scenario you paint would be fantastic for Canada, not so fantastic for the US. Oh, that's right Canada doesn't have much oil does it, just like it doesn't have much food... maybe you'll be arguing that it doesn't have much snow next.... :)

So it's a moot point, basically either wean yourselves off middle eastern oil or keep giving money to your enemies. It's not a massively tricky concept, yet you do seem to be having difficulty grasping it.

[Ex-FB]

Last I remember Canada is still a part of NATO and Canadian troops are active in fighting “the war on terror” inside of Afghanistan. They are just as responsible for rounding up suspected terrorists as the US is, therefore Canada should just be equally culpable in your eyes. Canada kidnaps dissidents and hands them over to the US to be tortured and detained forever! Canada sure is evil, a willing partner to torture, tisk tisk.

X
I agree. I think it's dispacable that the Canadian government is complicit in such events. Whats is equally sickening is their refusal to admit their mistakes.

Take this example:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/19/world/americas/19canada.html?ex=1316318400&en=f1496d527bec4121&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

The RCMP point the finger at the US government, but they are the one's who provided the intel that he was a terrorist and it doesn't take a genius to work out that someone is going to torture him.

Hopefully the latest government has learned lessons from the old one, but unfortunately I doubt it. Basically it comes down to politicians being self serving people of dubious parentage.

[MasterBlaster]

Canada: "Why so glum chum? Turn that frown upside down etc."
US: "But I'm glum because the middle east has turned off the oil."
Canada: "Really? Now that is interesting... did I mention we have loads of the stuff up here. And it's going on special this week only one hun... er I mean two hundred dollars a barrel. Get it while it's still fossilised."
US: "Wow that's expensive!, but I guess we have no choice."
Canada: "Nope. Do you need any gas to go withthat for your power stations."
US: "Is it going to be expensive?'
Canada: "Tell you what unbuckle your pants and turn around and I'll tell you the price....."


Again, I am not changing my tune. Are you f-ing retarded? How many different ways do I need to restate the same thing? You are simply taking one item and removing it from the equation. That does not work. Removing the OIL has a cascading effect on the entire Global economy. Removing 25%
is enough to tank it. Your country depends on inports and exports. Feel free to believe you don't. That just makes you a moron.

Look at the effects of a $20 hike per barrel does to the international market. Can you imagin what an instant $300 spike in the price would do? No you obviously can't.

You Left yourself out of your conversation.
You: Wow, My company can't afford to keep me because their cost of doing busisness just went through the roof. Krap, I guess I'll sit on my unemployed arse, eat home grown wheat all day and take my mad cow for a walk.

[Ex-FB]

Please keep the personal insults out of this.

As for the price of oil hitting the international market..... your comment You: Wow my company can't afford to keep me because their cost of doing business just went throught the roog is quite amusing. You see, I work in the oil industry in Alberta.

Here is a link to see how badly the rising oil prices are hurting the average Albertan

http://www.globeinvestor.com/servlet/ArticleNews/story/RTGAM/20060227/wxalbertagas27
In other words, we cheer every time the price of oil goes up!

This conversation is just getting embarresing as I prove you wrong repeatedly. If you can come up with some good arguments, I'll listen. But just getting angry and hurling insults is not a good way to conduct a discussion.

[demotivater]

But just getting angry and hurling insults is not a good way to conduct a discussion.
Unless it's you doing the insulting?

[Ex-FB]

Unless it's you doing the insulting?

Please point to any personal insult I have made in this thread.

I will unreservedly apologise as it is not in my nature to insult people.

Thanks.
:thumb:

[demotivater]

It wasn't this thread I was thinking of. You're simply condescending and patronizing. So, the distinction of personal insults would indeed exclude your snide remarks in this thread.

[Ex-FB]

It wasn't this thread I was thinking of. You're simply condescending and patronizing. So, the distinction of personal insults would indeed exclude your snide remarks in this thread.
Sorry, my ESP seems to have been switched off for the time being. Which thread were you thinking of?

Oh sorry, that probably counts as being condescending/patronising/snide doesn't it? :)

I think you will find that for every snide comment I make (and I do make them) they are usually in retort to something much worse. If people are polite to me, then I am most polite to them. I find it amusing that people say things on the web that they would not dare to say to somebodies face.

It is also probably worth bearing in mind that if people got angry or worked up about everything said on the web, they would go crazy. So why is this any different. Is it really so difficult to have a sensible discussion without resorting to name calling?

Do I really care if MasterBlaster believes that Canada is dependent on the middle east for Oil and Food? Not really. Is it worth me getting angry about? Not at all. I find if you laugh at 99% of the things you read on the web, then life is a lot sweeter! :wave: Enjoy.

[Ex-FB]

In fact, just to show that people shouldn't take these things too seriously (as they appear to be doing), I will end the argument by categorically conceeding the whole argument to MasterBlaster.

I conceed that he is completely right, and that if the middle east stops producing oil:-
- the world will be filled with starving people
- I will be out of work as the Canadian oil company that employs me will have gone bankrupt because of the incredible profits they will be making now that they are the major supplier of oil to the rest of the world
- Luckily, because I will be out of work, I won't have to worry about picking my way around all the starving Canadians, as we both agree, there is no way the second largest country in the world could possibly feed 30 million people

There, is everyone happy now? :)

[moeur]

Let's get back to the hamster discussion.

[demotivater]

You're right, FB, I should ignore that you compared my country to Nazi Germany in an attempt to make some point that everyone but you missed. Since it's on the internet, it's no big deal. Thusly, I'm sure you'll think it's no big deal that I think Canadians have a bit to much of the French surrender gene in them and their actions (and inactions) make that painfully clear. Mix that with your predictable, English inspired pomposity and you bunch are quite hilarious. Or is it laughable?

By the way, my life couldn't be sweeter. I live in the greatest country on the face of the planet, the United States of America!

Thanks then! Enjoy! :wave:

[Ex-FB]

You're right, FB, I should ignore that you compared my country to Nazi Germany in an attempt to make some point that everyone but you missed. Since it's on the internet, it's no big deal. Thusly, I'm sure you'll think it's no big deal that I think Canadians have a bit to much of the French surrender gene in them and their actions (and inactions) make that painfully clear. Mix that with your predictable, English inspired pomposity and you bunch are quite hilarious. Or is it laughable?

By the way, my life couldn't be sweeter. I live in the greatest country on the face of the planet, the United States of America!

Thanks then! Enjoy! :wave:
:p Jeez, there is no pleasing some people. I agree with you and still you want to pick a fight. :D

[MasterBlaster]

In other words, we cheer every time the price of oil goes up!



So you cheer because war in the middle east causes oil prices to go up?

Funny how you change your tune.

[MasterBlaster]

Please keep the personal insults out of this.

As for the price of oil hitting the international market..... your comment is quite amusing. You see, I work in the oil industry in Alberta.

Here is a link to see how badly the rising oil prices are hurting the average Albertan

This conversation is just getting embarresing as I prove you wrong repeatedly. If you can come up with some good arguments, I'll listen. But just getting angry and hurling insults is not a good way to conduct a discussion.

So why are you only selling at $60 -$80 a barrel? Surley you could sell it for $200 if you wanted to right? Have fun with your $200 barrels that no one will ever be able to afford demand = Want/Need + Cash not demand = Want/Need

[MasterBlaster]

Sorry, my ESP seems to have been switched off for the time being. Which thread were you thinking of?

Oh sorry, that probably counts as being condescending/patronising/snide doesn't it? :)

I think you will find that for every snide comment I make (and I do make them) they are usually in retort to something much worse. If people are polite to me, then I am most polite to them. I find it amusing that people say things on the web that they would not dare to say to somebodies face.

It is also probably worth bearing in mind that if people got angry or worked up about everything said on the web, they would go crazy. So why is this any different. Is it really so difficult to have a sensible discussion without resorting to name calling?

Do I really care if MasterBlaster believes that Canada is dependent on the middle east for Oil and Food? Not really. Is it worth me getting angry about? Not at all. I find if you laugh at 99% of the things you read on the web, then life is a lot sweeter! :wave: Enjoy.

Dude, Don't get me wrong. I'm not angry one bit. In fact I've rather enjoyed this conversation. I simply think you're a moron for misquoting me over and over and over. Trust me, If you were a close friend and we were sitting in a bar having a beer, I'd call you much worse. :wave:

[Ex-FB]

You're right, FB, I should ignore that you compared my country to Nazi Germany in an attempt to make some point that everyone but you missed. Since it's on the internet, it's no big deal. Thusly, I'm sure you'll think it's no big deal that I think Canadians have a bit to much of the French surrender gene in them and their actions (and inactions) make that painfully clear. Mix that with your predictable, English inspired pomposity and you bunch are quite hilarious. Or is it laughable?

By the way, my life couldn't be sweeter. I live in the greatest country on the face of the planet, the United States of America!

Thanks then! Enjoy! :wave:
:) Good job I'm not Canadian, French or English then isn't it? :) I do like to think of myself as hilarious, thank you for noticing :thumb:

Oh, and by the way, what I actually said was that we hadn't seen warmongering like this since the 1930's. Take that as you wish, but I was actually just drawing parrallels between two politicians of world powers who habitually started wars. There was no reference to Nazi's, as I do not believe the US people are anything like the Nazi party.

[Ex-FB]

So why are you only selling at $60 -$80 a barrel? Surley you could sell it for $200 if you wanted to right? Have fun with your $200 barrels that no one will ever be able to afford demand = Want/Need + Cash not demand = Want/Need
No, we have to wait for the middle east to turn off their supply before we can sell it for that price.

[Ex-FB]

So you cheer because war in the middle east causes oil prices to go up?

No, generally we just wait for Bush to attack one of the countries, make some inflammatory remark, or diss one of the OPEC members..... (basically, just to continue being the intelligent statesman that he is) that's enough to send the price of oil back up :)

[Suzzi]

In fact, just to show that people shouldn't take these things too seriously (as they appear to be doing), I will end the argument by categorically conceeding the whole argument to MasterBlaster.

I conceed that he is completely right, and that if the middle east stops producing oil:-
- the world will be filled with starving people
- I will be out of work as the Canadian oil company that employs me will have gone bankrupt because of the incredible profits they will be making now that they are the major supplier of oil to the rest of the world
- Luckily, because I will be out of work, I won't have to worry about picking my way around all the starving Canadians, as we both agree, there is no way the second largest country in the world could possibly feed 30 million people

There, is everyone happy now? :)

I think you're wrong. Canada has lots of oil. Didn't they just open that massive Tarzan oil field?

[Xanith]

While Canada does have the 2nd largest oil reserve of any nation (other than Saudi Arabia) they are still not on of the top 10 producers of oil yet. From what I understand a lot of the oil has been previously either hard to reach or not economical to pull out of the ground. With record prices for oil over the past several years it has been more economical for Canada to ramp up oil production. I have heard that a lot of Canadian oil is trapped in what they call oil sands and it takes a lot to extract that oil both in cost and environmental damage.

The US is the 3rd largest producer of oil in the world (behind Saudi Arabia and Russia), however most of that production is used internally. With Canada producing more and more oil it will help alleviate the US and their dependence on the Middle East and unstable oil producing nations, which I think is a good thing. If Canada tapped its full reserves it could become one of the greatest oil producing nations on the planet, even rivaling Saudi Arabia.

X

[MasterBlaster]

While Canada does have the 2nd largest oil reserve of any nation (other than Saudi Arabia) they are still not on of the top 10 producers of oil yet. From what I understand a lot of the oil has been previously either hard to reach or not economical to pull out of the ground. With record prices for oil over the past several years it has been more economical for Canada to ramp up oil production. I have heard that a lot of Canadian oil is trapped in what they call oil sands and it takes a lot to extract that oil both in cost and environmental damage.

The US is the 3rd largest producer of oil in the world (behind Saudi Arabia and Russia), however most of that production is used internally. With Canada producing more and more oil it will help alleviate the US and their dependence on the Middle East and unstable oil producing nations, which I think is a good thing. If Canada tapped its full reserves it could become one of the greatest oil producing nations on the planet, even rivaling Saudi Arabia.

X

The amount of reserves is sort of misleading. For example it takes more energy to extract a barrel of Shale oil that the energy actually contained in that barrel. Oil sands are close but still slightly profitable to extract. Canada the US and Russia are loaded with shale and or sand oils and count them as part of their reserves.

[Xanith]

The amount of reserves is sort of misleading. For example it takes more energy to extract a barrel of Shale oil that the energy actually contained in that barrel. Oil sands are close but still slightly profitable to extract. Canada the US and Russia are loaded with shale and or sand oils and count them as part of their reserves.

If the price stays high enough Canada can become a leading producer. I am not sure but I don’t think anyone counts the US and its vast Coal supply either. Coal can also be used to produce oil, currently most of the US coal production is being sent to China. If the US wanted I am sure it could use its vast coal supply and become totally energy independent....but then again they would have to get by the environmentalists first :)

X

[Ex-FB]

Didn't they just open that massive Tarzan oil field?
Tar Sands?

I agree about the cost of producing oil from the Tar Sands, but it should be born in mind that modern techniques have drastically reduced the cost needed to seperate the oil out. There is still a cut off point where it ceases to be profitable (as with all products). Our current production costs for the Tar Sands are about $10 a barrel. Now, that is just the cost for the manpower, machinery etc. to get it out of the ground. On top of this there is transportation costs, which for the US are cheap (because there are a number of pipelines running South), but for Canada to ship it overseas it starts to really add on to the price.

So, although it is more expensive to produce than middle eastern oil, there is still plenty of profit to be made.

At present Alberta is looking at quadrupling its production levels over the next 5 to 10 years (some $20 billion odd in new plants being built at present). Of course, to make this worthwhile there needs to be a market for it, at present they obviously see that market as the US. But the middle east isn't daft. If the US stops buying their oil, then they may be forced to drop the price of the oil to continue to generate the current profits that they are enjoying. If they do that, then it will force the price of the Canadian oil down. Will it every dip back below the proft level of $10+transport?, I don't know, but either way it will probably drive the price of oil downwards.

We are constantly reducing the cost of the extraction, and each time we do that we make more and more of the reserves recoverable. Usually when a countries reserves are posted, only the recoverable amount of oil is announced, which at present is some 300 billion barrels. But there is over another trillion barrels in the Tar Sands that aren't reported, because they are not recoverable with current methods. As methods improve, the size of the reported reserves increase. as long as the price stays high, the incentive to get at that extra trillion barrles will remain high.

[Suzzi]

Tar Sands?


Ah - that might be it. But they name other places after biblical figures, why not name one after Tarzan....?

[Shaggy Hiker]

You're just a laugh a minute. Get back to posting videos of hamsters being shot out of cannons.

[MasterBlaster]

As for the second part of the statement, this is unfortunately a typical US view of Canada. Yes, a massive amount live in the south, almost all centred around the Trans-Canada railroad, but this does not mean that the rest of the land is uninhabitable. Yes, maybe 50% of Canada is snowbound, but that still leaves a very large area which is very arrable. Heck, I was just up in Edmonton (that's some 350 miles north of the US border I believe and it wa sin the mid 30's (Celcius). ......

Any plans on vacationing in Edmonton any time soon. Unfortunate typical US View of Canada? If you mean People in the us can read a weather map, then yes. If you would like I'll post the latest weather map daily. We can watch it get colder everyday and maybe figure out why People in the Us think it's cold in canada.

[Ex-FB]

Actually, with wind chill it was -39C in Calgary today (nippy) and we had the first real snow of the year. But heck, it's a month before Christmas. I believe the original point was that Canada was covered in snow all year round and therefore couldn't grow enough food to feed itself..... It is often joked that Canada only has two seasons (summer and winter) as they change so very quickly. Sure, it gets cold in November, but it gets warm again in April, ready for growing plenty more food. Do they grow much food in the rest of the US during the Winter (honest question, I don't know - though I do know they grow all year round in equatorial places).

In the summer the temperature is up in the +20's to +30's (Centigrade) so April to November, that's plenty of time and sunshine to grow food..... which was the original point.

[Ex-FB]

Here's a quick chart from the local weather station.... (although the first couple of months of the year are not usually that warm, we had a chinoock in for the longest time)

:wave:

[MasterBlaster]

Actually, with wind chill it was -39C in Calgary today (nippy) and we had the first real snow of the year. But heck, it's a month before Christmas. I believe the original point was that Canada was covered in snow all year round and therefore couldn't grow enough food to feed itself..... It is often joked that Canada only has two seasons (summer and winter) as they change so very quickly. Sure, it gets cold in November, but it gets warm again in April, ready for growing plenty more food. Do they grow much food in the rest of the US during the Winter (honest question, I don't know - though I do know they grow all year round in equatorial places).

In the summer the temperature is up in the +20's to +30's (Centigrade) so April to November, that's plenty of time and sunshine to grow food..... which was the original point.

I was just looking out the window and the snow made me hungry for some fresh canadian glacier corn. LOL :bigyello:

Speaking of chinook, Tell the canadian comercial fishermen to take it easy on the fall Coho. The runs down here were pitifull this year.

[MasterBlaster]

Nov 28th

Updated Canadian Tropical weather report

http://www.trekearth.com/gallery/North_America/Canada/photo218900.htm

[Ex-FB]

Actually, the cold weather has caused an upsurge in violence..... see below


http://www.shortarmguy.com/SnowmanViolence.jpg

[MasterBlaster]

Blahahahahahhahahaha! :lol: Nice!