-
Re: Ex-Rep Foley's contradiction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex-FB
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:
-
Re: Ex-Rep Foley's contradiction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suzzi
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?
-
Re: Ex-Rep Foley's contradiction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nemaroller
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.
-
Re: Ex-Rep Foley's contradiction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
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
-
Re: Ex-Rep Foley's contradiction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
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:
-
Re: Ex-Rep Foley's contradiction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suzzi
The UK is self sufficient on Oil, Canada is self sufficient on Oil.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
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!) :)
-
Re: Ex-Rep Foley's contradiction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex-FB
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:
-
Re: Ex-Rep Foley's contradiction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex-FB
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.
Quote:
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.
-
Re: Ex-Rep Foley's contradiction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
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.... :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
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.....?
-
Re: Ex-Rep Foley's contradiction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex-FB
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.
-
Re: Ex-Rep Foley's contradiction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex-FB
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.
-
Re: Ex-Rep Foley's contradiction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
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
-
Re: Ex-Rep Foley's contradiction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
....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...?
-
Re: Ex-Rep Foley's contradiction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
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:
-
Re: Ex-Rep Foley's contradiction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex-FB
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/freepu...001/export.htm
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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.
-
Re: Ex-Rep Foley's contradiction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nemaroller
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.
-
Re: Ex-Rep Foley's contradiction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
Please, stop it, I'm laughing so hard :p
Okay, let's take a look at that link you posted...
Quote:
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 :)
-
Re: Ex-Rep Foley's contradiction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex-FB
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.
-
Re: Ex-Rep Foley's contradiction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex-FB
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.
-
Re: Ex-Rep Foley's contradiction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex-FB
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
-
Re: Ex-Rep Foley's contradiction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex-FB
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.
-
Re: Ex-Rep Foley's contradiction.
Here's a recent comment by Jack Jedwab, executive director of the Association for Canadian Studies:
Quote:
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:
-
Re: Ex-Rep Foley's contradiction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suzzi
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)
-
Re: Ex-Rep Foley's contradiction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
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.
-
Re: Ex-Rep Foley's contradiction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanith
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/wo...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.
-
Re: Ex-Rep Foley's contradiction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex-FB
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.
-
Re: Ex-Rep Foley's contradiction.
Please keep the personal insults out of this.
As for the price of oil hitting the international market..... your comment
Quote:
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...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.
-
Re: Ex-Rep Foley's contradiction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex-FB
But just getting angry and hurling insults is not a good way to conduct a discussion.
Unless it's you doing the insulting?
-
Re: Ex-Rep Foley's contradiction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by demotivater
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:
-
Re: Ex-Rep Foley's contradiction.
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.
-
Re: Ex-Rep Foley's contradiction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
-
Re: Ex-Rep Foley's contradiction.
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? :)
-
Re: Ex-Rep Foley's contradiction.
Let's get back to the hamster discussion.
-
Re: Ex-Rep Foley's contradiction.
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:
-
Re: Ex-Rep Foley's contradiction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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:
:p Jeez, there is no pleasing some people. I agree with you and still you want to pick a fight. :D
-
Re: Ex-Rep Foley's contradiction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex-FB
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.
-
Re: Ex-Rep Foley's contradiction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex-FB
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
-
Re: Ex-Rep Foley's contradiction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex-FB
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:
-
Re: Ex-Rep Foley's contradiction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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:
:) 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.
-
Re: Ex-Rep Foley's contradiction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
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.
