Softwood... CHECK
Humm... ninety-four days in Office, and we have a deal.
And how long did the Liberals have to deal with it? (and didn't?)
It's nice to have a Government in Office that actually deals with issues.
And how long did the Liberals have to deal with it? (and didn't?)
It's nice to have a Government in Office that actually deals with issues.
posted by Christian Conservative @ 7:52 p.m.
13 Comments:
At Thu Apr 27, 08:04:00 p.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
Prepare for the onslaught of lefties telling us why this is such a bad deal....
Just to nip that all in the bud remember that on Politics with Don Newman today former Liberal negotiator Gordon Ritchie priased the deal saying it was very similar to the one they were working on, but better.
After the deal was struck, Bill Graham addressed the house by first admitting that he had not yet seen the deal, but then went on to assure the house that it was full of draconian measures that would hurt our lumber industry!?
In other news Liberal credibility is circling the drain.
At Thu Apr 27, 09:07:00 p.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
give it a rest. the deal sucks to begin with and the only credible parts were drafted by emerson when he was a liberal cabinet minister.
At Thu Apr 27, 09:51:00 p.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
It's the deal Harper bought from Emerson in exchange for a Cabinet position.
I hope it hangs like a millstone around both their necks for at least 7 years.
Was Emerson really worth over $1Billion US?
We'll just have to see what happens with the rest of our resources now that Harper has blown off NAFTA. Going to be hard to fight the US over our water or oil now that Harper has sold us out.
At Fri Apr 28, 01:11:00 a.m. EDT,
Paul MacPhail said…
Cripes, you should leave some cheese on you site. It'll go with all the wine from the mental midgets commenting here today.
At Fri Apr 28, 07:48:00 a.m. EDT,
Christian Conservative said…
Funny thing is Dirk, I agree with your reasons for not wanting to vote for me... in most discussions of issues I have with people in person, I actually try very hard "not to tote the party line".
When it comes to most of the issues brought forward here on this blog, when I don't have time to develop the idea, you get a link to a policy or something instead.
At Fri Apr 28, 09:12:00 a.m. EDT,
Christian Conservative said…
Follow up - Yes Dirk, I am often a partisan, but not on all issues... and that's mostly because the current direction of the CPC does closely (in many areas) line up with my own way of thinking. Interestingly enough, neither the old CA or PC parties did as well as the current CPC!
You also have to remember that much of what I post here is an attempt to counter the left wing MSM... to post the things that you won't likely see touted otherwise, or to bring to light stories that are pro-CPC that the media likes to overlook.
And in terms of criticism of the CPC, I try to be careful about what I post, as I do hold a position within the Party. When there are things I don't like, I discuss them openly in person with people I know... so I don't get a blog posting twisted and turned around on me 10 years from now.
Believe it or not, I'm not always "touting the party line" on every issue. For example, many who support the CPC support the privitization of various government agencies... I do not. I support a mid-sized government... not the Liberal big-government, nor the libertarian tiny-government. Some support "pay to jump the queue" healthcare options, whereas I don't. And I've posted on those areas before, but I think that was a while before I started seeing your comments here.
However, thanks for getting that off your chest... that's part of what this blog is all about. ;-)
And if I did choose to run in your riding in the future, I'd hope to be able to meet you and clearly articulate my positions on various issues which you take to heart... and not just spout off party rhetoric.
At Fri Apr 28, 09:14:00 a.m. EDT,
Christian Conservative said…
To a degree, you're right... there have been a couple of "baiting" posts here... think of them more as "de-baiting" posts. ;-)
(side note to my sis... PB would be proud of that one, eh?)
At Fri Apr 28, 09:23:00 a.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
The next time Dirk and I get together, I'll be sure to have Andrew over. It will bring back memories of Dirk, Andrew (another univeristy friend) and I wasting hours of our time arguing over Reform party policies and Preston Manning's cologne.
At Fri Apr 28, 06:38:00 p.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
So today we find out that the framework for the Liberal softwood deal was essentially the same, except the US would only repay $3.5 billion, and the plan would be for a shorter 5 year term. Based on this the Liberals have NO grounds to complain about the Conservative deal.
At Fri Apr 28, 10:49:00 p.m. EDT,
Blake Kennedy said…
Andrew:
This may come off entirely wrong, but I seriously hope it doesn't. I think Dirk has a point. I know I've discussed the same thing privately with others before, but now hopefully my advice will be helpful to you.
If you want to be an MP at some point, you need to get actual experience in governing now. You should seek election locally and learn how to hold public office and build a resume. That would likely be City Council or the School Board. I think you really need to have that kind of experience before thinking about Ottawa. If that doesn't pan out in this fall, at least volunteer for an unelected committee for the experience of doing public policy to build your resume. You can view the committees that have open positions - which is pretty much all of them - at www.guelph.ca. As well, I really think you could benefit from a couple of classes from the U of G in political science and economics, just so that you're more capable of interacting with the issues on a first-hand and independent basis, which would do wonders for your ability to govern.
As for a "partisan" spirit, I would say that is definitely something I perceive. I don't see, for instance, the benefit in pointing at the Liberals' inability to finalize a deal with the US on softwood lumber in light of the recent agreement. As others have pointed out, this current agreement was probably most hammered out over the past 18 months and likely the final authorization from both sides came recently. Secondly, the fact that the agreement came under the Conservative administration as opposed to the Liberal administration is meaningless, if this is not a good agreement. If you're pleased with this agreement, wouldn't the most meaningful thing to do would be to discuss the terms of the agreement, and argue that this is a) a good deal, b) a good deal under the circumstances, c) an acceptable deal, or d) a detrimental deal. From there, you could interact with arguments differing from yours and present your case.
Basically, I think what people are wanting is more of Andrew Prescott's original and meaningful thoughts and less, "Dippers bad, Fiberals bad, go Conservatives!" I think you're capable of doing that, you're a sharp guy. But I think you just need to develop a lot more political finesse, which comes from education and experience. Actual serious and meaningful analysis by academic standards is something I think you need to develop in order to realize your dream of political achievement.
So, to sum up: 1) build your resume, 2) build your skills. You've got the heart and the desire, but so do a lot of other people.
Go get 'em, bro.
At Sat Apr 29, 02:12:00 p.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
This deal is not a good deal. We had our pockets picked and agreed that party politics trumps legal rulings. The only good thing I can see coming out of this is that a few loggers and mill workers may get their jobs back.
I support Prime Minister Harper. I am also disappointed in him. I would have liked to see the PM hang tough and get a better deal for Canada. That said I hope that the PM has a plan for creating more jobs in Canada via this deal.
The Conservatives need to get their act together or this may be a single term government.
At Mon May 01, 04:56:00 p.m. EDT,
Christian Conservative said…
"Why do evangelicals progress the deadliest sin of greed?"
I, for one, most certainly do not support the greed that capitalim often produces. I support the notions that one ought to work to provide for oneself, and that through hard work, one can live fairly well. However, I also support having a strong social safety net, but a strong administrative and enforcement branch to ensure that only the people who truely need it live off the system.
For example, my mother, my wife and I have all seen the abuse of the system through our jobs, and believe me, there is PLENTY of room for cutting some people off, and reallocating that money to those who need it.
"It is my opinion that morals cannot exist in the current capitalistic economic system."
I disagree... morals most certainly can exist, but it depends on the moral fiber of the individual. I know of many Christian men (even a few moral non-Christians) who run their companies by the highest moral standards, and many of them have done quite well. They also earn a good reputation within the community, which further drives business up.
There are, however, the examples perhaps of which you speak... those who are immoral, who use sex to sell their products, or who lie, cheat, steal, all for the "almighty" dollar, their own god. I will agree with you that there is a great deal of sin that occurs in the name of "capitalism".
However, there is just as much sin on the socialist side of the coin. Ironically, you talk of morals... most of the socialists I've met like to throw morals right out the window. I'd love Blake to comment on the sins of communism, as I am much less of an expert on that side of things than he.
As I said, the problem comes not down to the economic system you choose, but comes down to the condition of the human heart. If the heart of the man is wicked and sinful, no matter which system you place him within, the end result will be the same... he'll be looking out for "number one", and will be trying to use the system to his best advantage.
I, for one, prefer the most pure form of modified communism that this world has ever seen... as observed within the first centruy church. The shared their posessions amongst one another as they had need, yet were free to own their land and resources and do with them as they pleased. (as recorded in the early chapters of the Book of Acts)
Actually, the form I prefer MOST is the soon coming Theocracy of the Lord Jesus Christ, as seen at the end of Revelation.
(and for the record, no, George W. Bush and Stephen Harper have nothing to do with ushering that era in)
At Mon May 01, 04:59:00 p.m. EDT,
Blake Kennedy said…
"I love it when Christians support conservative adgenda's they delegitimize their own belifs while making the conservative party look fundementlist."
While I would tend to agree with this sentiment, it would have come across a whole lot better if you had spelled "agendas" properly (no apostrophe, it's a plural and not a possessive here), spelled "beliefs" properly, capitalized the proper nounS "Conservative Party" and spelled "fundamentalist" properly.
"It is my opinion that morals cannot exist in the current capitalistic economic system."
That is refuted by the simple fact that morals do exist in our current capitalist economic system. In fact, they were designed to exist within it, if you've ever bothered reading, oh, say, Adam Smith.
"Why because the principals of profit and competition rest at the forefront of that system. What is the value of human life in this system?"
So, "profit", "competition", and "value of human life" are mutually exclusive categories? Get real.
"People will sell out thier moral belifs in order to compete with companies that are ruthless and lower the value of the individual and the enviroment as a fiscal ammount."
That's...unconvincing rhetoric to say the least. There are many people who are perfectly at ease living in our economic system and who make great contributions to the welfare of others. The way you present it, that would never happen.
Idealogues scare me, dude. Seriously, no matter what stripe they're of.
"Why do evangelicals progress the deadliest sin of greed?"
By whose judgement is "greed" the deadliest sin? By what leap of language does even economic success necessarily constitute greed?
Post a Comment
<< Home