tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post3764280575197369419..comments2024-02-07T16:22:39.625-05:00Comments on Jeff Jedras: Does this mean we get our billion dollars back?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post-71902483182940661722007-08-08T11:10:00.000-04:002007-08-08T11:10:00.000-04:00Ohh, right you are Miranda, thanks for that. That'...Ohh, right you are Miranda, thanks for that. That'll teach me to not double check these things...Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14971310821484459106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post-80995266004289189522007-08-08T10:47:00.000-04:002007-08-08T10:47:00.000-04:00NWLad - it was actually the Bloc and not the Liber...NWLad - it was actually the Bloc and not the Liberals who voted with the Conservatives for the deal. The Liberals despite being "leaderless" voted against it.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/09/07/bloc-softwood.html" REL="nofollow">link</A>A View From The Lefthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14329632758725485498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post-82324965503807697632007-08-08T10:01:00.000-04:002007-08-08T10:01:00.000-04:00Jeff,I would prefer that phrasing, yes, thank you....Jeff,<BR/><BR/>I would prefer that phrasing, yes, thank you. :)Olafhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12434267803807108634noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post-36742368739261844192007-08-08T09:33:00.000-04:002007-08-08T09:33:00.000-04:00Nwlad,Since I'm not a Liberal MP, and I have consi...Nwlad,<BR/><BR/>Since I'm not a Liberal MP, and I have consistently opposed the Harper deal and urged it to be voted down, I'm neither a pot or a kettle. <BR/><BR/>I'd rather they have voted it down, but I guess they wanted to avoid an election, since Harper made it a confidence measure. In a minority government all parties have had to make these unfortunate decisions on confidence measures, and to single out one party -- well, now the pot and kettle would come back in.<BR/><BR/>Olaf,<BR/><BR/>I stand-by the use of the word giveaway. You can argue the odds of the money coming back if you like, and there were other avenues we could explore there but it's a whole other debate, but nevertheless the word still applies. <BR/><BR/>But while its wordier, if you like I'd agree to substitute giveaway with "sanctioning the illegal collection and non-return of $1 billion now being used to drag our beleaguered industry back before the courts, further jeopardizing thousands of forestry jobs and many forestry-dependent communities."Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14971310821484459106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post-39358490229897919932007-08-08T09:17:00.000-04:002007-08-08T09:17:00.000-04:00Jeff,I'm gonna have to go ahead and dispute your p...Jeff,<BR/><BR/>I'm gonna have to go ahead and dispute your portrayal of the deal as "giving away" $1B dollars to the Americans. They <I>already had</I> the money, right? Along with another $4B or so. You can't give someone something they've already taken. <BR/><BR/>Furthermore, the US lost court case after court case, and shockingly, didn't return a single penny, let alone the full $5B that the brave Liberals were so steadfastly holding out for. <BR/><BR/>I know it's good spin to call it "giving away" money, but if we're going to use the English language as it was intended, it was quite clearly "getting money back", and $4B more than litigation ever won us. Personally, I think that this was the worst deal possible, except for all the other possibilities. <BR/><BR/>Now, that said, you can certainly argue that Harper didn't get a good enough deal, or that perhaps if we took them to court again <I>this</I> time they'd listen, or that we should have set up retaliatory tarrifs or whatever. That's fine, and you might have a strong argument (I haven't seen one yet, but you might have one). But just don't completely mangle the English language along the way.Olafhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12434267803807108634noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post-34514314593254311392007-08-08T00:58:00.000-04:002007-08-08T00:58:00.000-04:00The deal was a lousy one and although considering ...The deal was a lousy one and although considering how the United States likes to flaunt the rules and act like a bully, I think getting a decent deal would be tough, but signing a lousy deal is no solution. And if the Americans would break NAFTA, what made Harper think they would honour this deal. The real solution is to diversify our trade and to even consider possibly forming an alliance with the EU and Japan whereby we agree to support them in retaliation in their trade disputes if they support us in ours. Japan and the EU on our side would make them take notice as these two powers are large enough to have an impact.Monkey Loves to Fighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05122291567543761919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post-20488492781416276142007-08-07T19:59:00.000-04:002007-08-07T19:59:00.000-04:00Hmmmm... this is the pot calling the kettle black,...Hmmmm... this is the pot calling the kettle black, as it was Liberal MP's, including Liberal MP's from forestry ridings who voted with the Conservatives to avoid a leaderless election. I guess that the deal didn't seem so bad then, right??? If it was so bad then, when didn't the Liberals vote with Opposition to defeat this deal??? That's right, Liberal self-interest. <BR/><BR/>First Rule of the Liberal Party of Canada: - Look out for Liberals - 2nd rule: Refer back to the first rule.northwestern_ladhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16833632861345350726noreply@blogger.com