From: "Mark" 

Well, I didn't mean to minimize it, so I'm glad you're here to throw
additional light on it John.

"John Beamish"  wrote in message
news:op.tq5hgqxkm6tn4t{at}dellblack.phub.net.cable.rogers.com...
> Further research on your part is needed.  During the past election the
> Conservatives absolutely denied Kyoto.  They were elected as a minority
> government (on completely different issues).  Now that they are in power
> they are doing their best to maintain their existing power base (Alberta
> and the tar sands which are an *unbelieveably* CO2 intensive operation)
> while also trying to pick up votes in the areas of Canada that are not
> inhabited by Neanderthals.
>
> In short ... what you call "small glimmer of hope" is spin of enormous
> proportions.  You can buy into the spin if you wish.
>
> I can hardly expect you to follow Canadian politics closely (grass growing
> is orders of magnitude more exciting) but if you are going to cite
> Canadian developments, it might be worthwhile for others to understand the
> broader context.
>
>
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 23:25:28 -0400, Mark  wrote:
>
>> The only way the US is going to meet the goals of the "global
warmists"
>> is
>> to farm out ALL of our manufacturing base to China, so we can pat
>> ourselves
>> on the back on how good "we" are and how bad China is
(none of which does
>> anything for the fake global warming "crisis").
>>
>> There is a small glimmer of hope for sanity though, Canada seems to be
>> waking up and ready to reject the Kyoto bullshit now too > hand
>> if we destroy our economy for the BS, at least we won't have to worry
>> about
>> Mexicans coming across the border illegally, as there'll be nothing here
>> for
>> them anymore -- there's always a bright side I guess>
>>
>>
>> "Robert Comer" 
wrote in message
>> news:tcri23hi3bdkkcccq9srocatvffn226pkv{at}4ax.com...
>>> Turnabout is fair play, so definitely yes, if only to somewhat balance
>>> things.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Bob Comer
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 19:03:14 -0400, "Geo."
 wrote:
>>>
>>>> are these reasons against or for an import tariff on Chinese goods?
>>>>
>>>> Geo.
>>>>
>>>> "Robert Comer"
 wrote in message
>>>> news:8tdh23pkdju6kpoarsqigoi3ljqpp221u6{at}4ax.com...
>>>>> They don't go after China and they are a far bigger
threat than we
>>>>> are.  We have no manufacturing capacity anymore.
>>>>>
>>>>> You really have to study up on what China is doing,
they're far worse
>>>>> protectionists/anti free trade than we have ever been.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Bob Comer
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 06:36:15 +0100, Ad
>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Geo. wrote:
>>>>>>> "Ad"
 wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:462708a9{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is required least we want China
to take our entire
>>>>>>>>> manufacturing
>>>>>>>>> base..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'll bet the renminbi is tracking the dollar.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What we really should be doing here, given
that the chinese economy
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> starting to overheat, is we should just slap a
large import duty on
>>>>>>> chinese goods and claim it's to help regulate
the chinese economy.
>>>>>>> That
>>>>>>> way we get the extra money from the correction
instead of them
>>>>>>> increasing the value of thier currency (or us
decreasing ours).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To me this makes far more sense but hey.. I
don't get to run the
>>>>>>> country
>>>>>>> this week.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Geo.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A) the same thing would happen in reverse all over
the place. Lot's
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> countries would slam duties onto imports from the
US claiming you're
>>>>>> using "currency dumping"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> B) The WTO would go after you with a spiky buttplug.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Adam
>>
>>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5