<p>The candidates’ alma maters, Wellesley, Yale, Columbia and Harvard are fine institutions, but some lessons - like the old adage “Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it” - don’t appear to be on the curriculum.</p>
<p>As parents, we should be complementing the critical thinking skills our sons and daughters are acquiring in college by exposing them to information like this.</p>
<p>Can you dumbdown what this all about. Personally I don’t understand why Canada would say that renegotiating NAFta would hurt USA’s purchase of Canadian Oil. If Canada can get more $ from China for their Oil, good for both of them. </p>
<p>The crap both Obama and Hillary were spewing about NAFTA was thoroughly, thoroughly nauseating. Firstly, neither will substantially change NAFTA - and everyone knows it. Second of all, even if they did end up trying to change it, they’d end up getting LESS favorable conditions when it comes to Canada, since the US has long had weaker labor protections (including minimum wage, labor organization laws) than Canada has, and close to the same environmental protection levels.</p>
<p>Really, the gist of that whole debate was “we’re going to stop the Mexicans from STEALING OUR JOBS!”… very, very disheartening to see 2 such intelligent people pandering such crap.</p>
<p>That article needs to be read by more Americans.</p>
<p>It also contains a great, great demonstration of a point I’ve made before about America’s double-standard for foreign interference:</p>
<p>When the Canadian government points out that pulling out of NAFTA is against its wishes and that the US would suffer as a result, particularly in context of oil, you get some Democratic political consultant/hack saying a “right wing” government in Canada (hate to break it to you guys, but the Conservatives are aligned about where the Democrats are, on the worldwide political spectrum) is trying to “help the Republicans” (obvious bull), and is “actively interfering” in the campaign. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, American diplomats do their best to influence Canadian government policy on matters as diverse as trade (I guess most Americans don’t consider this a big deal, but the softwood lumber dispute was a huge deal in Canada - and America’s illegal actions in that, and associated political manipulation, still engender a great deal of resentment), drug policy (huge pressure from America not to let the slack up on marijuana), all kinds of stuff like that.</p>
<p>It blows my mind how huge the double standard is.</p>
<p>I have no idea what that’s supposed to mean. Do you think that’s fortunate because you disagree with me, or are you just trying to be annoying?</p>
<p>By the same token, Americans can’t vote in Canadian elections, or influence our governmental policy - but you wouldn’t know that by the way your diplomats are constantly attempting to influence Canada’s government.</p>
<p>As for your schools, I would go to most Canadian universities before I went to, say, 98% of the universities in America. But the top schools are very, very good.</p>
<p>You are succeeding in looking like an arrogant twit. The fact that I am studying in America in no way means I must agree with all of its policies; if you think it does, you’ve drunk just a bit too much of the “we’re America, anyone who disagrees with us is wrong” Kool-aid that’s tragically become more prevalent during the Bush years.</p>
<p>I appreciate a lot of things about America. That’s sincere - I really do think this is a great country. But there are also a lot of things I really don’t appreciate about it - and people like you are atop the list.</p>
<p>So going forward: you’re a guest on my forum. Be appreciative. (Think this doesn’t make sense? Refer back to your statement)</p>
<p>Opie: You’re probably right, and I’m probably reading a bit too much reality into what HRC/BO are promising. Nonetheless though, I find their showboating a bit pathetic, especially when it is so easy to see right through.</p>
<p>angelica45: That criticism of my reading a bit too much into this would’ve been hard to find in your posts, full as they are of dismissive arrogance and nationalistic tripe.</p>
<p>Angelica, actually this Canadian CAN vote in the U.S.! I have dual citizenship, as do many here. In addition to that, there are thousands of ex-pats living in Canada and who will be voting.</p>
<p>C’mon? not in the least bit? not one twenzy wenzy bit? </p>
<p>For those of us on a northern border state, it’s pretty funny. </p>
<p>I wonder if they’ll intern my wife as she’s from BC (British Columbia) </p>
<p>Maybe the Canadian troops will surrender if we promise to pow them at NHL cities? </p>
<p>I do apologize but ya know, during this time of the cycle, you have to have a sense of humour a boot things… </p>
<p>It’s coming down to say anything to get votes, a wise person should listen right now with just a tidge of skeptism… and you can either get mad about it or laugh… for today I choose to grin a bit. sorry</p>
<p>Well Opie, I suppose it depends on which NHL cities you PoW them at… because putting Leafs/Sens fans in the other team’s city would probably constitute psychological duress and torture… ;)</p>
<p>"Well Opie, I suppose it depends on which NHL cities you PoW them at… because putting Leafs/Sens fans in the other team’s city would probably constitute psychological duress and torture… "</p>
<p>I was thinking phoenix with the great one, or LA or one of the Florida teams all places where you think Hockey “naturally” … </p>
<p>Nothing finer than well tanned hockey players… </p>
<p>Admitedly, war with canada might likely come down to a game of beer pong or quarters and some molson… could take a while to resolve…;)</p>
<p>If we’re going to use Canadian beer, can it at least be Keith’s IPA? Much better beer than almost any Molson offering. Could do even better than that (by a lot) but not in the mass market brands we’d need. ;)</p>
<p>NAFTA was a Republican initiative that, to his credit, Bill Clinton adopted and ensured its passage. I fail to see why everyone believes Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama when they say they will change health care in America, but few believe they will change NAFTA. I believe Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will attempt to alter NAFTA and in the process harm the United States (assume either is elected). Losing access to Canadian oil is a good example of how Canada can harm America.</p>
<p>What I have found interesting is how Clinton and Obama say they will alter NAFTA but offer few details of what they intend to change about it.</p>
<p>Well, the reason people don’t think they will do it is because both have made statements that they would keep it in different contexts, and the only time they’ve really been railing on it has been in Ohio, leading a lot of people to think (and I am in this group) that is’ largely political showboating.</p>
<p>That said, I think it’s obvious how they “intend” to change it - they talk largely about better labor and environmental standards = targeting Mexico’s very cheap production with effective tariffs based on intangibles to make it seem less overtly protectionist.</p>
<p>The fact is, even if they sat down to alter NAFTA, the Canada-America relationship is such that little would realistically be done, given how much commodity exporting Canada does to America, and how vital free trade is to both economies. The real target is Mexico.</p>
Like I said, little detail here. Saying you want better labor and environmental standards is like saying you want a better world. Who wouldn’t want a better world. However, stomping on the rights of other countries may make your world better, but it would make the stompee’s world a lot worse. </p>
<p>Would Clinton or Obama legislate a minimum wage for Mexicans? Would Clinton or Obama impost greenhouse gas standards on Mexico? If so, what would you think if another country tired to force wage and greenhouse gas standards on America? You would probably think that other country ought to mind its own business which is just was Mexico would tell the US.</p>
</p>