[saturn_656]

$1:

The auto manufacturers would have been allowed to go under, throwing even more millions of Americans out of work.

GM and Chrysler did go under. Both companies made Chapter 11 filings. Both companies essentially died during the recession. The GM that exists today is a legally a new entity partially funded with government dollars with only some select assets from the old GM. Chrysler was pretty well "sold" to FIAT (along with an infusion of government dollars to the Italian Corp).

The historic GM is gone, Chrysler (aka North American division of FIAT) even more so.

[BeaverFever]

Canada has always been invisible to the US. Americans just don't care. The economic relationship manages itself.

All the hand-wringing over Canada not going to Iraq, the governing Liberals calling Bush a Moron, stepping on Bush dolls, etc. barely got any airplay south of the border and trade actually increased during that period.

[DanSC]

Wow. 30+ posts and no one has come up with the real reason Harper's visit isn't being treated as a state visit.

Hate to tell you, but Harper, nor any Prime Minister, from Canada or elsewhere, gets a state visit when they come to the USA. To get a state visit, you have to be a head of state, and even then you might not get one. If Canada wants a state visit, they have to send the Queen.

Just to reiterate, no Canadian PM, nor British PM, nor French PM, nor any PM will ever get a state visit.

[GreenTiger]

DanSC DanSC:

Wow. 30+ posts and no one has come up with the real reason Harper's visit isn't being treated as a state visit.

Hate to tell you, but Harper, nor any Prime Minister, from Canada or elsewhere, gets a state visit when they come to the USA. To get a state visit, you have to be a head of state, and even then you might not get one. If Canada wants a state visit, they have to send the Queen.

Just to reiterate, no Canadian PM, nor British PM, nor French PM, nor any PM will ever get a state visit.

Good point.

This was largely a business meeting which I would expect to see US Presidents and Canadian PMs cross each other's borders all the time.

I do see understand the Canadian sensitivity to this though. There should be a Canadian Official at some level that is recognized with a full state visit.

[Gunnair]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

andyt andyt:

You think McCain Palin would have made for good govt? Really?

Canadians looooved Clinton, as did I. Guess we're just not that fond of righwing mouthbreathers, is all.

I think John McCain would have been better for Canada in certain ways.

McCain/Palin.

Yeah... apparently you indulged in koolaid yourself.

[saturn_656]

Gunnair Gunnair:

saturn_656 saturn_656:

andyt andyt:

You think McCain Palin would have made for good govt? Really?

Canadians looooved Clinton, as did I. Guess we're just not that fond of righwing mouthbreathers, is all.

I think John McCain would have been better for Canada in certain ways.

McCain/Palin.

Yeah... apparently you indulged in koolaid yourself.

I'm fond of the "logical thinking" flavour myself.

Hmmm good.

[1Peg]

DanSC DanSC:

Wow. 30+ posts and no one has come up with the real reason Harper's visit isn't being treated as a state visit.
.

Because he's had 11 meetings on this topic already, Going to roll out the red carpet each and every time? I think not.

[1Peg]

1Peg 1Peg:

DanSC DanSC:

Wow. 30+ posts and no one has come up with the real reason Harper's visit isn't being treated as a state visit.
.

Because he's had 11 meetings on this topic already, Going to roll out the red carpet each and every time? I think not.

P.S Harper is a very busy man, building this country!

[Gunnair]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

Gunnair Gunnair:

saturn_656 saturn_656:

I think John McCain would have been better for Canada in certain ways.

McCain/Palin.

Yeah... apparently you indulged in koolaid yourself.

I'm fond of the "logical thinking" flavour myself.

Hmmm good.

It appears you've been out for a while. You've been indulging on the bullshit flavour recently.

[DanSC]

phxguy phxguy:

It's obvious, the WH doesn't want Harper to bring up the XL Pipeline and the 20 000 jobs he's holding back.

I don't think you understand. Harper can't get a state visit because he's not a head of state. Politics don't matter; it's just a matter of definition.

Besides, whenever you talk shop with your neighbors, do you throw them a lavish party?

[DanSC]

GreenTiger GreenTiger:

I do see understand the Canadian sensitivity to this though. There should be a Canadian Official at some level that is recognized with a full state visit.

A Canadian official worth of a state visit comes fairly often; she just insists on wearing the crown of the United Kingdom.

[BRAH]

andyt andyt:

saturn_656 saturn_656:

$1:

In the CTV News Channel interview, Plotkin decried his country's apathy toward its northern neighbour.

"This is the same country that seems to be continually snubbed by this president," he said.

"I must wonder why no state dinner for this prime minister? They had a state dinner for Mexico � nothing for Canada. I think you're treated quite shabbily by this administration," he said.

Where are all those "Canadians for Obama" types now?

I want to hear their opinions on how things are working out for us.

And was it any different under Bush, when he ignored us but praised Britain for their help after 9/11? We're always taken for granted by the US, and both Repubs and Dems will do their utmost to turn things to their advantage rather than ours. Can't blame them for that, just blame us under all regimes sucking up to the US instead of showing some spine. Well, at least Chretien didn't get us involved in that Iraq fiasco - if Harper had been in power then we would have been bringing home the body bags from there too, and for what?

I don't really think this is an issue you can do a little partisan dance about. Enough blame to go around for both Libs and Cons.

Why wasn't JC there during Bush's address to congress days after the 9/11 attacks like Tony Blair was? Sorry JC could have been there and he wasn't regardless Bush never ignored Canada's help.

[Lemmy]

DanSC DanSC:

A Canadian official worth of a state visit comes fairly often; she just insists on wearing the crown of the United Kingdom.

The Canadian Prime Minister isn't "worth" a state visit? Only the Queen is fit to feed with the exalted President? Select your words carefully. "A rose by any other name...". The Prime Minister is the head of our state in every way but obscure, symbolic technicality. Imagine a scenario where Canada and the UK were to get into a serious dispute. How long do you think that technicality would remain on paper?

[RUEZ]

DanSC DanSC:

GreenTiger GreenTiger:

I do see understand the Canadian sensitivity to this though. There should be a Canadian Official at some level that is recognized with a full state visit.

A Canadian official worth of a state visit comes fairly often; she just insists on wearing the crown of the United Kingdom.

Why are you here again?

[DanSC]

Lemmy Lemmy:

The Canadian Prime Minister isn't "worth" a state visit?

In the tradition of state visits, no. He's the head of government, not the head of state. Canadian law is very explicit on that.

Lemmy Lemmy:

Only the Queen is fit to feed with the exalted President?

I'm guessing Mr. Obama and the Right Honorable Stephen Harper had a lunch or a dinner.

Lemmy Lemmy:

Select your words carefully.

I do, but I have to give some credit to spell-check.

Lemmy Lemmy:

"A rose by any other name...".

...still has all the properties that we associate with a rose. If you read Canadian law, as I'm sure you have, The Queen has many of the powers associated with a head of state, such as royal assent, commander in chief of the military, and others. She does choose to follow the Prime Minister's recommendations, but that doesn't make the Prime Minister the head of state.

Lemmy Lemmy:

The Prime Minister is the head of our state in every way but obscure, symbolic technicality.

I agree that the Canadian constitution is highly symbolic, but I'd hardly call it or the monarchy obscure. Ask any soldier who's taken an oath.

Lemmy Lemmy:

Imagine a scenario where Canada and the UK were to get into a serious dispute. How long do you think that technicality would remain on paper?

Probably not long, as Canada would likely depose the monarchy if the dispute was sufficiently serious.

RUEZ RUEZ:

Why are you here again?

I started coming here, as I'm sure many have, though JJ's work, and I find the topics insightful. If you are wondering why Americans are here, the topic has been discussed at length.

canada-us-relations-f14/question-for-our-american-members-t92082.html