WTO rules against Canada

[Sandhusker]

Canada also gets told what they can and can not do by the WTO.

http://www.ustr.gov/Document_Library/Press_Releases/2004/April/US_Wins_Key_Issues_in_WTO_Wheat_Dispute_With_Canada.html

http://www.cbc.ca/story/business/national/2002/01/28/bombardier020128.html

Silver, do you see any of Canada's sovereignity threatened here?

 

[redriver]

The only threat to Canada is from countries that don't live up to their trade agreements. The USA (Useless Scrotums and Assholes) comes to mind.

 

[TimH]

The only threat to Canada is from countries that don't live up to their trade agreements. The USA (Useless Scrotums and Assholes) comes to mind.

Hey Rumpranger, disconnect from the net, back away from the computer, and remind your Mommy that it is time for your ritalin suppository!!!

 

[CattleCo]

Tim................you should take up comedy!! ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Silver]

Canada also gets told what they can and can not do by the WTO.

http://www.ustr.gov/Document_Library/Press_Releases/2004/April/US_Wins_Key_Issues_in_WTO_Wheat_Dispute_With_Canada.html

http://www.cbc.ca/story/business/national/2002/01/28/bombardier020128.html

Silver, do you see any of Canada's sovereignity threatened here?

In fact I don't see any of Canada's sovereignity threatened here. What I see for example, is Canada and Brazil duking it out over aerospace deals. Canada has also been told that she can get her pound of flesh from the Brazillians in punitive tarrifs. How unfair it that? At least we are all playing under the same set of guidelines, ultimately we have the choice to either go along with these rulings or pay the price.

 

[redriver]

TimH, I see you haven't fulfilled your quota of sucking up to the americans today. Why don't you do all Canadians a favor and move to the US? Oh, I forgot, they don't need any more losers down there.

 

[Murgen]

The WTO has previously ruled against Brazil for its loan subsidies to Embraer. Canada has already been awarded the right – still unexercised – to apply $1.4 billion in trade sanctions against Brazil over a seven-year period.

I would say that Canada has exercised it's right to compete, trade sanctions or low-interest loans, might be considered the same.

Sandhusker, do you have the option to provide lower interest rates to some customers? Do lower interest rates provide a competetive advantage to some?

 

[TimH]

TimH, I see you haven't fulfilled your quota of sucking up to the americans today. Why don't you do all Canadians a favor and move to the US? Oh, I forgot, they don't need any more losers down there.

Ya OK. :roll: Just take your meds,like a good little ????, put your Spiderman 'Jammies on and try to go sleepy!! OK?? Bu-bye!!!!(Tool)!! :lol:

 

[Sandhusker]

Murgen, "Sandhusker, do you have the option to provide lower interest rates to some customers? Do lower interest rates provide a competetive advantage to some?"

That sounds like a question a socialist would ask. Interest charged is directly proportional to the risk the bank takes.

You think it is OK that your government is barred from giving Bombardier assistance, assistance that would create 1000 jobs? Are you still going to tell me there is no loss of sovereignity?

 

[Murgen]

No one barred them from giving low interest loans, they suggestesd against it, the Feds. have said "go get stuffed" and have continued the low interest loans.

 

[Sandhusker]

Are you going to tell me there are no consequences for telling them to "get stuffed"?

 

[Bill]

Are you going to tell me there are no consequences for telling them to "get stuffed"?

As you seem to think you know this subject inside and out Sandhusker, why don't you tell us what the consequences are? Bombardier is still subsidized as are other nations plane manufacturers. The US does not respond to any ruling made against them on softwood or wheat. The WTO and their rulings have about as much teeth as a croaking bull frog.

The noise is there but no bite.

 

[Sandhusker]

Are you going to tell me there are no consequences for telling them to "get stuffed"?

As you seem to think you know this subject inside and out Sandhusker, why don't you tell us what the consequences are? Bombardier is still subsidized as are other nations plane manufacturers. The US does not respond to any ruling made against them on softwood or wheat. The WTO and their rulings have about as much teeth as a croaking bull frog.

The noise is there but no bite.

If they have no bite, why do they even exist? Why are they so controversial? To believe they can only suggest completely ignores mountains of evidence to the contrary.

If you choose to wear blinders, thats fine by me.

 

[Kato]

One story from 2004 and one from 2002. Thanks for keeping us up to date on the latest breaking news! :lol: :lol: :wink:

 

[Bill]

Are you going to tell me there are no consequences for telling them to "get stuffed"?

As you seem to think you know this subject inside and out Sandhusker, why don't you tell us what the consequences are? Bombardier is still subsidized as are other nations plane manufacturers. The US does not respond to any ruling made against them on softwood or wheat. The WTO and their rulings have about as much teeth as a croaking bull frog.

The noise is there but no bite.

If they have no bite, why do they even exist? Why are they so controversial? To believe they can only suggest completely ignores mountains of evidence to the contrary.

If you choose to wear blinders, thats fine by me.

Sandhusker please do tell us what the consequences are!

Plain and simple question.

Whydo they even exist? Good question.
Why they are so controversial? Simple. Because no one listens to them.

Bring on the mountains of evidence that has had binding results not something that has been decided then appealed only to be appealed even further.

 

[Tam]

Are you going to tell me there are no consequences for telling them to "get stuffed"?

As you seem to think you know this subject inside and out Sandhusker, why don't you tell us what the consequences are? Bombardier is still subsidized as are other nations plane manufacturers. The US does not respond to any ruling made against them on softwood or wheat. The WTO and their rulings have about as much teeth as a croaking bull frog.

The noise is there but no bite.

If they have no bite, why do they even exist? Why are they so controversial? To believe they can only suggest completely ignores mountains of evidence to the contrary.

If you choose to wear blinders, thats fine by me.

I think it is time that some of these countries that think they want to enter into trade agreement take a look at the WTO files on how the other country really follows the trade agreements they have signed. Then maybe the the countries with bad records of compliance would see just what their failure to comply with the trade agreements is going to cost them. I can't see why any country would willing sign an agreement with a country that has a bad record. How many times can a country fail to hold up their end of an agreement before people see they can't be trusted?

 

[Bill]

As you seem to think you know this subject inside and out Sandhusker, why don't you tell us what the consequences are? Bombardier is still subsidized as are other nations plane manufacturers. The US does not respond to any ruling made against them on softwood or wheat. The WTO and their rulings have about as much teeth as a croaking bull frog.

The noise is there but no bite.

If they have no bite, why do they even exist? Why are they so controversial? To believe they can only suggest completely ignores mountains of evidence to the contrary.

If you choose to wear blinders, thats fine by me.

Sandhusker please do tell us what the consequences are!

Plain and simple question.

Whydo they even exist? Good question.
Why they are so controversial? Simple. Because no one listens to them.

Bring on the mountains of evidence that has had binding results not something that has been decided then appealed only to be appealed even further.

Still no answer Sandhusker? :shock: :lol: