Re: The Resolution was #20 -- CON/COM/NET D&D

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, [4] ]

Subject: Re: The Resolution was #20

Author:
Roger

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 11:52:49 02/25/03 Tue
Author Host/IP: edtntnt11-port-230.dial.telus.net/161.184.204.230
In reply to: Mike Redmond 's message, "Re: The Resolution was #20" on 14:24:31 02/24/03 Mon

Some might have told you that they were trying to get rid of Brian Pallister, as they should considering he ran for another party. Please note that the Palliser Riding is a Saskatchewan Riding and there is a definite minority in Saskatchewan that does not want David Orchard in the party. I cannot understand why because the NAFTA agreement that David has been concerned about has hurt Saskatchewan grain farmers as much as it has hurt BC soft wood lumber producers. They did suggest that David should not have run in the last federal election in opposition to NAFTA and the CAN-US FTA. This was their reason for throwing him out of the party.
I personally supported these agreements until I found out the hard way, as a Canadian farmer, that the US was going to use parts of these agreements that were favorable to their position and defy the rest of the agreement if it did not favour their position. Example of the last is continued trade actions against our primary industries even though they lose the action at the resulting hearings; they continue to use their tariffs and subsidies against us. David is the only one that seems ready to challenge the Americans on their unfair trade actions.
Anyway that is one of the reasons that the Palliser Riding put forward the resolution to put members, who would not fully support the party line on NAFTA or FTA, out of the party.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject	Author	Date
Re: The Resolution was #20	Mike Redmond	14:09:06 02/25/03 Tue
Re: The Resolution was #20 -- Ariane, 20:41:30 02/25/03 Tue Re: The Resolution was #20 -- Roger, 14:11:09 02/26/03 Wed