Harper: "Legalize It"

[Barrister]

Considering Canada is our #1 trading partner I would think there would be a powerful lobby against that sort of action.

Why - the US has already imposed drastically stricter border controls in the lst ten years despite zero evidence of any security threat coming from this country.  Imagine what you guys would do if you actually had a reason?

[PDH]

Why - the US has already imposed drastically stricter border controls in the lst ten years despite zero evidence of any security threat coming from this country.  Imagine what you guys would do if you actually had a reason?

We needed to do that because Canadians attacked the US Capital once already.  They are a nation of terrorists.

[grumbler]

Considering Canada is our #1 trading partner I would think there would be a powerful lobby against that sort of action.

Why - the US has already imposed drastically stricter border controls in the lst ten years despite zero evidence of any security threat coming from this country.  Imagine what you guys would do if you actually had a reason?

Good question; what would Valmy et al do if they had a reason?

[Valmy]

Why - the US has already imposed drastically stricter border controls in the lst ten years despite zero evidence of any security threat coming from this country.  Imagine what you guys would do if you actually had a reason?

Have these impacted trade at all?  There is not really a strong 'freedom to cross borders' lobby in DC.

[Valmy]

Good question; what would Valmy et al do if they had a reason?

This is the second time you have made comments about this.  Am I not supposed to use 'we' when referring to the government of the country I live in?  I was not aware of this protocol but if it is a problem I can refer to 'the US government' if it makes you happy.

[Barrister]

Good question; what would Valmy et al do if they had a reason?

This is the second time you have made comments about this.  Am I not supposed to use 'we' when referring to the government of the country I live in?  I was not aware of this protocol but if it is a problem I can refer to 'the US government' if it makes you happy.

I similarily didn't see what the problem was in using "you guys" to refer to the US, but if it is something grumbles has a bee in his bonnet over then I'll take it under advisement.

[Barrister]

Why - the US has already imposed drastically stricter border controls in the lst ten years despite zero evidence of any security threat coming from this country.  Imagine what you guys would do if you actually had a reason?

Have these impacted trade at all?  There is not really a strong 'freedom to cross boarders' lobby in DC.

Supposedly, though I don't know if there have been hard numbers.  Longer wait times at the border have caused havoc for just in time manufacturers relying on cross-border components, for example.

[Josephus]

They would build a wall between the two countries.

Question is...would they use brick or wood?

[The Brain]

Another wood in the wall? Nah.

[grumbler]

This is the second time you have made comments about this.  Am I not supposed to use 'we' when referring to the government of the country I live in?  I was not aware of this protocol but if it is a problem I can refer to 'the US government' if it makes you happy.

If you are a member of the group being discussed, then you use the first person plural.  If not, you don't. 

If you mean a person or group that you do not belong to, then first person is not appropriate.  This isn't a "protocol," it is just a rule of grammar.  And, yes, it would make me happy to have you and others use proper grammar.  All that improper "us" and "you" makes trolling too easy.

[grumbler]

Valmy:  saying "our #1 trading partner" is, of course, fine.  You are part of the group that trades with Canada.

[grumbler]

I similarily didn't see what the problem was in using "you guys" to refer to the US, but if it is something grumbles has a bee in his bonnet over then I'll take it under advisement.

"You guys" when responding to a poster who is not one of the guys (who would make the rules) is poor usage of the language.  It's not a difficult rule, once you understand the concept of first, second, and third person.

[Barrister]

I similarily didn't see what the problem was in using "you guys" to refer to the US, but if it is something grumbles has a bee in his bonnet over then I'll take it under advisement.

"You guys" when responding to a poster who is not one of the guys (who would make the rules) is poor usage of the language.  It's not a difficult rule, once you understand the concept of first, second, and third person.

But as a voter, surely Valmy is one of those involved in making the rules.

[Neil]

Good question; what would Valmy et al do if they had a reason?

This is the second time you have made comments about this.  Am I not supposed to use 'we' when referring to the government of the country I live in?  I was not aware of this protocol but if it is a problem I can refer to 'the US government' if it makes you happy.

It's best to ignore grumbler.  He's a faggot.

[Neil]

I similarily didn't see what the problem was in using "you guys" to refer to the US, but if it is something grumbles has a bee in his bonnet over then I'll take it under advisement.

"You guys" when responding to a poster who is not one of the guys (who would make the rules) is poor usage of the language.  It's not a difficult rule, once you understand the concept of first, second, and third person.

But as a voter, surely Valmy is one of those involved in making the rules.

Valmy is not a US citizen.