Stop Bush Calling Our Canadian PM 'Steve'!

[Full Bug]

Bush gaffe: Prime Minister Harper definitely a Stephen, not a Steve


OTTAWA (CP) - Never mind such weighty subjects as continental ballistic missile defence, Canada-U.S. border security or the softwood lumber dispute.

Inquiring minds really want to know: what's up with 'Steve'? When a jocular U.S. President George (Dubya) Bush referred to his visiting Canadian counterpart by the diminutive, casual version of his given name this week, Prime Minister Stephen Harper managed not to wince.

Nonetheless, it was just about the only awkward moment for the two conservative leaders during Thursday's media availability at the White House.

It could have been worse.

Bush is known for his use of nicknames - many truly cringe-worthy.

Russian President Vladimir Putin (Pootie-Poot), former prime minister Jean Chretien (Dino, as in dinosaur) and any number of rangy White House journalists dubbed Stretch have been Bushified.

And judged against other known Bush monikers such as Big O, Chuck Wagon, Corndog, Balloonfoot and Turd Blossom - the latter apparently reserved for White House strategist Carl Rove - Steve seems harmless enough.

But as most everyone recognizes, there are Steves in this world and there are Stephens.

Think of actors Steve McQueen, Steve Martin and Steve Buscemi. Or musicians Stevie Wonder and Stevie Nicks (whose given name was Stephanie). Then consider physicist Stephen Hawking, diplomat Stephen Lewis, filmmaker Steven Spielberg and composer Stephen Sondheim.

Longtime friends contacted Friday say Canada's 22nd prime minister has been known as Stephen to family, friends and teachers since grade school. Never Steve.

The U.S. president calling Harper Steve was cause for much amusement among old friends and family of the prime minister, according to sources.

A senior American official says the president did not call the prime minister Steve during their bilateral meeting or working lunch, but used the name as a sign of collegiality during their media encounter.

Don't expect the handle to stick.

Harper's staff refer to him as "prime minister" out of respect for the office.

To his old friends, he'll always be Stephen.

:D

[Full Bug]

Bush says he's flexible on passports but decision is still up to Congress


WASHINGTON (CP) - President George W. Bush heaped praise on Canada's anti-terrorism efforts Thursday, telling Prime Minister Stephen Harper he's flexible on new U.S. border identification plans but Congress must agree to delay them.


"If Congress provides flexibility, of course we will work with the Canadian government to extend deadlines," Bush said after his first real bilateral meeting with Harper, held on the president's 60th birthday.


"If the Congress says: 'No, this is what our intent is,' we will work with the Canadian government to make the law work," promised a warm, casual Bush, who kept referring to Harper as Steve and said he was "impressed" by his leadership style.


Harper, who came bearing gifts that included an RCMP Stetson, cufflinks and a Calgary Stampede belt buckle, was cordial but more business-like, even when those attending the news conference broke out in song to wish Bush a happy birthday.


Canada has been frustrated, he said, by little co-operation from Americans about the technology they'll use in a new passcard to be accepted at the border as an alternative to passports by Jan. 1, 2008.


"We need more information. And we've been pressing for that for some time," said Harper, standing by Bush's side in the opulent East Room of the White House filled with chandeliers and flowing silk curtains.


"If the fight for security ends up meaning that the United States becomes more closed to its friends, then the terrorists have won. And I don't think either of us want that," he said.


"So we're prepared to co-operate and also urge Congress to apply some flexibility in reaching their objectives of security," said Harper.


"I would hate to see a law go into place that has the effect of not just limiting or endangering trade or tourism but endangering all those thousands of social interactions that occur across our border every day."


That's one reason Canada and the United States have the strongest relationship "in the history of mankind," said Harper.


The two leaders talked for 40 minutes in the Oval Office before an hour-long working lunch, followed by Harper's departure from nearby Andrews Air Force base.


They hit on a long list of global issues, including North Korea's missile tests this week and worries about its nuclear ambitions.


Bush said he didn't press Harper on Canada's participation in the U.S. ballistic missile defence plan as a result, although he raised the spectre of a North Korean strike going astray and hitting north of the border.


For his part, Harper said he wasn't prepared to open the contentious issue in Canada "at this time," prompting critics back home to worry that he'll push the issue if he wins a majority government.


There were no dramatic results from the meeting. Harper promoted Alberta's oil sands as a solution to U.S. future needs and the two leaders have directed officials to co-operate on energy issues and climate change.


But they did seem more comfortable with each other than at their last meeting in Cancun in March.


For Bush, fighting an unpopular war and facing crises around the world, it was a chance to enlist a new buddy with a conservative bent who can lend support.

And he filled the news conference room with his top people, including Vice-President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Michael Chertoff, head of Homeland Security.

Harper, aware of critics at home who don't want him to be too cozy with Bush, wanted the visit to be taken very seriously but remain as low-key as possible, with none of the flash accorded other leaders.

And after criticism from some U.S. legislators that Canada is a haven for terrorists because of lax immigration laws, Bush's praise of the country's recent sweeping anti-terror busts was a welcome respite.

"It just goes to show how safe Canada is," said Bush, who also applauded Canadian efforts in Afghanistan.

"When you've got a government that's active and a police force that's capable, people ought to rest assured that Canada is on top of any plots."

Harper reassured Bush that Canada shares U.S. "security concerns and objectives" and is "defending exactly the same kinds of values."

Bush noted that Harper was "a little impatient" and "straightforward" about the border ID law passed by Congress in 2004 to closely monitor who is entering the country.

But he said it was perfectly understandable.

"It makes sense for the prime minister of Canada to say: 'Look, we just want to know what the rules are, to determine whether or not it is compatible with our relationship,' " said Bush.

"As I have told Chertoff, who is responsible for implementing the law, I would like, to the extent the law allows, for there to be a lot of flexibility and simplicity."

"I'm impressed by his leadership style. I appreciate the fact that he doesn't mince words, he tells me what's on his mind. He does so in a real clear fashion."

Bush noted that the Senate has passed plans to delay the border ID requirements until June 2009, although the House of Representatives has yet to move on the issue.

Many states are also worried the measure won't be ready in time and will cause huge delays at the border that will dent tourism and commerce.

Harper has made improving bilateral relations a key priority and he emphasized the close ties Thursday.

He also got in a dig at the media, which traditionally stands when Bush comes in.

"Thank you for doing something I never thought I'd see, which is have the Canadian media stand when I enter the room."

The two men touched on other global issues, including Iran's nuclear ambitions and the crises in Haiti and the Darfur region of Sudan.

[Full Bug]

Show respect and have Bush call him 'Stephen' you Yankee bastards......:D ;) :D
Steve sounds better anyway....

[frets5150]

Prime Minister Harper should just call him Chimp

[FORD]

I'll just keep calling him "Little Stevie Wonderbush", since he's a Chimp wannabe....

http://www.notacolony.ca/harper_bush_4.jpg

[jcook11]

Originally posted by frets5150
Prime Minister Harper should just call him Chimp

BWAAHAAHAAAHAAAHAA........:rolleyes:

[Full Bug]

Originally posted by FORD
I'll just keep calling him "Little Stevie Wonderbush", since he's a Chimp wannabe....

http://www.notacolony.ca/harper_bush_4.jpg
And yet still better then Paul Martin......

[frets5150]

Originally posted by jcook11
BAAHAAHAAAHAAAHAA........:rolleyes:

The sheep has spoken :rolleyes:

[FORD]

Originally posted by Full Bug
And yet still better then Paul Martin......

You won't be saying that when you find out he's tapping your phone lines, reading your e-mails, and sentencing you 20 to life for that ounce of weed you got stashed under your subwoofer.

[Full Bug]

Funny, thats what people who share your views said when we elected him.....Yet the sky isnt falling, hmmm.....
I for one am happy with him so far.....And yes I voted for him....

[FORD]

Hey, if the guy is a Chimp wannabe, then he's gonna act like the Chimp eventually. He just needs the excuse first, and you know what that means.

These neocons aren't conservatives, either by the classic American definition, or the classic Canadian definition.

[Jerry H]

Originally posted by FORD
You won't be saying that when you find out he's tapping your phone lines, reading your e-mails, and sentencing you 20 to life for that ounce of weed you got stashed under your subwoofer.

PARANOIA

the term paranoia is usually used to describe excessive concern about one's own well-being, sometimes suggesting a person holds persecutory beliefs concerning a threat to themselves or their property and is often linked to a belief in conspiracy theories.

The term is more typically used in a general sense to signify any delusion, or more specifically, to signify a delusion involving the fear of persecution. The exact use of the term has changed over time, and because of this, psychiatric usage may vary.

Explanation

paranoia was used by Emil Kraepelin to describe a mental illness in which a delusional belief is the sole, or most prominent feature. In his original attempt at classifying different forms of mental illness, Emil Kraepelin used the term pure paranoia to describe a condition where a delusion was present, but without any apparent deterioration in intellectual abilities and without any of the other features of dementia praecox, the condition later renamed schizophrenia.

In the original Greek, παράνοια (paranoia) means simply madness (para = outside; nous = mind). Kraepelin developed a definition from this root involving delusional beliefs. Notably, in his definition, the belief does not have to be persecutory to be classified as paranoid, so any number of delusional beliefs can be classified as paranoia. For example, a person who has the sole delusional belief that he is an important religious figure would be classified by Kraepelin as having 'pure paranoia'.

Although the diagnosis of pure paranoia is no longer used (having been superseded by the diagnosis of delusional disorder) the use of the term to signify the presence of delusions in general, rather than persecutory delusions specifically, lives on in the classification of paranoid schizophrenia, which denotes a form of schizophrenia where delusions are prominent.

More recently, the clinical use of the term has been used to describe delusions where the affected person believes they are being persecuted. Specifically, they have been defined as containing two central elements:

1. The individual thinks that harm is occurring, or is going to occur, to him or her.
2. The individual thinks that the persecutor has the intention to cause harm.

Paranoia is often associated with psychotic illnesses, particularly schizophrenia, although attenuated features may be present in other primarily non-psychotic diagnoses, such as paranoid personality disorder.

Examples of clinical paranoia

In the unrestricted use of the term, common paranoid delusions can include the belief that the person is being followed, poisoned or loved at a distance (often by a media figure or important person, a delusion known as erotomania or de Clerambault syndrome).

Other common paranoid delusions include the belief that the person has an imaginary disease or parasitic infection (delusional parasitosis); that the person is on a special quest or has been chosen by God; that the person has had thoughts inserted or removed from conscious thought; or that the person's actions are being controlled by an external force.

Many despotic rulers (for example Stalin) allegedly suffered from paranoia. This presents an interesting question because in Stalin's case, it is quite likely that many people really were out to get him (some theories concerning his death hypothesize that he was poisoned). The possibility exists that with enough enemies, it is impossible to be clinically paranoid. It still might be possible to identify a paranoid in that situation via his unrealistic assessment of the relative threat presented by various enemies, but it is not clear that non-paranoid persons are all that good at this. This raises interesting philosophical questions about the criteria by which we can diagnose a belief as paranoid or delusional, as well as prompting the joke that "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you".
[edit]

Paranoia depicted in popular culture

In popular culture paranoia is often represented as including:

* Belief in having special powers or being on a special mission (a "delusion of grandeur")
* Conspiracy theories, such as seeing seemingly unrelated news events as parts of a larger, typically conspiratorial plan
* Black helicopters and other mass surveillance
* Persecution from powerful adversaries such as UFOs, terrorists, the Men in Black, secret societies or demons
* Mind control through invisible rays, and tinfoil hats to combat them
* Fear of poisoning, adulterated food (e.g., aspartame) or water (e.g., fluoridation) as part of a secret plot
* Reading a story, watching a movie, or listening to a song and feeling that one's life is exactly like that of the subject of said story, movie, or song. The movie The Truman Show, which depicted a man who discovers his entire life has been filmed as a TV show, is one of the more commonly referrenced films.
* The maxim: Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they aren't really out to get you.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoia

:D

[Big Train]

All of North America is now conservative, you libs might want to notice. STEPHEN is fine if that is what he prefers.

[4moreyears]

Originally posted by frets5150
Prime Minister Harper should just call him Chimp

Come on Ford you can do better than that.

[4moreyears]

Originally posted by FORD
I'll just keep calling him "Little Stevie Wonderbush", since he's a Chimp wannabe....

http://www.notacolony.ca/harper_bush_4.jpg

I guess that I will call fret5150 "Little Ford Wonderbush" because he is a Ford wannabe

[WACF]

Harper is doing more for this country than the Fiberals have done in 13....

[Full Bug]

Originally posted by WACF
Harper is doing more for this country than the Fiberals have done in 13....
Amen, let me buy this real thinking guy a beer....:cool: :cool: :D
Nice to see FORD and his mental issues dont affect everyone.....

[WACF]

...Beer it is....we are heading East next year on a camping trip to the coast.

[Romeo Delight]

Originally posted by WACF
Harper is doing more for this country than the Fiberals have done in 13....


Like selling out the lumber producers to appease Bush.

We have won every major NAFTA and WTO ruling and yet somehow, "Steve" thinks it prudent to negotiate a lumber deal where 1 billion of the stolen lumber tariffs stay in the US????????????

WTF?????

What kind of precedent does that set?

Not our fault that logrolling senators prop up inefficient industries that lack the economies of scale prevailing in Canada and the rest of the world.

United States can't renege on int'l and regional trade agreements when it suits them. Real people lost real jobs here in Canada over this bullshit and Steve is fucking them over.

Not to mention that this protectionism only hurts the US economy (economics lesson available upon request), costing the consumer and resulting in various states pursuing lumber protection while missing out on more lucrative investments in their economies.

What is going to happen is the US will steal (OUR) one billion, and then the clause to escape the deal in 23 months will be exercised as various interests in the US cry foul once again and impose more duties.

Thanx Steve, for fucking over hard working Canadians.

[Nickdfresh]

Can we call him 'Steve Savicki?'

[Switch84]

Originally posted by 4moreyears
I guess that I will call fret5150 "Little Ford Wonderbush" because he is a Ford wannabe



:D Good one, and HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!

[WACF]

Originally posted by DavidFlamma
Like selling out the lumber producers to appease Bush.

We have won every major NAFTA and WTO ruling and yet somehow, "Steve" thinks it prudent to negotiate a lumber deal where 1 billion of the stolen lumber tariffs stay in the US????????????

WTF?????

What kind of precedent does that set?

Not our fault that logrolling senators prop up inefficient industries that lack the economies of scale prevailing in Canada and the rest of the world.

United States can't renege on int'l and regional trade agreements when it suits them. Real people lost real jobs here in Canada over this bullshit and Steve is fucking them over.

Not to mention that this protectionism only hurts the US economy (economics lesson available upon request), costing the consumer and resulting in various states pursuing lumber protection while missing out on more lucrative investments in their economies.

What is going to happen is the US will steal (OUR) one billion, and then the clause to escape the deal in 23 months will be exercised as various interests in the US cry foul once again and impose more duties.

Thanx Steve, for fucking over hard working Canadians.

What did the Liberals ever do about it?

[Romeo Delight]

Originally posted by WACF
What did the Liberals ever do about it?

Fight the bullshit with legal challenges and NEVER, EVER bent over like Harper is doing.

Eventually, all possible legal challenges would be exhausted. Having said that, the US strategy was one of going to the NAFTA trade dispute resolution mechanism THAT THEY SIGNED and ignored the rulings. They ignored WTO rulings, and proceeded to challenge the issues by redefining their case based on the technical aspects of these decisions.

Even so, they kept losing except for the very occasional procedural issue that meant little in the way of the actual sustantive issues in the dispute.

Canada should threaten to abolish NAFTA if the US aren't going to follow the rules they agreed to in the agreement.

Liberals should be praised for not kissing the White House's ass on this issue.

Conservatives are living in a Pollyanna world, hoping for goodwill on the part of these selfish, short-sighted senators, whose only concern is placating the powerful lumber-producing lobby in their own states.

Like I said, propping up their inefficient lumber production is costing the US economy billions in "opportunity cost" that is the next best alternative would generate a much higher profitable return.

When you factor in all of the lobbying efforts, there is no gain anyway, and the self-destructive behaviour continues. The rest of the world is eons ahead of American lumber producers in terms of efficiency because (among other factors) of their protectionism.

[WACF]

Nice post...I see your point.

I still believe though that regardless of how many times the US lost or would lose they just will not pay...they are trade bullies.

The fact is the Liberals never did a damn thing...especially after the rulings.
Pulling out of NAFTA is not an option and the US knows it...we have too much to lose.

The Conservatives will have recovered more money from this than we could ever of hoped for.

I agree the deal is not the best but it is alot better than what the far left would have you believe.
There are alot of critics out there screaming about it but the same people have not given a single solution or stated what they would of done.
The system in place failed...court meant nothing to the US...the WTO means nothing the US.

[Romeo Delight]

I know the solution.

Put retaliatory tariffs on items such as California wine.

Then other powerful lobbies will exert their pressure to get the political will to get the agreement done.

Giving in to the Lumber lobby is futile because fundamentally, their efficiency is so out of whack with the rest of the world, they will always come crying back to the table.

That is why the deal is flawed. The 23-month escape clause will be exercised...I guaran-fuckin-tee it. The lazy fuckers with the senators in their back pocket will start this game all over again, already one fucking billion dollars richer.

This sets a bad precedent.

[WACF]

Originally posted by DavidFlamma
I know the solution.

Put retaliatory tariffs on items such as California wine.




BC wine would end up with tariffs too then...it would become one big pissing match.

[WACF]

..or rather...a larger pissing match...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by WACF
...
The fact is the Liberals never did a damn thing...especially after the rulings.
Pulling out of NAFTA is not an option and the US knows it...we have too much to lose.

...

Kind of like in the U.S.:(

[Romeo Delight]

Originally posted by WACF
BC wine would end up with tariffs too then...it would become one big pissing match.

California would have more to lose.

The pressure from a very vocal and vulnerable wine lobby would be the EXACT thing softwood needed.

Done in the right way, it need not escalate; rather demonstrate in the plainest of terms the effect of the first illegal tariff on softwood.

Anything less and we set ourselves up for another 20-100 years of propping up the vulnerable and fundamentally inefficient American lumber producer.

Another solution is to encourage these states like Montana to move into areas related but completey apart from softwood, where they have absolutely no business competing with the world's lowest cost producers. (This low cost has everything to do with efficient mills, among other supply factors...)

There are areas in the south that can compete on softwood due to some relative efficiencies and a softwood tree that is relatively abundant there.

As potentially dangerous as a tit for tat strategy sounds, it is the US economy that is and has been more vulnerable as of late.

Done right, a retaliatory tariff would send the right message to those who are influenced by lobbying efforts. Only then will the necessary political will be present to affect any real and lasting change in softwood.

Hilarious that the one billion to be stolen from Canadians is supposed to fund initiative to do exactly what I have proposed...initiate some research into alternative uses of the existing wood resource in the US.

How is it that the vast gap in efficiency that the US lumber has suffered due to its protectionist policies must now be funded by those who sought to deal with the illegal tariffs and remain competitive despite the burden of said illegal tariffs.

Don't you see where this is going? What will happen in 23 months when the Lumber industry is hurting once again in Montana and an election is immenent? More lobbying, more tariffs, more lost jobs in Canada and our trade startegy in the toilet. We must be strong and utilize the same pressure that has kept this dispute from being solved these 30 or so years. I think the current strategy has run its course, don't you think? Is NAFTA not to be adhered to? Reform the dispute resolution process at a minimum. But again, it is these very lobbies that are against giving up power and willing to challenge NAFTA with a constitutional challenge. Only way is to hit industries with as much power as the lumber lobby. Political will is a very strong thing...sometimes more important than law.

[WACF]

I like what you propose....once again though...the Liberals would never of done it.
They had more than enough time to do something.
I doubt the Canadian wine producers would of liked it though...they would of taken a hit themselves I am sure.

Perhaps the Conservatives should have...I have little doubt that when the time hits we will be back at square one again.
I still believe we never would of seen one cent of the 5 billion...getting 4 is a good deal, just not ideal.

The Conservative government is still new...I would expect the longer they sit the more they can and will do....they only had one session.
I would expect once they have all their bearings they will come up will some solid policies on trade.
Stealing Emmerson from the Liberals pissed people off but the guy was more to the right...and a trade expert.

American protectionism is rampant...beef is good example too.
Many cases of mad cow hidden but our cases exploited in the media.
What were those guys called...RCALF or something...basically give their senator a bag of cash and grant their wish for a closed border.

[4moreyears]

Originally posted by Switch84
:D Good one, and HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!

Thank you Switch. Urlacher is a God...Go Bears.