• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Rick Perry Thinks Canada Is Not A Foreign Country

How come no one mentioned Canada is the 57th state.

Oh come now. Every American know there's more than one Canadian province that could become it's own state, but like the original Gilligan's Island theme:

"With Newfoundland {tweetle tweetle}
British Columbia too {tweedle tweet tweet}
Saskatchewan and Prince Edward Isle {tweetle tweetle}
The Manitoba and the rest..."
 
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/12/28/rick-perry-thinks-canada-is-not-a-foreign-country/
“Every barrel of oil that comes out of those sands in Canada is a barrel of oil that we don’t have to buy from a foreign source,” Mr. Perry said in Clarinda, earning a loud round of enthusiastic applause."

I find that a little frightening. What does that say about the quality of education some Americans are getting these days.

But then, a lot of them were probably home-schooled any way, so are nothing much to worry about.
 
They basically have the same rights to our oil as they do to their own. If we run low on oil, we're actually not allowed to keep it for ourselves instead of selling it south.


No, we aren't obligated to sell, the US are just preferential customers and Canadian Companies have to honour their contracts with them.
 
That oil isn't going to America anyway. If it was, why build the Keystone XL all the way to the Gulf of Mexico? Wouldn't it be cheaper to build a refinery in a border state? Of course it would.

That oil isn't destined for American consumers.
 
That oil isn't going to America anyway. If it was, why build the Keystone XL all the way to the Gulf of Mexico?
Because that's where the refineries are which can process the sour crude from Canada.
Wouldn't it be cheaper to build a refinery in a border state? Of course it would.
No new refineries have been built in decades, too much local opposition. Everyone wants oil, no one wants a refinery in their back yard.
 
Not really, but if he has a stated policy of support for NAFTA, then my suggestions gains strength. If he is against NAFTA then I could as easily be blowing smoke out of rectum with my suggestion

Fair enough. I apologize for impugning your motives.

Another possibility is that he has changed his mind on NAFTA, over the years. I recall being very much against it, for reasons which escape me now (but were probably very stupid), back when it came up during the Bush/Clinton/Perot campaign of 1992. But nowadays I don't think it's such a bad thing.
 
I keep wondering why the last national politician that Texas produced who could speak coherently was President Johnson. And Johnson was a Democrat and got out of politics in 1968. Well, strictly speaking, Johnson go out of politics on 20 JAN 1969 when Nixon became the President.

Ugh!

In any event, one would think that in the nearly 43 years since then that Texas would have produced at least one more national politician who could string at least two sentences together.
 
I keep wondering why the last national politician that Texas produced who could speak coherently was President Johnson. And Johnson was a Democrat and got out of politics in 1968. Well, strictly speaking, Johnson go out of politics on 20 JAN 1969 when Nixon became the President.

Ugh!

In any event, one would think that in the nearly 43 years since then that Texas would have produced at least one more national politician who could string at least two sentences together.

Jim Wright. Barbara Jordan. Jim Hightower. Kinky Friedman.
 
Meh~

Don't care. Human logic is fuzzy. We distinguish between offshore imports and imports from neighboring countries. So it's not as if there is no delineation.
 
Jim Wright. Barbara Jordan. Jim Hightower. Kinky Friedman.

Sorry, but while all of those people are Texans, none of them were national politicans.

Jim Wright was somewhat a national poltician since he was Speaker of the House for a while, and I am sure that he had some bigger plans; but he resigned in disgrace before he could ever come close to implementing them.
 
Don't care. Human logic is fuzzy. We distinguish between offshore imports and imports from neighboring countries. So it's not as if there is no delineation.

Dubya once said something like that. "More and more of our imports come from overseas."

Bush's was technically correct, but sounded very strange, while Perry's was the opposite.
 
It seems to me that "foreign" in this context means "overseas nations which tend to be not particularly friendly to the United States".
 
Can somebody explain to me how it is meaningful or useful to dispute the accuracy of Perry's statement?

Slow news day. It is either this or the continuing funeral celebrations in North Korea after Kim Jon Il's death
 
That oil isn't going to America anyway. If it was, why build the Keystone XL all the way to the Gulf of Mexico? Wouldn't it be cheaper to build a refinery in a border state? Of course it would.

That oil isn't destined for American consumers.

We don't use all of the products generated from oil. Mostly it's just the gasoline.

Vroom vroom!
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom