RED ALERT: Flag burning, Paris Hilton, and abortion are intended to distract you

Cypress said:
then please tell cawacko, watermark, superfreak, and other bush fans to stop yelling at me: "You must be against free trade, you protectionist!" whenever I criticize the flaws of NAFTA ;)
Click to expand...

Cypress, you label supporters of free trade as "bush fans" when the issue of free trade stands on its own. You say Paul Krugman is a supporter of free trade does that make him a "Bush fan"? And believe it or not there are actual Democrats that support free trade. Does that make them "Bush fans" as well?

It is actually possible, in my very uninformed opinion, to have a discussion on an issue such as free trade without it having to turn into a liberal/conservative, Democrat/Republican, Bush fan/Bush hater name calling debate.

In fact I will call myself out as I refered to the author of the story you posted as the progressive he is. I could have responded without that label.
 
This thread is an excellent reason for mandatrory labeling all products with country of origin so consumers can make an informed decision.
 
Cypress said:
I don't think this is an either/or situation. "

Who the fuck said it was an either or situation?

"I don't think we have to choose between flawed NAFTA-style agreements, or building walls around america. That's a false choice.
Click to expand...

As long as we have politicians in both parties that cannot help but add amendments to trade agreements to protect their friends, then YES it is a choice between having some form of trade agreement (like NAFTA or CAFTA) or becoming isolationist. You can preach all day long about wanting a truly fair trade agreement (or better yet a free trade agreement) but it is not going to happen as long as the lobbyists are lining the pockets of the two parties.

Please note: I have already said I would love to see a true free trade agreement in place. I will add to that in that I would applaud any true fair trade agreement as well.
 
Damocles said:
It was SF's contention that NAFTA is not free trade and that free trade would be an improvement on NAFTA.
Click to expand...

Now, now... when you go and spell it out for him like that, it takes away his ability to whine... and he really really really hates to have that taken away from him. :crybaby:
 
Cypress said:
yeah, I was just giving SF crap.

But, as you well know, republicans sell NAFTA and CAFTA as "free trade", and scream "Protectionist!" at anyone who points out the flaws of those lame trade agreements.
Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity Cypress... just what exactly did Clinton sell NAFTA as? Because if memory serves me correctly... HE SIGNED it into law. HE was for it. The reason it has been called a "free trade" agreement by BOTH parties is that is what it truly started out as... until the politicians in both parties started screwing with it. North American Free Trade Agreement. Central American Free Trade Agreement.

Given that it is in the actual title of the agreements, I don't think you can blame people for being confused. But as mentioned, the final results are not truly free trade. But they are a hell of a lot better than an isolationist policy.
 
You'll never catch me praising clinton for NAFTA. That was a major sell-out on his part. He did sell it as free trade. And actually, he lied in his 1992 campaign. He promised american workers that he would include enforceable wage and labor standards in any trade agreement before he signed it. But, he took the Poppy Bush/Reagan version of NAFTA and passed it with GOP help. Most Dems in congress actually voted against it.
 
Cypress said:
You'll never catch me praising clinton for NAFTA. That was a major sell-out on his part. He did sell it as free trade. And actually, he lied in his 1992 campaign. He promised american workers that he would include enforceable wage and labor standards in any trade agreement before he signed it. But, he took the Poppy Bush/Reagan version of NAFTA and passed it with GOP help. Most Dems in congress actually voted against it.
Click to expand...

The point Cypress.... is that it was BOTH parties that supported it.

the U.S. House passed NAFTA by 234-200 (132 Republicans and 102 Democrats voting in favor, 156 Democrats, 43 Republicans, and 1 independent against).[2] and the U.S. Senate passed it by 61-38[3] Finally, Clinton sanctioned the ratification in November of 1993.

Seems to me... that over 100 Dems voted for it.... not counting any senators that did. (quick update... 27 Dem Senators voted for it as well)
 
Superfreak said:
The point Cypress.... is that it was BOTH parties that supported it.

the U.S. House passed NAFTA by 234-200 (132 Republicans and 102 Democrats voting in favor, 156 Democrats, 43 Republicans, and 1 independent against).[2] and the U.S. Senate passed it by 61-38[3] Finally, Clinton sanctioned the ratification in November of 1993.

Seems to me... that over 100 Dems voted for it.... not counting any senators that did.
Click to expand...

Therefore, this statement of mine was accurate:

"Most Dems in congress actually voted against it"
 
Cypress said:
Therefore, this statement of mine was accurate:

"Most Dems in congress actually voted against it"
Click to expand...

Did not say your statement was incorrect. I said it had the support of BOTH parties. You have attempted to paint NAFTA as more of a Republican issue. Clearly it is not. It had BI PARTISAN support.
 
Superfreak said:
Did not say your statement was incorrect. I said it had the support of BOTH parties. You have attempted to paint NAFTA as more of a Republican issue. Clearly it is not. It had BI PARTISAN support.
Click to expand...

I've never said there weren't a substantial number of Dems who voted for NAFTA. I also guarantee you that 90% of grassroots Dems and Dem voters were against it.


NAFTA most certainly is more of a republican issue, broadly speaking.

By far, far more republicans supported it than Dems. In fact you just showed that the majority of Dems voted against it - over 60% voted against it.
 
"I also guarantee you that 90% of grassroots Dems and Dem voters were against it. "

Please provide evidence to back up that claim.
 
"NAFTA most certainly is more of a republican issue, broadly speaking. "

No, actually it was more of a bipartisan issue. Because the Reps did not vote on it based on party line either.
 
Oh who gives a shit? Please, let the Republicans run on unregulated "free trade". Let them shout it from the rafters.
 
Superfreak said:
"over 60% voted against it."

LIAR!!! ;)

27 Dems voted FOR it in the Senate
28 voterd against it.

That is only 50.9%
Click to expand...


You didn't provide that number.

You provided the House of Reps number.

Its almost like your embarrassed of NAFTA, and trying to share the blame equally with Dems. Just like you try to do with your iraq war.

Why? Most of the time you seem proud of NAFTA and scream "protectionist" at anyone who opposes NAFTA.....


Simple question: Which party has a overwhelming majority of its members support NAFTA, and which party had a majority of its members oppossing NAFTA.
 
Cypress said:
Good point. If the Dems are smart, they'll grind this NAFTA CAFTA crap into the GOPs noses in 2008.
Click to expand...

The best move they have made lately is holding up trade agreements.

The flat-earthers who have their heads stuck in Tom Friedman's butt, won't know wtf hit them.
 
"You didn't provide that number. "

YOU said 60% of Dems in Congress... that would imply that you knew what the number was. Plus, I did provide you with the 27 who voted for it. Simple math would have gotten you close to the rest. There were 56 dems at the time in the Senate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top