I recall a news headline within the past few weeks about the farm subsidies. I won't defend what I wrote. Neither will I contradict what you wrote. Either would detract from my original reason for the initial post on the FTAA.
The FTAA must be discussed openly so citizens throughout the nation can be made aware of what it is, and what changes may come as a result of it.
The discussions must not be among citizens alone. The discussions must include those that we duly elect to represent our interests.
Citizens must force the candidates to discuss government policies that may affect their lives in an adverse manner.
Now are you making an argument against Fast Track authority?
I certainly agree that there ought to be a rational, informed debate over trade agreements. I frankly don't see how an objective person, after such a debate, could conclude that trade agreements are bad things. After all, what have been the objections on here? Objections over things that are clearly addressed in the document! Someone actually said that Mexico could legally import contaminated food under the NAFTA. Are you kidding? A rational, informed debate would disspell untruths such as this.
Remember, the NAFTA, as with any other trade agreement, is the product of a negotiation. Each country agrees to do (or not to do) certain things. Everything in the NAFTA was a production of an agreement between the US, Mexico, and Canada. That's all it is. An agreement not to do things. An agreement to follow certain enforcement measures. An agreement to certain penalities. Assuming, arguendo, that the NAFTA requires the US to give up its sovereignty, are you arguing that a government has no power to do so? After all, in some respects, any treaty is an aborgation of sovereignty.