In Bush Win, House Narrowly Approves CAFTA

Associated Press ^ | July 27, 2005 | JIM ABRAMS

[1rudeboy]

If you cannot distinguish between a Pell Grant and, say, the U.S. price-support policy for sugar, then I truly wish you had gotten one.

[Nowhere Man]

The man this forum worships on kneepads believes in open borders. Since he is the head of the Republican party, and I assume you consider yourself a Republican, that makes you in favor of a no border policy. BTW, in '08 the borders will be erased by general agreement. There was a summit at the Taxes ranch, and people will be able to cross with the proper sticker.

Welcome to the New World Order. I heard about this over Glenn Beck's show one day and although he doesn't really delve into this stuff too much, it was making him "go hmmmmm." I don't get carried away with the Rube Goldberg theories to explain the New World Order down to the 5th significant decimal point that do work until you change one little thing and it falls apart, but I do believe there is a consensus of powerful industrialists, politicians, and so on who would want to impose their will upon the world with huge controls on all of us if we let them. In short, most of them are in it for the power and/or the money, basically, they are thieves. They make Al Capone look like a saint. Basically, they believe in some sort of bloblike combination of communism and capitalism, well, it is really some form of facism where they want top-down management. In the process, they want to take God and our Judeo-Christian belief system out of the mix or any other religious views that don't agree with them. I do think the tin-foilers are correct in saying there is a New World Order although they shoot themselves in the foot by trying to concentrate on the minutae instead of the whole picture.

[jeremiah]

The man, this forum worships,(GW) believes in open borders in all his actions and inactions.

[jeremiah]

The policy is open and reported in multiple news sites. It is called the "Friendly travelers system" or something similar. It allows people to apply for a sticker that allows them free travel on the roads, without stopping between the borders of Canada, the US and Mexico.

[Toddsterpatriot]

I just graduated from Wake Forest University with a degree in Political Science.

I can just imagine what the footnote pages of your term papers looked like.

1) I don't have any sources on NC at the moment just say I live here and I know what's going on. I don't have to have a source to know what's going on. Post #713

2)I don't make stuff up. I just don't see wasting time looking stuff up I already know. I can't help I'm intelligent with an exceptional memory. Post #724

3)I know alot myself. I just graduated from Wake Forest University with a degree in Political Science. Post #698

[hedgetrimmer]

If you cannot distinguish between a Pell Grant and, say, the U.S. price-support policy for sugar

Yes I can. One is distributed by a bureaucrat where the taxpayer and citizen has no say in who gets them and the government can use them to socially engineer the college enrollments.

The other is debated in Congress by an elected representative where the taxpayer and citizen has a right to petition for or against it which the government can use to create a secure food supply and stabilize prices.

Is that clear enough for you?

[Nowhere Man]

The policy is open and reported in multiple news sites. It is called the "Friendly travelers system" or something similar. It allows people to apply for a sticker that allows them free travel on the roads, without stopping between the borders of Canada, the US and Mexico.

I think Glenn Beck went into that too, I couldn't remember what it was called but he explained all of that too. This is stupid, we might as well open the borders and let in all the bad guys. Sometimes when I think about it, there is very little difference whether the Red Team (Republicans) or the Blue Team (Democrats) would win, it's like watching two cars plunging off of a parking garage, the only difference is the Republican car has a parachute coming out of the rear to slow it down a little bit in the end, you end up with two busted up cars and a couple of smoking holes in the ground. Still, I'm glad there are a few good ones out there like Tom Tancredo and until a few years ago, Jim Traficant.

[Mr. Mojo]

Border security and CAFTA/NAFTA are intertwined.

NAFTA was supposed to help create a thriving Mexican middle class that would then be far less likely to (both legally and illegally) immigrate to the U.S. looking for work. But as you probably know that hasn't happened, and the stampede across the border continues.

In fact, NAFTA put a huge number of Mexican farmers out of business because they could not compete with US agribusiness. .....so they come up here.

The same thing will happen with Central America because of CAFTA.

[ohioWfan]

You may believe they are intertwined, but my point was that they are not the same issue. And they aren't.

(Hypotheticals and guesses don't count in my book as viable arguments).

[Mr. Mojo]

I never said they are the same issue; I showed that one directly affects the other.

And the results of NAFTA are not "hypthetical," they're proven.

[ohioWfan]

Jim Robinson owns this forum. I'm sure he'd be really surprised to find out that he 'worships' GW.

And it's particularly amusing to think about 'a forum' with thousands of diverse opinions with many bullheaded, cantankerous people, are all 'worshipping' anything.

I think you're a bit confused about this, jeremiah.

[ohioWfan]

But the results that you are presuming upon CAFTA are hypothetical, and therefore not acceptable argumentation against it.

In other words, you are supposing a result that you cannot possibly know will occur.

As to the 'same issue' thing...........you pinged me to a reply to my post where I said they were not the same issue, by saying they are intertwined (as though it somehow refuted my statement).

I was just clarifying my position, not attacking yours.

[Mr. Mojo]

But the results that you are presuming upon CAFTA are hypothetical

The two agreements are virtually identical in both principle and (proposed) implementation, and while that doesn't prove they'll yield the same (negative) results, it's a mighty strong indication.

you pinged me to a reply to my post where I said they were not the same issue by saying they are intertwined (as though it somehow refuted my statement).

Nope, I wasn't refuting your statement; I was merely adding to it.

[Mase]

My GOP:
"I can't help [it] I'm intelligent with an exceptional memory"

This thread is the gift that just keeps on giving.

Now that My GOP has finished school, I see his/her future very clearly:

Employer: "My GOP, you did minimal research and used dubious sources so your conclusions and recommendations were all wrong. We lost the contract and the client. You need to find another place to work.

My GOP: "But, but..I'm very intelligent with and exceptional memory...."

Repeat again for 40 years.

[jeremiah]

I feel the same way. The dissillusionment towards politics runs very deep. It is explained by the attitude towards x42 on this forum. A high percentage hated him and thought he was beyond redemption as a leader and person. We listened to the Republican leaders as they fed this animosity. Now we find out that the Republican leaders, GW in particular, think of him as someone to vacation and be friendly with. I think the R's in general, and W in particular, think of the conservative base in the same way we think of Clinton. They cultivate a certain mindset like the thought that GW is a devout born again Christian. We buy it because we want it to be so. The same way we believe he is a conservative and anti-abortion and same sex marriage. I posit that at his core, President Bush feels more comfortable being around liberals, and has only used the party to arrive at his present position. If you are going to become a major political leader in the last decade or so, you have to be a Republican.

Rather than be angry at the men that manipulate political feelings, I am sad that they think so little of the sacrifice of our troops, and they mentally spit upon those that are willing to give their hearts to the cause of conservatism. Conservatism being= smaller less centralized govt, and laws limited to the minimum to protect citizens from each other, and outside sources. If the current Republican party actually believes in 50% of the above definition, they are miserable failures.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Now Mase, don't be mean to our fragile little Wake Forest political science major. After all, he is very intelligent.

[superiorslots]

Forget about arguing with the sellouts like toddster and rude.

[superiorslots]

what's worse yet the pell grant is paying him to be a lawyer.

[Mase]

In fact, NAFTA put a huge number of Mexican farmers out of business because they could not compete with US agribusiness

More likely, they lost their work to more efficient farmers within their own country. Inefficient industries tend to die unless they get welfare like our sugar farmers.

At one time last century, we had 50% of our workforce employed in agriculture. Today it's around 2%. Yet, we produce more food now than ever. That's what's finally happening in Mexico now that there is competition. What's wrong with more variety and lower prices for consumers?

Look at the link below. Mexico is buying a whole lot more Ag products from us now than in 1993 and, we are buying much more from them. Freer trade is a win-win since all parties benefit. Page #5 shows that 89% of all Mexico's Ag exports go to the U.S. and that 56% of their imports are from the U.S. Page #5 also shows, by product, what is being imported and exported by Mexico. They are producing and exporting much more now than in 1993.

Page #8 shows total Mexican exports to the U.S. in Ag products. The increase since 1993 is dramatic.

USDA: Imports and Exports of Ag Products by Mexico

[My GOP]

Don't worry, I'm not going to argue with them anymore. I've already been told by another member all about them. My argument was and has been that CAFTA will cause NC and the US to lose manufacturing jobs. I have shown them sources showing a decline in manufacturing job since the passage of NAFTA: http://www.ncruralcenter.org/news/ncreconomysummer.pdf

Its unfortunate they can't read an article with hard facts, those facts being there has been a lose of manufacturing jobs. They also ignore statements from a conservative Republican Congressman on how CAFTA will cause a loss in manufacturing jobs and the fact that 5 of NC's 7 Republican US House members voted against CAFTA. My concern is these people's hardships. I've grown up in a blue collar family, I'm the first in my family to go to college. Relatives on both sides worked in textile mills, my dad's first job was in a textile mill. Many of the people in my area are losing their jobs, most are middle aged, don't have a college education and its going to be very difficult for them to find a job and if they find one its probably going to be at a lower salary and less benefits. But todd, rude and others can't relate. They probably grew up in well to do middle class families. They live in Chicago, probably with a nice cushy white collar job and no worries about job security or finances and they probably don't associate with working class people. So while CAFTA will allow them to buy shirts a dollar cheaper, hard working, decent people lose their jobs and suffer hardships. They have no compassion. And as far as the source thing goes, I didn't know that posting comments on here required the same as a college paper. Why don't I give you the email address of one of my college professors, say the one I had for my Senior Seminar where I made an A- on my thesis paper.