[gordon__1]

Hillary's campaign should definitely be called "Shock and Awe" as it certainly captures attention.

Anyone care to take a moment to answer some questions that I have about Hillary Clinton? You may look at it as a chance to convince people to vote for her

1. Lied since at least December about her Bosnia trip.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/ ... tpop_story
2. Architect of her campaign had met with the Colombian ambassador to the United States earlier in the week in his role as Burston Marsteller's chief to discuss the pending U.S.-Colombia trade pact, which Clinton has criticized on the campaign trail.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/06/ ... index.html
3. Campaigns on platform of sound judgement yet frequently told a confirmed fictional story at her stump speeches to scare people into voting her way. "It draws gasps from people when told"
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008 ... 361&page=1

[Nets]

I still support her.

[Zyx]

gordon__1, you hardly make a case 'against' her.

Hillary Clinton is a really excellent Democrat and 'tis a shame that Barack Obama is taking her spotlight away from her. Her family has been a true help to the Democrats' cause and it's a bit disheartening that so many Democrats would actually turn their back on those who really helped us in the past. I mean, darnnit, she scratched our backs, why in the hell are we scratching Obama's?

[keso]

I wonder where Gordon was when Bush was disclosing his military record, or hiding his DWI.

[NoRapture]

I feel this way about the two Democratic presidential candidates. Obama is careful to avoid too many specifics about his plans for a US future regarding the Middle East. Which leaves him questionable in my eyes. I have no questions regarding Clinton however. Clinton has revealed far too many specifics with her actions for the past seven years of the Bush Whitehouse. Her pursuit of the future will surely resemble the right-wing pursuit of oil-profit, the needs of Israel, and corporate facilitation.

Both Clinton and Obama's health care plans, despite anything they may say, continue to include a very proprietary role for the HMOS's. Anything they say in complimentary or critical regard to health care is utter bullshit as long as this remains the case. Any talk of a "universal" approach to health care by either one at this point is ludicrous and nothing but a lie to gain votes. But, once again, Obama's intentions are made a little less specific than Hillary's, which leave no room for doubt that her concerns are for corporate health care providers, not the deprivation of America's poor or working classes in regard to medical care.

So, with Obama there is at least hope. With McCain or Clinton you get more of the same. Butchery of Middle Eastern Shiite Muslims, and more disenfranchisement of what is left of the 'free world' working or middle class. All under the galloping charge of the corporate flag of NAFTA. A flag being waved not just by the US, but all of corporate Europe.

[Nets]

Why would Europeans be waving the NAFTA flag?

[NoRapture]

Why would Europeans be waving the NAFTA flag?

Because the many European corporate investors and growing majority shareholders in American companies benefit as much as, if not more than Americans. No taxes, no tariffs imposed, no labor regulations, environmental regulations, or safety standards. Under the flag of NAFTA a corporation is a country unto itself. Operating under its own laws, law-enforcement, and system of governing with the US military as its biggest ally.

[Todd D.]

Wow. You really don't know what NAFTA is, do you?

[NoRapture]

Wow. You really don't know what NAFTA is, do you?

Yes. I know what NAFTA really is. It is a one-sided accord between corporations and governments throughout the, mostly Third, world that are corrupt enough to allow North American corporations to operate within their borders tax-free and regulation free for a nominal, US federal sum of taxpayer money to be used as whatever crooked leader happens to be in power sees fit. If Mexico is to be seen as an example of the use the Mexican government sees fit for NAFTA money, it is fit to be placed in the pockets of a tiny few government officials.

The whole thing is paid for by American taxpayers with zero financial burden on US corporations, or their many world shareholders, for the relocation of American jobs and business to be sheltered from American taxes, tariffs, bank rates, or fair treatment of labor and the environments of people all over the world.

But more importantly I know what the results of NAFTA have been. NAFTA has resulted in the loss of millions now of US jobs. And the decrease in wages to below the poverty line for US citizens for what were once staple, life-supporting jobs here. Not to mention the giant flood of illegal latinos, who's welfare needs are once again being paid for by the American taxpayer, not the government or its corporate owners who have caused the problem.

Go ahead Todd, now tell me how 'anti-capitalist' I am for pointing out simple facts and give us the Dick Cheney/Hillary Clinton NAFTA pitch for the millionth time.

[Todd D.]

So, to answer my question, no, you don't know what NAFTA does.

it is a one-sided accord between corporations and governments throughout the world

Actually it's only between the US, Canada, and Mexico.

that are corrupt enough to allow North American corporations to operate within their borders tax-free and regulation free

Really? Min Wage laws were all repealed? Overtime laws no longer apply for non-exempt employees?

Show me some shred of proof that NAFTA has led to a "regulation free" environment in the US.

The whole thing is paid for by American taxpayers with no financial burden on US corporations

Riiiiiight, because we all know how low the US Corporate Tax rate is....

or their many world shareholders, for the relocation of American jobs and business to be sheltered from American taxes, tariffs, bank rates, or fair treatment of labor all over the world.

Ha, you really don't know what you are talking about. If a US company heads to, say, Trinidad, that has NOTHING to do with NAFTA. You realize that, right?

But more importantly I know what the results of NAFTA have been.

Increased prosperity for not only America, but other countries as well. I know how much you must hate that.

NAFTA has resulted in the loss of millions now of US jobs.

And the gain of millions more. That's how trade works.

And the decrease in wages to below the poverty line for US citizens for what were once staple, life-supporting jobs here.

That has had less to do with NAFTA and more to do with technological implementation and more efficient production methods.

Not to mention the giant flood of illegal latinos, who's welfare needs are once again being paid for by the American taxpayer, not the government or its corporate owners who have caused the problem.

"Dey took 'er jeeeeeeerbs!!"

Go ahead Todd, now tell me how 'anti-capitalist' I am for pointing out simple facts and give us the Dick Cheney/Hillary Clinton NAFTA pitch for the millionth time.

Actually, I disagree with a lot of NAFTA, but for the opposite reason as you, since I don't think the US plays fair. I think that they try and subsidize their own production (which hurts Mexican and Canadian farmers) and then complain when Canada does the same thing with their lumber. I think that NAFTA needs to be enforced strongly to make sure that all participants (the US has been the biggest offender) are actually having FREE trade.

[NoRapture]

Show me some shred of proof that NAFTA has led to a "regulation free" environment in the US.

I didn't say it did. Once again you choose to throw up bullshit dust instead of discussing an issue. Why read the rest?

[Meistro1]

Code: Select all No taxes, no tariffs imposed, no labor regulations, environmental regulations, or safety standards.

Sounds like a "regulation free" environment to me. Could it be you got powned and would rather quibble about semantics than attempt to defend your obviously flawed position?

[Todd D.]

Show me some shred of proof that NAFTA has led to a "regulation free" environment in the US.

I didn't say it did. Once again you choose to throw up bullshit dust instead of discussing an issue.

Quotes from you in this thread:

[...]corrupt enough to allow North American corporations to operate within their borders tax-free and regulation free

No taxes, no tariffs imposed, no labor regulations, environmental regulations, or safety standards.

You said at least twice in this thread alone that NAFTA led to a "regulation free" environment. So no, I wasn't simply "throwing up bullshit dust", I was quoting you directly.

Why read the rest?

I know that you won't, because you know that you are uninformed as to exactly what NAFTA is and what it does, therefore you won't respond to the positions I take. I'm sure you'll come back with calling me a "Right Winger", or (if I'm really lucky) a racist, I'd just prefer that you actually respond to your errors as well.

[NoRapture]

You said at least twice in this thread alone that NAFTA led to a "regulation free" environment

Please find the part where I state NAFTA operates in a regulation free environment in the US. I didn't. So good luck. In the mean time you are a right-wing supporter and apologist for Bush policies. If not a racist, you are, at the very least, an outspoken facilitator of racist lies.

You support propaganda lies and call yourself an independent thinker. If you are going to promote the agenda of the right wing, why don't you at least show the courage or honesty to admit that's what you're doing?

[Todd D.]

Damn, I'm a prophet

I'm sure you'll come back with calling me a "Right Winger"

In the mean time you are a right-wing supporter and apologist for Bush policies.

(This one is double funny considering that NAFTA, the topic in question, was Clinton, not Bush)

or (if I'm really lucky) a racist

If not a racist, you are, at the very least, an outspoken facilitator of racist lies.

Two for two!

Wait....

therefore you won't respond to the positions I take.

absolutely nothing

Three for Three!

Maybe you'd like to actually, and this is just spitballing here, DEBATE the merits of NAFTA, instead of just responding with "You're a racist"?

I've provided two quotes in this thread that showed you saying the ridiculous belief that NAFTA led to a regulation-free environment. You continue to deny this for Lord knows what reason. You seem to think that NAFTA has anything to do with companies off-shoring to the Bahamas or Trinidad, which is obviously false. You can't respond to these because A) they are undeniable, and B) it's increasingly obvious that you really don't have a clue what you are talking about.

Talk about a joke.

[NoRapture]

DEBATE the merits of NAFTA, instead of just responding with "You're a racist"?

My views on NAFTA are plainly written into this thread. Yours are not. Instead you chose to twist and misinterpret one of my statements, your favorite "debate" tactic.

NAFTA has resulted in the loss of millions of US jobs and the lowered rates of employment for millions of others. National prosperity means the improved lives of all. Not just the corporate criminals exploiting the unbalanced benefits of NAFTA.

I included my assessment of your politics and social philosophy for your convenience. I knew you'd consider it a debate victory for me to fulfill your prediction. You're welcome. Since a dialog to you is nothing more than a juvenile exercise in one-upsmanship, off target sarcasm, and repetition of talk radio bullshit I figure you need all the morale boosting you can get.

[Todd D.]

My views on NAFTA are plainly written into this thread. Yours are not.

Really? I didn't write a fairly detailed reply to pretty much every sentence you wrote, responding about how you didn't really understand what NAFTA did? It was only after that post that you started the personal attacks and refused to respond. Maybe you'd like to go back and respond piece by piece? Shouldn't be that hard if you are so sure of yourself.

NAFTA has resulted in the loss of millions of US jobs and the lowered rates of employment for millions of others.

First of all, why do you assume that US Jobs are inherently more valuable than, say, Mexican jobs?

Secondly, per usual, you are wrong.
We've lost manufacturing jobs, that much is true, but that was occurring for a decade before NAFTA as well (we have been transitioning towards a service-based economy since the 1970's), and certainly didn't spike when NAFTA was implemented. Since NAFTA (1994) not only has overall employment increased (we gained roughly 2 Million jobs per year between 1994 and 2000), but despite gains in the population the unemployment rate has dropped (6.4% in 1994 compared to 4.61% in 2007), as has the "Misery Index" (Unemployment rate + Inflation; 9.87% in 1993 compared to 7.46% in 2007) and real wage rate for the average American have increased.

National prosperity means the improved lives of all. Not just the corporate criminals exploiting the unbalanced benefits of NAFTA.

Can you ever go just one post without bullshit rhetoric? Seriously, if you want to say that the benefits have been disproportionate, that's fine, but whenever you say shit like "corporate criminals", you just make yourself look foolish.

I included my assessment of your politics and social philosophy for your convenience.

You mean your (incorrect) assessment of my politics and social philosophy. Don't make the mistake of thinking that everyone who recognizes the fact that you are wrong is a "right wing racist".

I knew you'd consider it a debate victory for me to fulfill your prediction.

I wish you'd actually respond to my posts, instead of calling me names. It makes for better debate.

Since a dialog to you is nothing more than a juvenile exercise in one-upsmanship, off target sarcasm, and repetition of talk radio bullshit I figure you need all the morale boosting you can get.

Here we go again with the personal attacks.

Seriously, if you are so sure of your position, have at it.

The bottom line is this, despite all the accusations that I'm racist, YOU are the one that appears to be saying "Mexicans are taking our jobs". YOU are the one that apparently believes that an American should be given preferential treatment simply because he is American. Hell, ignore the fact that you think it hurts American workers, the bottom line is YOU favor raising more trade barriers that have been shown to hurt Mexican farmers. How do you justify this and then accuse others of racism?

[NoRapture]

First of all, why do you assume that US Jobs are inherently more valuable than, say, Mexican jobs?

Just because I'm not in Iraq helping to butcher Shiite Muslims doesn't mean I don't have some loyalty to the USA. I really wish the best for Mexicans in their search for jobs. But, personally, my alliegance is to the US. Now, if you're a US corporate criminal you may not regard some poor schmuck, out of work American any differently than a Mexican or Chinese for that matter. It may not bother you to see American citizens living in cardboard boxes on the edges of Malibu and Miami with the rest of the illegal aliens. Me, I'm an American.

And, my guess is that this board probably doesn't look too fondly upon someone who presumes to speak for it.

[Todd D.]

Now, if you're a US corporate criminal you may not regard some poor schmuck, out of work American any differently than a Mexican or Chinese for that matter.

Ignoring your rhetoric, let's explore this.

Isn't the entire concept of EQUALITY the fact that we all have the same rights, regardless of creed, race, or nationality? Why do you think that simply because someone is American they are entitled to special treatment? That they deserve a job more than a Canadian for no reason other than their country of birth? Because YOU are American?

Seriously, just think about what you are saying. How is that any different than saying "Look, I really wish the best for blacks in their search for jobs, but personally, my allegiance is to the whites"?
(No, I'm NOT saying that is your position, I'm really wondering why you think what you are saying is different).

Seriously, these are arbitrary lines in the sand that divide the US, Mexico, and Canada. People are on both sides, and to say that you can trade with folks freely so long as they are on the right side of these imaginary lines, but you can't trade with other folks freely is pure discrimination based on race and nationality. How is that justified?

It DOES bother me to see poverty. See, just because you and I disagree on what causes it, doesn't mean that I don't want to eliminate poverty. I just don't think we should make racist laws that protect "Americans" at the expense of other nationalities, ESPECIALLY when we've benefited from the same trade agreements that the Mexicans have in the first place.

[NoRapture]

Seriously, just think about what you are saying. How is that any different than saying "Look, I really wish the best for blacks in their search for jobs, but personally, my allegiance is to the whites"?

First, I thought the issue was the US presidential election? If NAFTA is already disenfranchising its own US citizens through the indentured servitude of illegal, undocumented aliens as its workforce then Americans must stick together, black and white, until these pigs are driven from our society. Or America will continue to resemble South and Central America as well as Mexico. If you want a peek at what US, military corporatism is capable of, take a gander at those places.

I just don't think we should make racist laws that protect "Americans" at the expense of other nationalities

So far, all your arguments have been in defense of corporations, not people. If you are truly speaking out on behalf of a globalist vision, or an honest effort to actually feed and house the overwhelming numbers of poor, and working poor of the world, just say so. That is what captures my interest. That and booting every multinational concern and company which refuses to pay US taxes, tariffs, and wages right out on their fat, traitorous asses. And make no mistake, it will happen. When it does, real American citizens will replace every single off-shore, ex-patriot, and foreign-controlled service industry that is now sucking them dry and replace them with an actual capitalist system again.

Undocumented aliens, owned and employed by private interests at the expense of the American taxpayer is what is happening to our country today under the guise of NAFTA. Nothing else. And the treatment by multinationals of the indigent poor all over the world should be an indication to everyone of what is in store for North America if something is not done about it.