# Canadians angered over "Buy American" rule



## Shogun

WHISTLER, British Columbia (Reuters) - Canadian municipal leaders threatened to retaliate against the "Buy America" movement in the United States on Saturday, warning trade restrictions will hurt both countries' economies.

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities endorsed a controversial proposal to support communities that refuse to buy products from countries that put trade restrictions on products and services from Canada.

The measure is a response to a provision in the U.S. economic stimulus package passed by Congress in February that says public works projects should use iron, steel and other goods made in the United States.

The United States is Canada's largest trading partner, and Canadians have complained the restrictions will bar their companies from billions of dollars in business that they have previously had access to.

"This U.S. protectionist policy is hurting Canadian firms, costing Canadian jobs and damaging Canadian efforts to grow our economy in the midst of a worldwide recession," said Sherbrooke, Quebec, Mayor Jean Perrault, also president of the federation that represents cities and towns across Canada.

The municipal officials meeting at the federation's convention in Whistler, British Columbia, endorsed the measure despite complaints by Canadian trade officials.

Trade Minister Stockwell Day told the group on Friday that Ottawa was actively negotiating with Washington to get the "Buy American" restrictions removed.

The measure's supporters agreed to modify it slightly by suspending implementation for 120 days, in order to give Canadian trade officials and U.S. critics of the "Buy America" rules more time to work on the issue.


more

Canadians angered over Buy American rule | Reuters



The people of Canadia can kiss my balls.


----------



## sealybobo

Shogun said:


> WHISTLER, British Columbia (Reuters) - Canadian municipal leaders threatened to retaliate against the "Buy America" movement in the United States on Saturday, warning trade restrictions will hurt both countries' economies.
> 
> The Federation of Canadian Municipalities endorsed a controversial proposal to support communities that refuse to buy products from countries that put trade restrictions on products and services from Canada.
> 
> The measure is a response to a provision in the U.S. economic stimulus package passed by Congress in February that says public works projects should use iron, steel and other goods made in the United States.
> 
> The United States is Canada's largest trading partner, and Canadians have complained the restrictions will bar their companies from billions of dollars in business that they have previously had access to.
> 
> "This U.S. protectionist policy is hurting Canadian firms, costing Canadian jobs and damaging Canadian efforts to grow our economy in the midst of a worldwide recession," said Sherbrooke, Quebec, Mayor Jean Perrault, also president of the federation that represents cities and towns across Canada.
> 
> The municipal officials meeting at the federation's convention in Whistler, British Columbia, endorsed the measure despite complaints by Canadian trade officials.
> 
> Trade Minister Stockwell Day told the group on Friday that Ottawa was actively negotiating with Washington to get the "Buy American" restrictions removed.
> 
> The measure's supporters agreed to modify it slightly by suspending implementation for 120 days, in order to give Canadian trade officials and U.S. critics of the "Buy America" rules more time to work on the issue.
> 
> 
> more
> 
> Canadians angered over Buy American rule | Reuters
> 
> 
> 
> The people of Canadia can kiss my balls.



I agree Shogun.  Now lets see which USMB members side with American workers and which ones side with NAFTA/Canadian workers.  

They'll tell us why we can't fix this.  They'll tell us why we SHOULD'T fix this.


----------



## manifold

Oh my!  If we cut off their allowance, how will they continue to fund their socialist utopia?


----------



## WillowTree

Canada needs to learn just like the rest of us what happens when you try to kiss obama ass,,check the shareholders,, check the bondholders,, check out the lost pensions,, I'm gonna write Canada and tell em I'll come up there and buy me a toyota..


----------



## sealybobo

WillowTree said:


> Canada needs to learn just like the rest of us what happens when you try to kiss obama ass,,check the shareholders,, check the bondholders,, check out the lost pensions,, I'm gonna write Canada and tell em I'll come up there and buy me a toyota..



Canada is just another country that is taking advantage of NAFTA you stupid whore.  

They don't care that it isn't fair for us.

Neither do American corporations.  They like it the way it is now.  Now, we buy imports but don't make anything to export.  American companies don't care because they don't make anything here anymore.

And you don't know that this is dangerous.

You just say its obmamamamamlalma..  Stupid bitch.


----------



## STAND4LIBERTY

Shogun said:


> The measure is a response to a provision in the U.S. economic stimulus package passed by Congress in February that says public works projects should use iron, steel and other goods made in the United States.


This is a stupid provision to begin with, shouldn't we buying based on price-quality instead of where it's produced? If the American produced good is 10 times as expensive and lower quality than a competing Canadian produced good is it wise to use tax payer funds to buy it just because it's produced domestically? 

I realize the Federal Government is in the business of wasting & stealing money and buying votes with taxpayer dollars but isn't this a little beyond the pale, even for the them?


----------



## WillowTree

I Love Canada.. I feel sorry for Canada.. They pinned all their "hope" for "change" in obama and end of being one of the first to be screwed over.. oh well!


----------



## Shogun

no.  Not at all.  Especially if our domestic producers suffer because of some bullshit global flea market policy.  How much steel do you think Canadia buys from the US?  I'll give you a hint:  there is a reason your type tries so hard to avoid the topic of trade deficits.


So, again, fuck Canadia and fuck capitalista americans who would sell out this nation in the Great American Yardsale.


----------



## WillowTree

Yes! that's the ticket  you go boys,, you go democwats,, now all of sudden we don't give a shit about what the rest of the world thinks  fuckem!"" 










don't cry for me canadieeee! don't cry for me canadieee!


----------



## Shogun

WillowTree said:


> Yes! that's the ticket  you go boys,, you go democwats,, now all of sudden we don't give a shit about what the rest of the world thinks  fuckem!""
> 
> don't cry for me canadieeee! don't cry for me canadieee!




When it comes to selling out the US for your slave wage third world labor and crybaby Canadians who sure as FUCK don't want to talk about trade deficits then, yes.. fuck em.


----------



## José

Free trade is just like nuclear demilitarization.

Everybody, including the US, recommend it to others, not to themselves.


----------



## Sweet Willy

Angry Canadians?

Ranks right up there with "Guatemalans with dysentary".


----------



## WillowTree

Shogun said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes! that's the ticket  you go boys,, you go democwats,, now all of sudden we don't give a shit about what the rest of the world thinks  fuckem!""
> 
> don't cry for me canadieeee! don't cry for me canadieee!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When it comes to selling out the US for your slave wage third world labor and crybaby Canadians who sure as FUCK don't want to talk about trade deficits then, yes.. fuck em.
Click to expand...






hee heee heee! fuckem!  and don't let emcrossourborderseither.


----------



## sealybobo

Shogun said:


> no.  Not at all.  Especially if our domestic producers suffer because of some bullshit global flea market policy.  How much steel do you think Canadia buys from the US?  I'll give you a hint:  there is a reason your type tries so hard to avoid the topic of trade deficits.
> 
> 
> So, again, fuck Canadia and fuck capitalista americans who would sell out this nation in the Great American Yardsale.



This is great.  This is going to expose the right wingers as either being in favor of NAFTA or just stupid right wing parrots like Willow who can't say anything other than obamalama.


----------



## sealybobo

José;1263201 said:
			
		

> Free trade is just like nuclear demilitarization.
> 
> Everybody, including the US, recommend it to others, not to themselves.



Where the only country really not protecting our workers at least a little.


----------



## wvulax

"This is a stupid provision to begin with, shouldn't we buying based on price-quality instead of where it's produced? If the American produced good is 10 times as expensive and lower quality than a competing Canadian produced good is it wise to use tax payer funds to buy it just because it's produced domestically?"

If you look at just the company's balance sheet than yes that is a logical statement but from the government's POV there is a line drawn around the nation.  The money that changes hands inside the circle doesn't change the nations balance sheet except in titles.


----------



## STAND4LIBERTY

Shogun said:


> no.  Not at all.  Especially if our domestic producers suffer because of some bullshit global flea market policy.  How much steel do you think Canadia buys from the US?


What's that got to do with the price and quality of steel on the open market ? If our answer to protectionism is more protectionism of our own, that justs makes both sides stupid and inefficient. 



> I'll give you a hint:  there is a reason your type tries so hard to avoid the topic of trade deficits.



LOL, "my type" ? what type would that be? the type that thinks the lowest cost/highest quality producer should win in the marketplace and that inefficient producers should be punished by it? If that's the type you're taking about, we're called free-market capitalists.


----------



## Shogun

José;1263201 said:
			
		

> Free trade is just like nuclear demilitarization.
> 
> Everybody, including the US, recommend it to others, not to themselves.



When Mexico starts buying our products on par with what we've granted them over the last 20 years then you can criticize the US, thanks.


----------



## WillowTree

damn people what is yer problem.. Canada was only doing the work Americans would not do??? wtf??? oh,, that's right,, they can't vote down here..


----------



## sealybobo

WillowTree said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes! that's the ticket  you go boys,, you go democwats,, now all of sudden we don't give a shit about what the rest of the world thinks  fuckem!""
> 
> don't cry for me canadieeee! don't cry for me canadieee!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When it comes to selling out the US for your slave wage third world labor and crybaby Canadians who sure as FUCK don't want to talk about trade deficits then, yes.. fuck em.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hee heee heee! fuckem!  and don't let emcrossourborderseither.
Click to expand...


You have to be the dumbest person on USMB hands down.    obamalama  

I'm willow and my life has value


----------



## Hurricane Ike

WillowTree said:


> Canada needs to learn just like the rest of us what happens when you try to kiss obama ass,,check the shareholders,, check the bondholders,, check out the lost pensions,, I'm gonna write Canada and tell em I'll come up there and buy me a toyota..



Our American car companies are stabbing americans in the back. My Dodge was built in Canada. What's up with that? I would say your national health care influenced this.


----------



## sealybobo

Shogun said:


> José;1263201 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Free trade is just like nuclear demilitarization.
> 
> Everybody, including the US, recommend it to others, not to themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When Mexico starts buying our products on par with what we've granted them over the last 20 years then you can criticize the US, thanks.
Click to expand...


Yea, Jose!  It seems like America is turning into Mexico.  Soon we'll be going there for jobs Mexicans won't do.


----------



## sealybobo

Hurricane Ike said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Canada needs to learn just like the rest of us what happens when you try to kiss obama ass,,check the shareholders,, check the bondholders,, check out the lost pensions,, I'm gonna write Canada and tell em I'll come up there and buy me a toyota..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our American car companies are stabbing americans in the back. My Dodge was built in Canada. What's up with that? I would say your national health care influenced this.
Click to expand...


You mean lack of?  Our car companies don't have to pay for employee healthcare in Canada.  The Government pays it.


----------



## STAND4LIBERTY

wvulax said:


> If you look at just the company's balance sheet than yes that is a logical statement but from the government's POV there is a line drawn around the nation.  The money that changes hands inside the circle doesn't change the nations balance sheet except in titles.


So we should reward uncompetitive, ineffecient producers with taxpayer dollars just because they happen to be domestic producers?


----------



## Shogun

*What's that got to do with the price and quality of steel on the open market ? If our answer to protectionism is more protectionism of our own, that justs makes both sides stupid and inefficient. *

Your opinion will be filed with the similar failures of Greenspan, thanks.  We are not a nation that exists so that bastard capitalistas can cry about their freedom to undermine this nation for the sake of their pocketbooks.  Again, when Canadia starts importing American goods on par with how much they export here then we'll start to give a fuck.  Until then, enjoy your float down the same economic path of the dodo.


*
LOL, "my type" ? what type would that be? the type that thinks the lowest cost/highest quality producer should win in the marketplace and that inefficient producers should be punished by it? If that's the type you're taking about, we're called free-market capitalists.*


free market capitalista bitches who seems to think that patriotism is only necessary as long as your personal pocketbook benefits.  Sorry, cheaper steel from Canadia that puts American's out of work isn't a deal for US even if it is for YOU.  Your rhetorical keyworkd "efficient" is cute too... about as cute as the total failure that your economic scheme has provided this nation.  You and the cuban Batista government will share an Astrix in the pages of history.


----------



## sealybobo

STAND4LIBERTY said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> no.  Not at all.  Especially if our domestic producers suffer because of some bullshit global flea market policy.  How much steel do you think Canadia buys from the US?
> 
> 
> 
> What's that got to do with the price and quality of steel on the open market ? If our answer to protectionism is more protectionism of our own, that justs makes both sides stupid and inefficient.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll give you a hint:  there is a reason your type tries so hard to avoid the topic of trade deficits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, "my type" ? what type would that be? the type that thinks the lowest cost/highest quality producer should win in the marketplace and that inefficient producers should be punished by it? If that's the type you're taking about, we're called free-market capitalists.
Click to expand...



Here's one!!!  Here's a right winger who actually admits to defending  NAFTA.  

Cheap goods for consumers matter more than wages until no one can afford to buy anything.    

So did you like Clinton for signing NAFTA?  Most of you point to him when NAFTA is brought up but you fail to also admit that you have big boners for NAFTA.


----------



## Tech_Esq

Will this be a permanent provision or will we be getting a bunch of people jobs just to watch them get cut off at the knees in 3 or 4 years when we decide the stimulus is over? If the non-competitive jobs are not protected, the workers will lose their jobs when the "real" market returns.


----------



## Epsilon Delta

Man, fuck the Canadians. They're not better than the Americans; complain when the Americans put up trade barriers, but not a peep about their gigantic agricultural subsidies that, along with the rest of the developed world, fuck over everybody else.


----------



## WillowTree

sealybobo said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> When it comes to selling out the US for your slave wage third world labor and crybaby Canadians who sure as FUCK don't want to talk about trade deficits then, yes.. fuck em.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hee heee heee! fuckem!  and don't let emcrossourborderseither.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to be the dumbest person on USMB hands down.    obamalama
> 
> I'm willow and my life has value
Click to expand...




why am I dumb? doyathink???


----------



## Shogun

Tech_Esq said:


> Will this be a permanent provision or will we be getting a bunch of people jobs just to watch them get cut off at the knees in 3 or 4 years when we decide the stimulus is over? If the non-competitive jobs are not protected, the workers will lose their jobs when the "real" market returns.



The United States, at the VERY least when it comes to tax based purchases, should ALWAYS buy from the American first.  ALWAYS.  The necessity for a "stimulus" is the direct result of selling out our nation for the sake of individual pocketbooks under the guise of free market capitalism.  I'd make this a federal amendment.


----------



## wvulax

No one is saying that, you are creating a situation that is black and white.  Most things aren't that simple.  I think if American steel workers were making far inferior products at 10X the average price the news would pick it up somewhere even if not in the US.  If there was a situation like you said where the cost difference is greater than 100% then yes I agree.  I would not reward failing companies because of their domestic location.

From what I have seen, which isn't much, most the time the price difference comes from shipping costs and other items that vary depending on the situation.


----------



## xotoxi

I'd by Canadian, but I've got enough maple syrup and I already have a pair of snowshoes.


----------



## sealybobo

STAND4LIBERTY said:


> wvulax said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you look at just the company's balance sheet than yes that is a logical statement but from the government's POV there is a line drawn around the nation.  The money that changes hands inside the circle doesn't change the nations balance sheet except in titles.
> 
> 
> 
> So we should reward uncompetitive, ineffecient producers with taxpayer dollars just because they happen to be domestic producers?
Click to expand...


Remember Jordan got in trouble because his shoe factories were using child slave labor?

Does that not matter anymore?  

Should we have to compete with that?

Do you not understand every country protects their economies at least some?  Only America does not.  

Must not affect you.  You like the cheap goods.  Good for you.  But now it has gone too far, and you still don't admit it could/is/might be/already is a problem.


----------



## Tech_Esq

Shogun said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Will this be a permanent provision or will we be getting a bunch of people jobs just to watch them get cut off at the knees in 3 or 4 years when we decide the stimulus is over? If the non-competitive jobs are not protected, the workers will lose their jobs when the "real" market returns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The United States, at the VERY least when it comes to tax based purchases, should ALWAYS buy from the American first.  ALWAYS.  The necessity for a "stimulus" is the direct result of selling out our nation for the sake of individual pocketbooks under the guise of free market capitalism.  I'd make this a federal amendment.
Click to expand...


All that is normative...."should be" .... "would make".....

I was just wondering what the current plan is under the stimulus that made this policy.

If it is going to be permanent, then fine. If it's some sort of temporary scheme, then it's for shit and you are just jerking people around who will then have their lives uprooted in 4 years to go find new jobs while everyone else is enjoying the good life.

I would just like to get straight on the actual policy before we go into whether free markets are good at this point in time, or not.


----------



## WillowTree

Hurricane Ike said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Canada needs to learn just like the rest of us what happens when you try to kiss obama ass,,check the shareholders,, check the bondholders,, check out the lost pensions,, I'm gonna write Canada and tell em I'll come up there and buy me a toyota..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our American car companies are stabbing americans in the back. My Dodge was built in Canada. What's up with that? I would say your national health care influenced this.
Click to expand...




You talkin bout Gettlesfinger (finger get it? _ Motors? They hell you say!


----------



## Epsilon Delta

sealybobo said:


> STAND4LIBERTY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wvulax said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you look at just the company's balance sheet than yes that is a logical statement but from the government's POV there is a line drawn around the nation.  The money that changes hands inside the circle doesn't change the nations balance sheet except in titles.
> 
> 
> 
> So we should reward uncompetitive, ineffecient producers with taxpayer dollars just because they happen to be domestic producers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Remember Jordan got in trouble because his shoe factories were using child slave labor?
> 
> Does that not matter anymore?
> 
> Should we have to compete with that?
> 
> Do you not understand every country protects their economies at least some?  Only America does not.
> 
> Must not affect you.  You like the cheap goods.  Good for you.  But now it has gone too far, and you still don't admit it could/is/might be/already is a problem.
Click to expand...


Are you joking dude? America has been basking in protectionism for centuries.


----------



## sealybobo

WillowTree said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> hee heee heee! fuckem!  and don't let emcrossourborderseither.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have to be the dumbest person on USMB hands down.    obamalama
> 
> I'm willow and my life has value
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why am I dumb? doyathink???
Click to expand...



Don't let em cross the border?  Obamalama's fault?  

When I first met you, you were wrong but at least seemed to be rational.  Now you are just soooo anti obama that its crazy.

Like the bitches/whores and ***** that were anti bill clinton.  He did a good job but you never shut the fuck up about how everything was his fault.  

Meanwhile he would have gotten in your panties with one shake of his thumb.


----------



## WillowTree

Yep,, good old case of thuggery! just like we bypassed american law and did a "special" on the shareholders and the bondholders, and the pension holders and the dealerss, we by god will not act like the  people we are supposed to be,, no sirrreeee by god fuck em,, and that "agreement" we signed with them..


----------



## sealybobo

Epsilon Delta said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> STAND4LIBERTY said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we should reward uncompetitive, ineffecient producers with taxpayer dollars just because they happen to be domestic producers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember Jordan got in trouble because his shoe factories were using child slave labor?
> 
> Does that not matter anymore?
> 
> Should we have to compete with that?
> 
> Do you not understand every country protects their economies at least some?  Only America does not.
> 
> Must not affect you.  You like the cheap goods.  Good for you.  But now it has gone too far, and you still don't admit it could/is/might be/already is a problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you joking dude? America has been basking in protectionism for centuries.
Click to expand...


And look how well our middle class did.

Start pitting us against 3rd world slave labor and the America we know is finished.  

Democracy - Not "The Free Market" - Will Save America's Middle Class

Did you think that was by accident?


----------



## STAND4LIBERTY

Shogun said:


> Your opinion will be filed with the similar failures of Greenspan, thanks.


Thanks for telling me what my opinion is, however I don't think Greenspan has anything to do with the question at hand, it's weird that you should even bring him up since I'm positive I've never mentioned him in this thread (or even on this site). 



> We are not a nation that exists so that bastard capitalistas can cry about their freedom to undermine this nation for the sake of their pocketbooks.  Again, when Canadia starts importing American goods on par with how much they export here then we'll start to give a fuck.  Until then, enjoy your float down the same economic path of the dodo.


LOL, so your contention is what ? that encouraging our domestic producers to become less and less efficient is GOOD for the country? tell me how much good have such notions done for our domestic manufacturing base over the last 50 years ? Maybe if we started actually producing more competitive goods & services that the world wanted to buy and started living with our means trade deficits wouldn't be such an issue, huh ? 



> free market capitalista bitches who seems to think that patriotism is only necessary as long as your personal pocketbook benefits.


Sorry I don't think I mentioned patriotism, nor do I feel it has anything to do with the question at hand. BTW it's not just my personal pocketbook that gets affected here, it's all taxpayers and in the long run American workers. 



> Sorry, cheaper steel from Canadia that puts American's out of work isn't a deal for US even if it is for YOU.  Your rhetorical keyworkd "efficient" is cute too... about as cute as the total failure that your economic scheme has provided this nation.


Sorry but it's not cheaper steel from Canada that's putting American's out of work, it's the inability of American's to compete that is, Americans could of course compete on a global stage in just about any industry, if the gub'ment would get our their way but alas' the central planners don't seem to want to give them a chance and thus it begets government interventionalist measures like the one in question. 



> You and the cuban Batista government will share an Astrix in the pages of history.


Along with the founding fathers too I presume, at least Me and Cuban Batista government will be in good company, and I suspect won't be nearly as reviled as You and You're collectivist pals by those same pages.


----------



## sealybobo

STAND4LIBERTY said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your opinion will be filed with the similar failures of Greenspan, thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for telling me what my opinion is, however I don't think Greenspan has anything to do with the question at hand, it's weird that you should even bring him up since I'm positive I've never mentioned him in this thread (or even on this site).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are not a nation that exists so that bastard capitalistas can cry about their freedom to undermine this nation for the sake of their pocketbooks.  Again, when Canadia starts importing American goods on par with how much they export here then we'll start to give a fuck.  Until then, enjoy your float down the same economic path of the dodo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL, so your contention is what ? that encouraging our domestic producers to become less and less efficient is GOOD for the country? tell me how much good have such notions done for our domestic manufacturing base over the last 50 years ? Maybe if we started actually producing more competitive goods & services that the world wanted to buy and started living with our means trade deficits wouldn't be such an issue, huh ?
> 
> 
> Sorry I don't think I mentioned patriotism, nor do I feel it has anything to do with the question at hand. BTW it's not just my personal pocketbook that gets affected here, it's all taxpayers and in the long run American workers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, cheaper steel from Canadia that puts American's out of work isn't a deal for US even if it is for YOU.  Your rhetorical keyworkd "efficient" is cute too... about as cute as the total failure that your economic scheme has provided this nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry but it's not cheaper steel from Canada that's putting American's out of work, it's the inability of American's to compete that is, Americans could of course compete on a global stage in just about any industry, if the gub'ment would get our their way but alas' the central planners don't seem to want to give them a chance and thus it begets government interventionalist measures like the one in question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You and the cuban Batista government will share an Astrix in the pages of history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Along with the founding fathers too I presume, at least Me and Cuban Batista government will be in good company, and I suspect won't be nearly as reviled as You and You're collectivist pals by those same pages.
Click to expand...


Give us universal/single payer healthcare so our corporations can compete with Canada!!!!


----------



## jgbkab

I'm looking around and I don't see anything that I've bought that was made in the US. Maybe my wireless router but that's about it. When did it get like this? I think I fell asleep at the wheel.


----------



## Shogun

Tech_Esq said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Will this be a permanent provision or will we be getting a bunch of people jobs just to watch them get cut off at the knees in 3 or 4 years when we decide the stimulus is over? If the non-competitive jobs are not protected, the workers will lose their jobs when the "real" market returns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The United States, at the VERY least when it comes to tax based purchases, should ALWAYS buy from the American first.  ALWAYS.  The necessity for a "stimulus" is the direct result of selling out our nation for the sake of individual pocketbooks under the guise of free market capitalism.  I'd make this a federal amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All that is normative...."should be" .... "would make".....
> 
> I was just wondering what the current plan is under the stimulus that made this policy.
> 
> If it is going to be permanent, then fine. If it's some sort of temporary scheme, then it's for shit and you are just jerking people around who will then have their lives uprooted in 4 years to go find new jobs while everyone else is enjoying the good life.
> 
> I would just like to get straight on the actual policy before we go into whether free markets are good at this point in time, or not.
Click to expand...


uh, would you not use the same terms when describing how you think the market SHOULD BE?

good grief.

Any guess on what group of people will work to overturn this policy even if it were to be perm?  I've got a mexican tv and a chinese nike for you if you guess correctly.


----------



## WillowTree

sealybobo said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have to be the dumbest person on USMB hands down.    obamalama
> 
> I'm willow and my life has value
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why am I dumb? doyathink???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't let em cross the border?  Obamalama's fault?
> 
> When I first met you, you were wrong but at least seemed to be rational.  Now you are just soooo anti obama that its crazy.
> 
> *Like the bitches/whores and ***** that were anti bill clinton.  He did a good job but you never shut the fuck up about how everything was his fault. *
> 
> Meanwhile he would have gotten in your panties with one shake of his thumb.
Click to expand...




shows ya what you know DUmmie! I was a democwat back in them days,, and the republicans picked unmercifully on Clinton.. made me mad too,, til the DUMBF. knowing,, full well, that the Republicans were after him,, went right on ahead and did his Monica Thang.. that's the day I walked away from being a DUMMIE!


----------



## Shogun

Epsilon Delta said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> STAND4LIBERTY said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we should reward uncompetitive, ineffecient producers with taxpayer dollars just because they happen to be domestic producers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember Jordan got in trouble because his shoe factories were using child slave labor?
> 
> Does that not matter anymore?
> 
> Should we have to compete with that?
> 
> Do you not understand every country protects their economies at least some?  Only America does not.
> 
> Must not affect you.  You like the cheap goods.  Good for you.  But now it has gone too far, and you still don't admit it could/is/might be/already is a problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you joking dude? America has been basking in protectionism for centuries.
Click to expand...


and, coincidentally, we were a stronger nation during those occasions where we were not hemorrhaging opportunity out of the country..  funny how that works.


----------



## sealybobo

jgbkab said:


> I'm looking around and I don't see anything that I've bought that was made in the US. Maybe my wireless router but that's about it. When did it get like this? I think I fell asleep at the wheel.



And why don't Republicans understand that this is a problem?

Last week they posted some drivel about how we really are still the largest manufacturer in the world.  We even still export more than China.

But you just know that their numbers are tainted.  

Or, even if we are still #1, that doesn't mean we haven't outsourced too much. 

But they love pointing out that Clinton signed NAFTA.

See how politics work?  The GOP created the bank bailout situation, but the Dems signed it so they are to blame.  The GOP invented NAFTA, but Clinton signed it.  And the Iraq war was the GOP's war, but if even one Dem signed on, they are equally to blame.


----------



## sealybobo

Shogun said:


> Epsilon Delta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember Jordan got in trouble because his shoe factories were using child slave labor?
> 
> Does that not matter anymore?
> 
> Should we have to compete with that?
> 
> Do you not understand every country protects their economies at least some?  Only America does not.
> 
> Must not affect you.  You like the cheap goods.  Good for you.  But now it has gone too far, and you still don't admit it could/is/might be/already is a problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you joking dude? America has been basking in protectionism for centuries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and, coincidentally, we were a stronger nation during those occasions where we were not hemorrhaging opportunity out of the country..  funny how that works.
Click to expand...


Not as funny as Willow saying Obamalama for the 1000000000th time.  Stupid bitch.


----------



## WillowTree

sealybobo said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Epsilon Delta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you joking dude? America has been basking in protectionism for centuries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and, coincidentally, we were a stronger nation during those occasions where we were not hemorrhaging opportunity out of the country..  funny how that works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not as funny as Willow saying Obamalama for the 1000000000th time.  Stupid bitch.
Click to expand...


*it will never be anything other than the obamalama,, well, maybe some day,, if he ever stands up for America.. we'll see*


----------



## STAND4LIBERTY

sealybobo said:


> Remember Jordan got in trouble because his shoe factories were using child slave labor?
> 
> Does that not matter anymore?


I dunno, are the Canadians using child slave labors to produce the goods in question. 



> Should we have to compete with that?


Completely non sequiter arguement, that's a human rights question, while we can certainly object to rampant violations and design policies to punish producers that fall into this category, the provision in question doesn't do any sort of thing, it bars all foreign competition carte blanche. 



> Do you not understand every country protects their economies at least some?  Only America does not.


You don't think our government already practices protectionism ? oh please don't tell me you believe that and just because other countries do it doesn't make it a good idea for us, we've already decimated our domestic manufacturing base primarily due to government interventionalism, how does anybody in their right mind assume we can change that for the better with even more government intervention? 



> Must not affect you.  You like the cheap goods.  Good for you.


So what are you saying? you like paying more for inferior goods ?


----------



## RodISHI

Considering where oil and gas products have been inflated from the last few years does Canada have any room to actually pitch a bitch?


----------



## sealybobo

WillowTree said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> why am I dumb? doyathink???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't let em cross the border?  Obamalama's fault?
> 
> When I first met you, you were wrong but at least seemed to be rational.  Now you are just soooo anti obama that its crazy.
> 
> *Like the bitches/whores and ***** that were anti bill clinton.  He did a good job but you never shut the fuck up about how everything was his fault. *
> 
> Meanwhile he would have gotten in your panties with one shake of his thumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shows ya what you know DUmmie! I was a democwat back in them days,, and the republicans picked unmercifully on Clinton.. made me mad too,, til the DUMBF. knowing,, full well, that the Republicans were after him,, went right on ahead and did his Monica Thang.. that's the day I walked away from being a DUMMIE!
Click to expand...


So the GOP tactic worked on you?  Thanks for admitting it at least.  

So the "liberal" media  did a successful job in getting you to vote against Gore in 2000 by attacking him and Clinton for 8 straight years.  

And funny Bush lying didn't get you to come back?    

Nice.


----------



## STAND4LIBERTY

sealybobo said:


> Give us universal/single payer healthcare so our corporations can compete with Canada!!!!


Right because the solutions to problems brought about by central planning is more central planning.


----------



## jgbkab

WillowTree said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> why am I dumb? doyathink???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't let em cross the border?  Obamalama's fault?
> 
> When I first met you, you were wrong but at least seemed to be rational.  Now you are just soooo anti obama that its crazy.
> 
> *Like the bitches/whores and ***** that were anti bill clinton.  He did a good job but you never shut the fuck up about how everything was his fault. *
> 
> Meanwhile he would have gotten in your panties with one shake of his thumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shows ya what you know DUmmie! I was a democwat back in them days,, and the republicans picked unmercifully on Clinton.. made me mad too,, til the DUMBF. knowing,, full well, that the Republicans were after him,, went right on ahead and did his Monica Thang.. that's the day I walked away from being a DUMMIE!
Click to expand...


So you became a republican because of Clinton's dick policy?


----------



## WillowTree

sealybobo said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't let em cross the border?  Obamalama's fault?
> 
> When I first met you, you were wrong but at least seemed to be rational.  Now you are just soooo anti obama that its crazy.
> 
> *Like the bitches/whores and ***** that were anti bill clinton.  He did a good job but you never shut the fuck up about how everything was his fault. *
> 
> Meanwhile he would have gotten in your panties with one shake of his thumb.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shows ya what you know DUmmie! I was a democwat back in them days,, and the republicans picked unmercifully on Clinton.. made me mad too,, til the DUMBF. knowing,, full well, that the Republicans were after him,, went right on ahead and did his Monica Thang.. that's the day I walked away from being a DUMMIE!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the GOP tactic worked on you?  Thanks for admitting it at least.
> 
> So the "liberal" media  did a successful job in getting you to vote against Gore in 2000 by attacking him and Clinton for 8 straight years.
> 
> And funny Bush lying didn't get you to come back?
> 
> Nice.
Click to expand...




you don't read well do you?? it was a Clinton tactic that disgusted me,, ie fucking stupidity that's what it was alrighty.. fucking stupidity.


----------



## elvis

sealybobo said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> no.  Not at all.  Especially if our domestic producers suffer because of some bullshit global flea market policy.  How much steel do you think Canadia buys from the US?  I'll give you a hint:  there is a reason your type tries so hard to avoid the topic of trade deficits.
> 
> 
> So, again, fuck Canadia and fuck capitalista americans who would sell out this nation in the Great American Yardsale.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is great.  This is going to expose the right wingers as either being in favor of NAFTA or just stupid right wing parrots like Willow who can't say anything other than obamalama.
Click to expand...


rightwingers like Obama and Bill Clinton?


----------



## GHook93

But the ignorant do not realize we should be deathly afraid of retaliation. 

(1) *OIL STUPID*: The main reason we have a trade deficit with Canada is because they are our main oil provider by far. Imagine the effects on the US economy if Canada retaliated with oil? Been to the gas pump lately oil has gone up in Chicago at least to $3.00! Its pinching us again. Oil going up drives the price of freight up, which gets pushed onto the consumer. Say we stopped importing an oil or got off our addiction to oil, the trade deficit would be cut substantially!

(2) *Our Manufactured Goods:* Via the Walmart effect people things America doesn't produce any manufactured goods. The small consumer products in the store, sure those are gone, but America still produces stateside 20% of the world's goods!

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1240839-post1.html

How can that be? Americans still produce the large manufactured goods that are sold B to B rather than B to C. These goods require well educated people and not minons that just follow orders via the small goods produced in say Walmart, Target and Toys-r-u! We send far more large manufacturing goods to Canada then they send to America. Its a fact!


----------



## WillowTree

jgbkab said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't let em cross the border?  Obamalama's fault?
> 
> When I first met you, you were wrong but at least seemed to be rational.  Now you are just soooo anti obama that its crazy.
> 
> *Like the bitches/whores and ***** that were anti bill clinton.  He did a good job but you never shut the fuck up about how everything was his fault. *
> 
> Meanwhile he would have gotten in your panties with one shake of his thumb.
> 
> 
> 
> *oh! and just to add,, you democwat dudes ain't improved any either,, gwb ran circles around your azzes for eight years and he's dumb.. *
> 
> 
> 
> shows ya what you know DUmmie! I was a democwat back in them days,, and the republicans picked unmercifully on Clinton.. made me mad too,, til the DUMBF. knowing,, full well, that the Republicans were after him,, went right on ahead and did his Monica Thang.. that's the day I walked away from being a DUMMIE!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you became a republican because of Clinton's dick policy?
Click to expand...





*give me one good reason i should support a donkeyface who thinks with his dick and not his brain..  would you?? hell they were after his ass for years and the dummie still dropped his drawers and set himself up for the fiasco of a lifetime.. i got the hell outta dodge.. never looked back,,*


----------



## sealybobo

STAND4LIBERTY said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember Jordan got in trouble because his shoe factories were using child slave labor?
> 
> Does that not matter anymore?
> 
> 
> 
> I dunno, are the Canadians using child slave labors to produce the goods in question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should we have to compete with that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Completely non sequiter arguement, that's a human rights question, while we can certainly object to rampant violations and design policies to punish producers that fall into this category, the provision in question doesn't do any sort of thing, it bars all foreign competition carte blanche.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you not understand every country protects their economies at least some?  Only America does not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't think our government already practices protectionism ? oh please don't tell me you believe that and just because other countries do it doesn't make it a good idea for us, we've already decimated our domestic manufacturing base primarily due to government interventionalism, how does anybody in their right mind assume we can change that for the better with even more government intervention?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Must not affect you.  You like the cheap goods.  Good for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what are you saying? you like paying more for inferior goods ?
Click to expand...


Ok.  Its not apples to apples.  Should we have to compete with a country that has universal healthcare?  

We should not have to compete with countries that pay less than we pay here.  If there are certain things we deem appropriate to buy from overseas, then fine, but we are buying too much from people who aren't buying from us.  So then we should buy less from them to even things out and to protect the American middle class.  And yes, sometimes you might pay a little more, but who says for INFERIOR products?  Is that your assumtion in every case?  Why so anti American?  

The government can "intervien" and do good, or the govenment can "intervien" and do harm to us.  

So your assumption that the Dems will only make things worse is wrong, because their actions will be much different than the GOP.

But I'm loving this argument because you are talking out of both sides of your mouth.  I can't tell if you are pro NAFTA or not.  Sounds like you are mostly in favor of it.  Which is what I want to expose.


----------



## Shogun

*Thanks for telling me what my opinion is, however I don't think Greenspan has anything to do with the question at hand, it's weird that you should even bring him up since I'm positive I've never mentioned him in this thread (or even on this site). *


Considering you common support of the bullshit free market "or else" I guess you'd be wrong.  I bring him up because he is the posterchild of the failure of your economic opinion.  Would you care to see some before and after testimonials?

*
LOL, so your contention is what ? that encouraging our domestic producers to become less and less efficient is GOOD for the country? tell me how much good have such notions done for our domestic manufacturing base over the last 50 years ? Maybe if we started actually producing more competitive goods & services that the world wanted to buy and started living with our means trade deficits wouldn't be such an issue, huh ? 
*

Indeed, 50 fucking years ago when the US was busy investing in its own we didn't see your kind looking to sell the US at the lowest bidder.  Ironically we were a stronger nation during what was dubbed THE GREATEST GENERATION.  Apparently, your kind would have had low ball bidding Italians winning the bid on Ammo manufacturing during ww2.

MAYBE if your kind weren't so full of shit when it comes to free market capitalism and showed loyalty above what your checkbook can stomach you'd figure out why we have been economically failing since back in the 80s when "Hungry? Eat Your Import!" bumper stickers became popular.

*

Sorry I don't think I mentioned patriotism, nor do I feel it has anything to do with the question at hand. BTW it's not just my personal pocketbook that gets affected here, it's all taxpayers and in the long run American workers.* 


Of course you don't, capitalista.  The rest of the nation could drown as far as you care as long as you could make a dollar off of the occasion.  In the long run my ass.  We've seen what the long run looks like, dude... we've known since the 80s how this was going to turn out.

*

Sorry but it's not cheaper steel from Canada that's putting American's out of work, it's the inability of American's to compete that is, Americans could of course compete on a global stage in just about any industry, if the gub'ment would get our their way but alas' the central planners don't seem to want to give them a chance and thus it begets government interventionalist measures like the one in question. *

American's can't compete with motherfuckers like you cutting of their fucking knees for a few pennies more.  Again, it's fun to watch your kind hide behind bullshit jargon like "effeciency" and "compete" when we all know that all you are doing is avoiding the terms SLAVE LABOR and THIRD WORLD LIVING STANDARD.  Indeed, motherfucker, a consumer base that the glboe envies probably SHOULD work for the same "competitive wage" as a fucking chinese dirt farmer turned shoe maker, eh?



If the government got out of your way you'd have sold us out a decade ago and then cried about your offshore tax haven.  You are no cure for economics, dude.  You are, in fact, the proverbial fucking AIDS of economics.

Get used to it, buddy.  Your kind has seen it's day fly by.  and, to be honest, it wasn't at all impressive.

*
Along with the founding fathers too I presume, at least Me and Cuban Batista government will be in good company, and I suspect won't be nearly as reviled as You and You're collectivist pals by those same pages. *


Yea, dude... because lord fucking knows the BATISTA gov is seen, historically, as the golden years of Cuba!


----------



## sealybobo

WillowTree said:


> jgbkab said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> *oh! and just to add,, you democwat dudes ain't improved any either,, gwb ran circles around your azzes for eight years and he's dumb.. *
> 
> 
> 
> shows ya what you know DUmmie! I was a democwat back in them days,, and the republicans picked unmercifully on Clinton.. made me mad too,, til the DUMBF. knowing,, full well, that the Republicans were after him,, went right on ahead and did his Monica Thang.. that's the day I walked away from being a DUMMIE!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you became a republican because of Clinton's dick policy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *give me one good reason i should support a donkeyface who thinks with his dick and not his brain..  would you?? hell they were after his ass for years and the dummie still dropped his drawers and set himself up for the fiasco of a lifetime.. i got the hell outta dodge.. never looked back,,*
Click to expand...


Wouldn't have been a big deal if the corporate/right wing media didn't make it an 8 year affair.

And now you don't want ANY investigations into the Bush/Cheney wrong doings.  That would cost too much money.  Meanwhile Ken Starr spent a billion dollars wasting our time.

But to you it wasn't a waste because it got GW elected and 4000 killed on 9-11.  Mission accomplished for you, right?


----------



## elvis

sealybobo said:


> jgbkab said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm looking around and I don't see anything that I've bought that was made in the US. Maybe my wireless router but that's about it. When did it get like this? I think I fell asleep at the wheel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And why don't Republicans understand that this is a problem?
> 
> Last week they posted some drivel about how we really are still the largest manufacturer in the world.  We even still export more than China.
> 
> But you just know that their numbers are tainted.
> 
> Or, even if we are still #1, that doesn't mean we haven't outsourced too much.
> 
> But they love pointing out that Clinton signed NAFTA.
> 
> See how politics work?  The GOP created the bank bailout situation, but the Dems signed it so they are to blame.  The GOP invented NAFTA, but Clinton signed it.  And the Iraq war was the GOP's war, but if even one Dem signed on, they are equally to blame.
Click to expand...


wrong again.  clinton created the bank bailout situation by repealing Glass Steagall. every person who gave Bush authority to use force shares the responsibility of the decision, be they dem or repub.


----------



## KittenKoder

It would be nice ....

... if we could actually buy American ... but I don't get why Canada is being so pissy, they are part of this continent as well.


----------



## WillowTree

sealybobo said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jgbkab said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you became a republican because of Clinton's dick policy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *give me one good reason i should support a donkeyface who thinks with his dick and not his brain..  would you?? hell they were after his ass for years and the dummie still dropped his drawers and set himself up for the fiasco of a lifetime.. i got the hell outta dodge.. never looked back,,*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wouldn't have been a big deal if the corporate/right wing media didn't make it an 8 year affair.
> 
> And now you don't want ANY investigations into the Bush/Cheney wrong doings.  That would cost too much money.  Meanwhile Ken Starr spent a billion dollars wasting our time.
> 
> But to you it wasn't a waste because it got GW elected and 4000 killed on 9-11.  Mission accomplished for you, right?
Click to expand...





you don't read well doya? I've said on at least a thousand occasions "let the investigations begin.. I want to know it,, all of it.." and let's take 4 years to do it.. okay,, get started.. I'm ready..


----------



## RodISHI

GHook93 said:


> But the ignorant do not realize we should be deathly afraid of retaliation.
> 
> (1) *OIL STUPID*: The main reason we have a trade deficit with Canada is because they are our main oil provider by far. Imagine the effects on the US economy if Canada retaliated with oil? Been to the gas pump lately oil has gone up in Chicago at least to $3.00! Its pinching us again. Oil going up drives the price of freight up, which gets pushed onto the consumer. Say we stopped importing an oil or got off our addiction to oil, the trade deficit would be cut substantially!
> 
> (2) *Our Manufactured Goods:* Via the Walmart effect people things America doesn't produce any manufactured goods. The small consumer products in the store, sure those are gone, but America still produces stateside 20% of the world's goods!
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/1240839-post1.html
> 
> How can that be? Americans still produce the large manufactured goods that are sold B to B rather than B to C. These goods require well educated people and not minons that just follow orders via the small goods produced in say Walmart, Target and Toys-r-u! We send far more large manufacturing goods to Canada then they send to America. Its a fact!


Thus far this went over everyone's head.... Where did most of our refineries go to!


----------



## WillowTree

KittenKoder said:


> It would be nice ....
> 
> ... if we could actually buy American ... but I don't get why Canada is being so pissy, they are part of this continent as well.





because,, cupcake,, we aren't Americans anymore! we are left and right.. it's their way or the high way,, case you ain't good and awake,, we live under one party rule, and the democrats just kicked the shit outta thousands of law abiding tax paying high earning Americans... I'm pulling for Canada..


----------



## jgbkab

WillowTree said:


> jgbkab said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> *oh! and just to add,, you democwat dudes ain't improved any either,, gwb ran circles around your azzes for eight years and he's dumb.. *
> 
> 
> 
> shows ya what you know DUmmie! I was a democwat back in them days,, and the republicans picked unmercifully on Clinton.. made me mad too,, til the DUMBF. knowing,, full well, that the Republicans were after him,, went right on ahead and did his Monica Thang.. that's the day I walked away from being a DUMMIE!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you became a republican because of Clinton's dick policy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *give me one good reason i should support a donkeyface who thinks with his dick and not his brain..  would you?? hell they were after his ass for years and the dummie still dropped his drawers and set himself up for the fiasco of a lifetime.. i got the hell outta dodge.. never looked back,,*
Click to expand...


Well, you better vote Palin '12.


----------



## sealybobo

elvis3577 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jgbkab said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm looking around and I don't see anything that I've bought that was made in the US. Maybe my wireless router but that's about it. When did it get like this? I think I fell asleep at the wheel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And why don't Republicans understand that this is a problem?
> 
> Last week they posted some drivel about how we really are still the largest manufacturer in the world.  We even still export more than China.
> 
> But you just know that their numbers are tainted.
> 
> Or, even if we are still #1, that doesn't mean we haven't outsourced too much.
> 
> But they love pointing out that Clinton signed NAFTA.
> 
> See how politics work?  The GOP created the bank bailout situation, but the Dems signed it so they are to blame.  The GOP invented NAFTA, but Clinton signed it.  And the Iraq war was the GOP's war, but if even one Dem signed on, they are equally to blame.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wrong again.  clinton created the bank bailout situation by repealing Glass Steagall. every person who gave Bush authority to use force shares the responsibility of the decision, be they dem or repub.
Click to expand...


The GOP took us to war in Iraq.  Make no mistake about that.  

And the GOP took us to war in Kosovo too, right?  

And this is just another example where Bill Clinton went along with bad GOP ideas.  Which is why we didn't pick Hillary to be our nomination.  Thanks for educating us on just how often Clinton went along with your horrible party.   

The bill that ultimately repealed the Act was introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa) in 1999. The bills were passed by Republican majorities on party lines by a 54-44 vote in the Senate[12] and by a 343-86 vote in the House of Representatives[13]. After passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. The final bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90-8 (1 not voting) and in the House: 362-57 (15 not voting). ' The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.


----------



## STAND4LIBERTY

sealybobo said:


> Ok.  Its not apples to apples.  Should we have to compete with a country that has universal healthcare?


Absolutely, heck that's a competitive advantage for the country that doesn't have it, since producers in that country don't have to foot the bill for it. 



> We should not have to compete with countries that pay less than we pay here.  If there are certain things we deem appropriate to buy from overseas, then fine, but we are buying too much from people who aren't buying from us.


The reason they aren't "buying from us" is that in most cases our goods/services are non-competitive in those markets, thus the onus is on US to become more competitive not to attempt to make everyone else less competitive. 



> So then we should buy less from them to even things out and to protect the American middle class.  And yes, sometimes you might pay a little more, but who says for INFERIOR products?  Is that your assumtion in every case?  Why so anti American?


LOL, what makes you assume I'm "anti-american", I'll happily buy an American product if it's the best available at a price I'm willing to pay (that's called a value calculation and it's the basis for all human action). 



> The government can "intervien" and do good, or the govenment can "intervien" and do harm to us.


'cept the vast majority of the time when government intervenes it does far more harm than good and it's usually long term damage which is not easily undone. For example do you think we'd be in the mess we are now if the central planners hadn't intervened and created Fannie & Freddie, the CRA and kept interest rates artificially low?




> But I'm loving this argument because you are talking out of both sides of your mouth.  I can't tell if you are pro NAFTA or not.


I am? hmmm.. I thought I have been pretty consistant with my arguements here, perhaps you'd care to point out specifics ? instead of continually trying to change the subject as in NOW you bring up NAFTA......... what subject will you attempt to insert next to foment the delay and distract tap dance? Abortion Maybe? how about the ERA ? 




> Sounds like you are mostly in favor of it.  Which is what I want to expose.


Since it's completely non sequitir to the discussion at hand, "expose" all you want or do what you seem to love to do the most, just make shit up as you go along.


----------



## sealybobo

KittenKoder said:


> It would be nice ....
> 
> ... if we could actually buy American ... but I don't get why Canada is being so pissy, they are part of this continent as well.



And to be honest, no one minds Canada because they make comperable wages to Americans.  

But still they are taking advantage of NAFTA too.

It works for them and it works for the American corporations.

Only it doesn't work for American workers.  We're always the ones getting fucked.


----------



## WillowTree

sealybobo said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would be nice ....
> 
> ... if we could actually buy American ... but I don't get why Canada is being so pissy, they are part of this continent as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And to be honest, no one minds Canada because they make comperable wages to Americans.
> 
> But still they are taking advantage of NAFTA too.
> 
> It works for them and it works for the American corporations.
> 
> Only it doesn't work for American workers.  We're always the ones getting fucked.
Click to expand...





Oh! bullcrap.. in your case the person "getting F" is your boss.. every single day..


----------



## elvis

sealybobo said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And why don't Republicans understand that this is a problem?
> 
> Last week they posted some drivel about how we really are still the largest manufacturer in the world.  We even still export more than China.
> 
> But you just know that their numbers are tainted.
> 
> Or, even if we are still #1, that doesn't mean we haven't outsourced too much.
> 
> But they love pointing out that Clinton signed NAFTA.
> 
> See how politics work?  The GOP created the bank bailout situation, but the Dems signed it so they are to blame.  The GOP invented NAFTA, but Clinton signed it.  And the Iraq war was the GOP's war, but if even one Dem signed on, they are equally to blame.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wrong again.  clinton created the bank bailout situation by repealing Glass Steagall. every person who gave Bush authority to use force shares the responsibility of the decision, be they dem or repub.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The GOP took us to war in Iraq.  Make no mistake about that.
> 
> And the GOP took us to war in Kosovo too, right?
> 
> And this is just another example where Bill Clinton went along with bad GOP ideas.  Which is why we didn't pick Hillary to be our nomination.  Thanks for educating us on just how often Clinton went along with your horrible party.
> 
> The bill that ultimately repealed the Act was introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa) in 1999. The bills were passed by Republican majorities on party lines by a 54-44 vote in the Senate[12] and by a 343-86 vote in the House of Representatives[13]. After passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. The final bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90-8 (1 not voting) and in the House: 362-57 (15 not voting). ' The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.
Click to expand...


so either Clinton is to blame  for the bank failures AND Bush is to blame  for the Iraq War or neither Clinton nor Bush is responsible for each event.  
which is it?  take your pick.  you can't have it both ways.  if the buck stops here for Bush, it also stops here for clinton.


----------



## sealybobo

STAND4LIBERTY said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok.  Its not apples to apples.  Should we have to compete with a country that has universal healthcare?
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely, heck that's a competitive advantage for the country that doesn't have it, since producers in that country don't have to foot the bill for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What?  If Canadian Corporations don't have to provide healthcare to their employees and American corporations do, who has the advantage?
> 
> Your spin on this is weak and lame.  I see what you did there.  You said its an advantage to the country that doesn't have to....
> 
> Explain how our corporations having to provide employees with healthcare makes them competitive with companies in Canada that don't have to worry about this.
> 
> You can't, because you are a spinster.  Go ahead, spin away.  Humor me.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## sealybobo

elvis3577 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> wrong again.  clinton created the bank bailout situation by repealing Glass Steagall. every person who gave Bush authority to use force shares the responsibility of the decision, be they dem or repub.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP took us to war in Iraq.  Make no mistake about that.
> 
> And the GOP took us to war in Kosovo too, right?
> 
> And this is just another example where Bill Clinton went along with bad GOP ideas.  Which is why we didn't pick Hillary to be our nomination.  Thanks for educating us on just how often Clinton went along with your horrible party.
> 
> The bill that ultimately repealed the Act was introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa) in 1999. The bills were passed by Republican majorities on party lines by a 54-44 vote in the Senate[12] and by a 343-86 vote in the House of Representatives[13]. After passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. The final bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90-8 (1 not voting) and in the House: 362-57 (15 not voting). ' The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so either Clinton is to blame  for the bank failures AND Bush is to blame  for the Iraq War or neither Clinton nor Bush is responsible for each event.
> which is it?  take your pick.  you can't have it both ways.  if the buck stops here for Bush, it also stops here for clinton.
Click to expand...


The GOP had the majority in both houses when they lied us into Iraq.

You think i'm just blaming Bush?

Even Graham says Cheney lied to him.  

And we all remember how back then you were either with Bush or against America.  

Pretend you were a Democrat in the GOP Senate and now remember what happened to the Dixie Chicks.

Hell, I didn't realize Bush lied us into war until a year or so later.

So I ONLY blame Bush for lying us into Iraq.

But CLinton signed what the GOP sent him.  NAFTA is not itself EVIL like Iraq is. 

Again, not apples to apples.  

Now what has the GOP done to/with NAFTA since 2000?  Now that you can't blame on anyone but the GOP.  Passing tax breaks to companies going overseas?  Unacceptable.

But you dont' want to talk about that.  And if you do, you'll find one dem that went along.

And what do you care?  You were in favor of Iraq and NAFTA, correct?  So why didn't you vote for Clinton?  Bullshitter.


----------



## sealybobo

elvis3577 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> wrong again.  clinton created the bank bailout situation by repealing Glass Steagall. every person who gave Bush authority to use force shares the responsibility of the decision, be they dem or repub.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP took us to war in Iraq.  Make no mistake about that.
> 
> And the GOP took us to war in Kosovo too, right?
> 
> And this is just another example where Bill Clinton went along with bad GOP ideas.  Which is why we didn't pick Hillary to be our nomination.  Thanks for educating us on just how often Clinton went along with your horrible party.
> 
> The bill that ultimately repealed the Act was introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa) in 1999. The bills were passed by Republican majorities on party lines by a 54-44 vote in the Senate[12] and by a 343-86 vote in the House of Representatives[13]. After passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. The final bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90-8 (1 not voting) and in the House: 362-57 (15 not voting). ' The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so either Clinton is to blame  for the bank failures AND Bush is to blame  for the Iraq War or neither Clinton nor Bush is responsible for each event.
> which is it?  take your pick.  you can't have it both ways.  if the buck stops here for Bush, it also stops here for clinton.
Click to expand...


Arging with retards, I mean Republicans, is very frustrating.

I wonder if you believe the shit coming out of your keyboard.  You are fucking nuts.  

Now any bills the Dems pass from now until 2010, any results will be all their responsibility.  I won't blame the entire GOP if one or two Republicans go along.  

But the bank bailout, if you don't know the political game that went on there, then you probably shouldn't be talking like you know something on USMB, because you dont' know shit.


----------



## elvis

sealybobo said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP took us to war in Iraq.  Make no mistake about that.
> 
> And the GOP took us to war in Kosovo too, right?
> 
> And this is just another example where Bill Clinton went along with bad GOP ideas.  Which is why we didn't pick Hillary to be our nomination.  Thanks for educating us on just how often Clinton went along with your horrible party.
> 
> The bill that ultimately repealed the Act was introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa) in 1999. The bills were passed by Republican majorities on party lines by a 54-44 vote in the Senate[12] and by a 343-86 vote in the House of Representatives[13]. After passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. The final bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90-8 (1 not voting) and in the House: 362-57 (15 not voting). ' The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so either Clinton is to blame  for the bank failures AND Bush is to blame  for the Iraq War or neither Clinton nor Bush is responsible for each event.
> which is it?  take your pick.  you can't have it both ways.  if the buck stops here for Bush, it also stops here for clinton.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The GOP had the majority in both houses when they lied us into Iraq.
> 
> You think i'm just blaming Bush?
> 
> Even Graham says Cheney lied to him.
> 
> And we all remember how back then you were either with Bush or against America.
> 
> Pretend you were a Democrat in the GOP Senate and now remember what happened to the Dixie Chicks.
> 
> Hell, I didn't realize Bush lied us into war until a year or so later.
> 
> So I ONLY blame Bush for lying us into Iraq.
> 
> But CLinton signed what the GOP sent him.  NAFTA is not itself EVIL like Iraq is.
> 
> Again, not apples to apples.
> 
> Now what has the GOP done to/with NAFTA since 2000?  Now that you can't blame on anyone but the GOP.  Passing tax breaks to companies going overseas?  Unacceptable.
> 
> But you dont' want to talk about that.  And if you do, you'll find one dem that went along.
> 
> And what do you care?  You were in favor of Iraq and NAFTA, correct?  So why didn't you vote for Clinton?  Bullshitter.
Click to expand...


NAFTA has nothing to do with the bank failures, dipshit.  I was AGAINST NAFTA.  I voted for Perot because he was AGAINST it. so you lose again.


----------



## elvis

sealybobo said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP took us to war in Iraq.  Make no mistake about that.
> 
> And the GOP took us to war in Kosovo too, right?
> 
> And this is just another example where Bill Clinton went along with bad GOP ideas.  Which is why we didn't pick Hillary to be our nomination.  Thanks for educating us on just how often Clinton went along with your horrible party.
> 
> The bill that ultimately repealed the Act was introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa) in 1999. The bills were passed by Republican majorities on party lines by a 54-44 vote in the Senate[12] and by a 343-86 vote in the House of Representatives[13]. After passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. The final bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90-8 (1 not voting) and in the House: 362-57 (15 not voting). ' The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so either Clinton is to blame  for the bank failures AND Bush is to blame  for the Iraq War or neither Clinton nor Bush is responsible for each event.
> which is it?  take your pick.  you can't have it both ways.  if the buck stops here for Bush, it also stops here for clinton.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arging with retards, I mean Republicans, is very frustrating.
> 
> I wonder if you believe the shit coming out of your keyboard.  You are fucking nuts.
> 
> Now any bills the Dems pass from now until 2010, any results will be all their responsibility.  I won't blame the entire GOP if one or two Republicans go along.
> 
> But the bank bailout, if you don't know the political game that went on there, then you probably shouldn't be talking like you know something on USMB, because you dont' know shit.
Click to expand...


typical partisan bullshit and ignorance from the douchebag of the year award winner.


----------



## STAND4LIBERTY

sealybobo said:


> What?  If Canadian Corporations don't have to provide healthcare to their employees and American corporations do, who has the advantage?


LOL! oh so you think "Universal Healthcare" is absolutely FREE do you ? did it ever occur to you that somebody has to pay for it and those that have to foot the majority of the bill might be corporations that then have to pass that cost along to their customers? not to mention since it's a gub'ment run scam, it's likely to cost a heck of lot more than private alternatives that those same corporations might choose to offer employees. 



> Your spin on this is weak and lame.  I see what you did there.  You said its an advantage to the country that doesn't have to....


Well except for the fact that you apparently didn't consider all (any?) of the variables... that seems to be your modus operandi since your philosphy in this thread appears to revolve around less than well thought out emotional responses and partisan talking point memos.  :shrug: 



> Explain how our corporations having to provide employees with healthcare makes them competitive with companies in Canada that don't have to worry about this.


Since when do corporations HAVE to provide employees with healthcare ? except when they are forced to do so through government scams that require coercisive taxation to fund? Is employer provider healthcare a constitutional right now ?


----------



## sealybobo

elvis3577 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> so either Clinton is to blame  for the bank failures AND Bush is to blame  for the Iraq War or neither Clinton nor Bush is responsible for each event.
> which is it?  take your pick.  you can't have it both ways.  if the buck stops here for Bush, it also stops here for clinton.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP had the majority in both houses when they lied us into Iraq.
> 
> You think i'm just blaming Bush?
> 
> Even Graham says Cheney lied to him.
> 
> And we all remember how back then you were either with Bush or against America.
> 
> Pretend you were a Democrat in the GOP Senate and now remember what happened to the Dixie Chicks.
> 
> Hell, I didn't realize Bush lied us into war until a year or so later.
> 
> So I ONLY blame Bush for lying us into Iraq.
> 
> But CLinton signed what the GOP sent him.  NAFTA is not itself EVIL like Iraq is.
> 
> Again, not apples to apples.
> 
> Now what has the GOP done to/with NAFTA since 2000?  Now that you can't blame on anyone but the GOP.  Passing tax breaks to companies going overseas?  Unacceptable.
> 
> But you dont' want to talk about that.  And if you do, you'll find one dem that went along.
> 
> And what do you care?  You were in favor of Iraq and NAFTA, correct?  So why didn't you vote for Clinton?  Bullshitter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NAFTA has nothing to do with the bank failures, dipshit.  I was AGAINST NAFTA.  I voted for Perot because he was AGAINST it. so you lose again.
Click to expand...


Hey, that's cool.  Its hard keeping track of all you right wingers and libertarians.  

I think of libertarians as Republicans who distanced themselves from Bush right before the election.  Or Ron Paulies.  I like his stance on the banks, but not much else.  

So did you vote for Nader, Barr or MCCain this last time?


----------



## sealybobo

elvis3577 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> so either Clinton is to blame  for the bank failures AND Bush is to blame  for the Iraq War or neither Clinton nor Bush is responsible for each event.
> which is it?  take your pick.  you can't have it both ways.  if the buck stops here for Bush, it also stops here for clinton.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arging with retards, I mean Republicans, is very frustrating.
> 
> I wonder if you believe the shit coming out of your keyboard.  You are fucking nuts.
> 
> Now any bills the Dems pass from now until 2010, any results will be all their responsibility.  I won't blame the entire GOP if one or two Republicans go along.
> 
> But the bank bailout, if you don't know the political game that went on there, then you probably shouldn't be talking like you know something on USMB, because you dont' know shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> typical partisan bullshit and ignorance from the douchebag of the year award winner.
Click to expand...


Why don't you first get more than 1% of the vote for Perot before you go calling other people idiots.  

You do realize you are just as partisan, only you are a libertarian, who nominated Bob Barr.  You're a fucking joke.


----------



## elvis

sealybobo said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP had the majority in both houses when they lied us into Iraq.
> 
> You think i'm just blaming Bush?
> 
> Even Graham says Cheney lied to him.
> 
> And we all remember how back then you were either with Bush or against America.
> 
> Pretend you were a Democrat in the GOP Senate and now remember what happened to the Dixie Chicks.
> 
> Hell, I didn't realize Bush lied us into war until a year or so later.
> 
> So I ONLY blame Bush for lying us into Iraq.
> 
> But CLinton signed what the GOP sent him.  NAFTA is not itself EVIL like Iraq is.
> 
> Again, not apples to apples.
> 
> Now what has the GOP done to/with NAFTA since 2000?  Now that you can't blame on anyone but the GOP.  Passing tax breaks to companies going overseas?  Unacceptable.
> 
> But you dont' want to talk about that.  And if you do, you'll find one dem that went along.
> 
> And what do you care?  You were in favor of Iraq and NAFTA, correct?  So why didn't you vote for Clinton?  Bullshitter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NAFTA has nothing to do with the bank failures, dipshit.  I was AGAINST NAFTA.  I voted for Perot because he was AGAINST it. so you lose again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, that's cool.  Its hard keeping track of all you right wingers and libertarians.
> 
> I think of libertarians as Republicans who distanced themselves from Bush right before the election.  Or Ron Paulies.  I like his stance on the banks, but not much else.
> 
> So did you vote for Nader, Barr or MCCain this last time?
Click to expand...


voted for McCain.  wanted to vote for Barr, but I go back and forth about whether or not third party voting is really worth it.


----------



## elvis

sealybobo said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arging with retards, I mean Republicans, is very frustrating.
> 
> I wonder if you believe the shit coming out of your keyboard.  You are fucking nuts.
> 
> Now any bills the Dems pass from now until 2010, any results will be all their responsibility.  I won't blame the entire GOP if one or two Republicans go along.
> 
> But the bank bailout, if you don't know the political game that went on there, then you probably shouldn't be talking like you know something on USMB, because you dont' know shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> typical partisan bullshit and ignorance from the douchebag of the year award winner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you first get more than 1% of the vote for Perot before you go calling other people idiots.
> 
> You do realize you are just as partisan, only you are a libertarian, who nominated Bob Barr.  You're a fucking joke.
Click to expand...


funny how you think you know my voting record, considering you keep guessing incorrectly.


----------



## capernaum07

Aww... America didn't give Canada any doggie biscuits!


----------



## elvis

If Perot were a libertarian, he would not have been against NAFTA.


----------



## sealybobo

elvis3577 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> NAFTA has nothing to do with the bank failures, dipshit.  I was AGAINST NAFTA.  I voted for Perot because he was AGAINST it. so you lose again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, that's cool.  Its hard keeping track of all you right wingers and libertarians.
> 
> I think of libertarians as Republicans who distanced themselves from Bush right before the election.  Or Ron Paulies.  I like his stance on the banks, but not much else.
> 
> So did you vote for Nader, Barr or MCCain this last time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> voted for McCain.  wanted to vote for Barr, but I go back and forth about whether or not third party voting is really worth it.
Click to expand...


Exactly, so you are an even bigger idiot than I thought.  

And your buddy who you positive rep in place of jacking each other off?  he's an idiot too.


----------



## elvis

sealybobo said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, that's cool.  Its hard keeping track of all you right wingers and libertarians.
> 
> I think of libertarians as Republicans who distanced themselves from Bush right before the election.  Or Ron Paulies.  I like his stance on the banks, but not much else.
> 
> So did you vote for Nader, Barr or MCCain this last time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> voted for McCain.  wanted to vote for Barr, but I go back and forth about whether or not third party voting is really worth it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly, so you are an even bigger idiot than I thought.
> 
> And your buddy who you positive rep in place of jacking each other off?  he's an idiot too.
Click to expand...


NONE of the candidates in 2008 were AGAINST NAFTA.  To Obama, you are nothing more than someone who "clings to anti-trade".


----------



## STAND4LIBERTY

elvis3577 said:


> funny how you think you know my voting record, considering you keep guessing incorrectly.


Don't sweat it elvis, that's just a tactic weaker minds take when they cannot defeat your arguements with reason or logic, they try to change the subject and make it personal.  I'm guessing the next thing he'll wanna know is your religion so he can attempt to attack that instead of actually addressing the content of your posts.


----------



## elvis

STAND4LIBERTY said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> funny how you think you know my voting record, considering you keep guessing incorrectly.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't sweat it elvis, that's just a tactic weaker minds take when they cannot defeat your arguements with reason or logic, they try to change the subject and make it personal.  I'm guessing the next thing he'll wanna know is your religion so he can attempt to attack that instead of actually addressing the content of your posts.
Click to expand...


Oh he will and has.


----------



## sealybobo

elvis3577 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> voted for McCain.  wanted to vote for Barr, but I go back and forth about whether or not third party voting is really worth it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, so you are an even bigger idiot than I thought.
> 
> And your buddy who you positive rep in place of jacking each other off?  he's an idiot too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NONE of the candidates in 2008 were AGAINST NAFTA.  To Obama, you are nothing more than someone who "clings to anti-trade".
Click to expand...


Obama was very clever in how he worded things.  

Obama said he was going to fix what is wrong with NAFTA:

The Canadian Government says it was the Clinton campaign who told them not to worry about NAFTA, not Obama's. 

NAFTA-Gate Shocker: Did Hillary's Camp Lie and Frame Obama? | Video | AlterNet

Now that we know from the 11,000 pages of Clinton White House documents released this week that former First Lady was an ardent advocate for NAFTA; now that we know she held at least five meetings to strategize about how to win congressional approval of the deal; now that we know she was in the thick of the manuevering to block the efforts of labor, farm, environmental and human rights groups to get a better agreement. Now that we know all of this, how should we assess the claim that Hillary's heart has always beaten to a fair-trade rhythm? 

Now that we know from official records of her time as First Lady that Clinton was the featured speaker at a closed-door session where 120 women opinion leaders were hectored to pressure their congressional representatives to approve NAFTA; now that we know from ABC News reporting on the session that "her remarks were totally pro-NAFTA" and that "there was no equivocation for her support for NAFTA at the time;" now that we have these details confirmed, what should we make of Clinton's campaign claim that she was never comfortable with the militant free-trade agenda that has cost the United States hundreds of thousands of union jobs, that has idled entire industries, that has saddled this country with record trade deficits, undermined the security of working families in the US and abroad, and has forced Mexican farmers off their land into an economic refugee status that ultimately forces them to cross the Rio Grande River in search of work? 

As she campaigns now, Clinton says, "I have been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning." 

But the White House records confirm that this is not true. 

Her statement is, to be precise, a lie. 

When it comes to the essential test of the trade debate, Clinton has been identified as a liar - a put-in-boldface-type "L-I-A-R" liar. 

Some Canadian news outlets reported last week that Barack Obama's campaign had reached out to Canadian officials, telling them to effectively ignore Obama's concerns about NAFTA, claiming the rhetoric was just political posturing. Those reports turned out to be false. Canadian news also noted that Obama aides had contacted the Canadian ambassador with the same message. That turned out to be false, too. Both Hillary Clinton and John McCain read almost identical talking points, but much of the accusations proved to be unfounded. Nevertheless, given the attention and scrutiny, the largely controversy had a fairly significant impact in Tuesday's primaries.


----------



## sealybobo

elvis3577 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> voted for McCain.  wanted to vote for Barr, but I go back and forth about whether or not third party voting is really worth it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, so you are an even bigger idiot than I thought.
> 
> And your buddy who you positive rep in place of jacking each other off?  he's an idiot too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NONE of the candidates in 2008 were AGAINST NAFTA.  To Obama, you are nothing more than someone who "clings to anti-trade".
Click to expand...


Barack Obama, who threatened during the presidential campaign to withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement unless he could renegotiate it, may delay trying to rework the accord as he focuses on the U.S. economic crisis.

Obama likely to delay overhaul of NAFTA - Latin America & Caribbean Politics - MiamiHerald.com


----------



## elvis

sealybobo said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, so you are an even bigger idiot than I thought.
> 
> And your buddy who you positive rep in place of jacking each other off?  he's an idiot too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NONE of the candidates in 2008 were AGAINST NAFTA.  To Obama, you are nothing more than someone who "clings to anti-trade".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama was very clever in how he worded things.
> 
> Obama said he was going to fix what is wrong with NAFTA:
> 
> The Canadian Government says it was the Clinton campaign who told them not to worry about NAFTA, not Obama's.
> 
> NAFTA-Gate Shocker: Did Hillary's Camp Lie and Frame Obama? | Video | AlterNet
> 
> Now that we know from the 11,000 pages of Clinton White House documents released this week that former First Lady was an ardent advocate for NAFTA; now that we know she held at least five meetings to strategize about how to win congressional approval of the deal; now that we know she was in the thick of the manuevering to block the efforts of labor, farm, environmental and human rights groups to get a better agreement. Now that we know all of this, how should we assess the claim that Hillary's heart has always beaten to a fair-trade rhythm?
> 
> Now that we know from official records of her time as First Lady that Clinton was the featured speaker at a closed-door session where 120 women opinion leaders were hectored to pressure their congressional representatives to approve NAFTA; now that we know from ABC News reporting on the session that "her remarks were totally pro-NAFTA" and that "there was no equivocation for her support for NAFTA at the time;" now that we have these details confirmed, what should we make of Clinton's campaign claim that she was never comfortable with the militant free-trade agenda that has cost the United States hundreds of thousands of union jobs, that has idled entire industries, that has saddled this country with record trade deficits, undermined the security of working families in the US and abroad, and has forced Mexican farmers off their land into an economic refugee status that ultimately forces them to cross the Rio Grande River in search of work?
> 
> As she campaigns now, Clinton says, "I have been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning."
> 
> But the White House records confirm that this is not true.
> 
> Her statement is, to be precise, a lie.
> 
> When it comes to the essential test of the trade debate, Clinton has been identified as a liar - a put-in-boldface-type "L-I-A-R" liar.
> 
> Some Canadian news outlets reported last week that Barack Obama's campaign had reached out to Canadian officials, telling them to effectively ignore Obama's concerns about NAFTA, claiming the rhetoric was just political posturing. Those reports turned out to be false. Canadian news also noted that Obama aides had contacted the Canadian ambassador with the same message. That turned out to be false, too. Both Hillary Clinton and John McCain read almost identical talking points, but much of the accusations proved to be unfounded. Nevertheless, given the attention and scrutiny, the largely controversy had a fairly significant impact in Tuesday's primaries.
Click to expand...


do you find out where Obama is every day so you can face that direction when you worship him?


----------



## sealybobo

STAND4LIBERTY said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> funny how you think you know my voting record, considering you keep guessing incorrectly.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't sweat it elvis, that's just a tactic weaker minds take when they cannot defeat your arguements with reason or logic, they try to change the subject and make it personal.  I'm guessing the next thing he'll wanna know is your religion so he can attempt to attack that instead of actually addressing the content of your posts.
Click to expand...


I'm addressing his lies and errors.


----------



## sealybobo

elvis3577 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> NONE of the candidates in 2008 were AGAINST NAFTA.  To Obama, you are nothing more than someone who "clings to anti-trade".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama was very clever in how he worded things.
> 
> Obama said he was going to fix what is wrong with NAFTA:
> 
> The Canadian Government says it was the Clinton campaign who told them not to worry about NAFTA, not Obama's.
> 
> NAFTA-Gate Shocker: Did Hillary's Camp Lie and Frame Obama? | Video | AlterNet
> 
> Now that we know from the 11,000 pages of Clinton White House documents released this week that former First Lady was an ardent advocate for NAFTA; now that we know she held at least five meetings to strategize about how to win congressional approval of the deal; now that we know she was in the thick of the manuevering to block the efforts of labor, farm, environmental and human rights groups to get a better agreement. Now that we know all of this, how should we assess the claim that Hillary's heart has always beaten to a fair-trade rhythm?
> 
> Now that we know from official records of her time as First Lady that Clinton was the featured speaker at a closed-door session where 120 women opinion leaders were hectored to pressure their congressional representatives to approve NAFTA; now that we know from ABC News reporting on the session that "her remarks were totally pro-NAFTA" and that "there was no equivocation for her support for NAFTA at the time;" now that we have these details confirmed, what should we make of Clinton's campaign claim that she was never comfortable with the militant free-trade agenda that has cost the United States hundreds of thousands of union jobs, that has idled entire industries, that has saddled this country with record trade deficits, undermined the security of working families in the US and abroad, and has forced Mexican farmers off their land into an economic refugee status that ultimately forces them to cross the Rio Grande River in search of work?
> 
> As she campaigns now, Clinton says, "I have been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning."
> 
> But the White House records confirm that this is not true.
> 
> Her statement is, to be precise, a lie.
> 
> When it comes to the essential test of the trade debate, Clinton has been identified as a liar - a put-in-boldface-type "L-I-A-R" liar.
> 
> Some Canadian news outlets reported last week that Barack Obama's campaign had reached out to Canadian officials, telling them to effectively ignore Obama's concerns about NAFTA, claiming the rhetoric was just political posturing. Those reports turned out to be false. Canadian news also noted that Obama aides had contacted the Canadian ambassador with the same message. That turned out to be false, too. Both Hillary Clinton and John McCain read almost identical talking points, but much of the accusations proved to be unfounded. Nevertheless, given the attention and scrutiny, the largely controversy had a fairly significant impact in Tuesday's primaries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> do you find out where Obama is every day so you can face that direction when you worship him?
Click to expand...


Stand for liberty wrote to you:  that is just a tactic weaker minds take when they cannot defeat your arguements with reason or logic, they try to change the subject and make it personal. I'm guessing the next thing he'll wanna know is your religion so he can attempt to attack that instead of actually addressing the content of your posts. 

And then you go and post this reply to me?  

POT, MEET KETTLE!!!


----------



## elvis

sealybobo said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama was very clever in how he worded things.
> 
> Obama said he was going to fix what is wrong with NAFTA:
> 
> The Canadian Government says it was the Clinton campaign who told them not to worry about NAFTA, not Obama's.
> 
> NAFTA-Gate Shocker: Did Hillary's Camp Lie and Frame Obama? | Video | AlterNet
> 
> Now that we know from the 11,000 pages of Clinton White House documents released this week that former First Lady was an ardent advocate for NAFTA; now that we know she held at least five meetings to strategize about how to win congressional approval of the deal; now that we know she was in the thick of the manuevering to block the efforts of labor, farm, environmental and human rights groups to get a better agreement. Now that we know all of this, how should we assess the claim that Hillary's heart has always beaten to a fair-trade rhythm?
> 
> Now that we know from official records of her time as First Lady that Clinton was the featured speaker at a closed-door session where 120 women opinion leaders were hectored to pressure their congressional representatives to approve NAFTA; now that we know from ABC News reporting on the session that "her remarks were totally pro-NAFTA" and that "there was no equivocation for her support for NAFTA at the time;" now that we have these details confirmed, what should we make of Clinton's campaign claim that she was never comfortable with the militant free-trade agenda that has cost the United States hundreds of thousands of union jobs, that has idled entire industries, that has saddled this country with record trade deficits, undermined the security of working families in the US and abroad, and has forced Mexican farmers off their land into an economic refugee status that ultimately forces them to cross the Rio Grande River in search of work?
> 
> As she campaigns now, Clinton says, "I have been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning."
> 
> But the White House records confirm that this is not true.
> 
> Her statement is, to be precise, a lie.
> 
> When it comes to the essential test of the trade debate, Clinton has been identified as a liar - a put-in-boldface-type "L-I-A-R" liar.
> 
> Some Canadian news outlets reported last week that Barack Obama's campaign had reached out to Canadian officials, telling them to effectively ignore Obama's concerns about NAFTA, claiming the rhetoric was just political posturing. Those reports turned out to be false. Canadian news also noted that Obama aides had contacted the Canadian ambassador with the same message. That turned out to be false, too. Both Hillary Clinton and John McCain read almost identical talking points, but much of the accusations proved to be unfounded. Nevertheless, given the attention and scrutiny, the largely controversy had a fairly significant impact in Tuesday's primaries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> do you find out where Obama is every day so you can face that direction when you worship him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stand for liberty wrote to you:  that is just a tactic weaker minds take when they cannot defeat your arguements with reason or logic, they try to change the subject and make it personal. I'm guessing the next thing he'll wanna know is your religion so he can attempt to attack that instead of actually addressing the content of your posts.
> 
> And then you go and post this reply to me?
> 
> POT, MEET KETTLE!!!
Click to expand...


it was in response to you defending Obama for EXACTLY the same thing Bush would say regarding NAFTA.  So which way are you facing today?  Let me see if I can find out where Obama is so you can face EXACTLY that direction when you get on your knees.


----------



## STAND4LIBERTY

sealybobo said:


> Barack Obama, who threatened during the presidential campaign to withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement unless he could renegotiate it, may delay trying to rework the accord as he focuses on the U.S. economic crisis.



SHOCKING! You mean our statist, pro-protectionism President wants to "renegotiate" existing trade agreements, say it ain't so Joe..... I wonder what he'll do if the Mexicans and Canadians tell him to go bugger off?


----------



## STAND4LIBERTY

sealybobo said:


> I'm addressing his lies and errors.



ROFLMAO ! by calling him names because of who he voted for ? do you think other people can't read or what ?


----------



## elvis

STAND4LIBERTY said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Barack Obama, who threatened during the presidential campaign to withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement unless he could renegotiate it, may delay trying to rework the accord as he focuses on the U.S. economic crisis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SHOCKING! You mean our statist, pro-protectionism President wants to "renegotiate" existing trade agreements, say it ain't so Joe..... I wonder what he'll do if the Mexicans and Canadians tell him to go bugger off?
Click to expand...


Vote "present"?


----------



## WillowTree

*how to disappoint bobo,, put his chrysler deal on hold.. no sale no for now... hee hee hee..*


----------



## sealybobo

STAND4LIBERTY said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Barack Obama, who threatened during the presidential campaign to withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement unless he could renegotiate it, may delay trying to rework the accord as he focuses on the U.S. economic crisis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SHOCKING! You mean our statist, pro-protectionism President wants to "renegotiate" existing trade agreements, say it ain't so Joe..... I wonder what he'll do if the Mexicans and Canadians tell him to go bugger off?
Click to expand...


But I thought you said a few posts earlier that:

NONE of the candidates in 2008 were AGAINST NAFTA. 

Now he's "pro protectionism"?  

Sort of like how you liars said he was "the most liberal" and now we see you were liars then too?  

What a liar or idiot you are.


----------



## sealybobo

elvis3577 said:


> STAND4LIBERTY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Barack Obama, who threatened during the presidential campaign to withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement unless he could renegotiate it, may delay trying to rework the accord as he focuses on the U.S. economic crisis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SHOCKING! You mean our statist, pro-protectionism President wants to "renegotiate" existing trade agreements, say it ain't so Joe..... I wonder what he'll do if the Mexicans and Canadians tell him to go bugger off?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Vote "present"?
Click to expand...



Like I said boys, there may not be anything Obama can do about this problem.

But we know for sure that there is nothing the GOP would do about this problem.  

One would but can't, the other won't.  Maybe if the one who can't had more support???

But you support the one that won't.

So you must be pro NAFTA and anti American workers/middle class.

Checkmate.


----------



## STAND4LIBERTY

sealybobo said:


> STAND4LIBERTY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Barack Obama, who threatened during the presidential campaign to withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement unless he could renegotiate it, may delay trying to rework the accord as he focuses on the U.S. economic crisis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SHOCKING! You mean our statist, pro-protectionism President wants to "renegotiate" existing trade agreements, say it ain't so Joe..... I wonder what he'll do if the Mexicans and Canadians tell him to go bugger off?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But I thought you said a few posts earlier that:
> 
> NONE of the candidates in 2008 were AGAINST NAFTA.
Click to expand...

Well the reason you "thought" that is because you're obviously delusional and can't read well enough to tell one poster from another poster, I didn't post that ya moron.


----------



## sealybobo

STAND4LIBERTY said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> STAND4LIBERTY said:
> 
> 
> 
> SHOCKING! You mean our statist, pro-protectionism President wants to "renegotiate" existing trade agreements, say it ain't so Joe..... I wonder what he'll do if the Mexicans and Canadians tell him to go bugger off?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I thought you said a few posts earlier that:
> 
> NONE of the candidates in 2008 were AGAINST NAFTA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well the reason you "thought" that is because you're obviously delusional and can't read well enough to tell one poster from another poster, I didn't post that ya moron.
Click to expand...


You and Elvis are so far up each others asses it is hard to tell you apart.  

I didn't say that.  Yea, but you were thinking it so


----------



## STAND4LIBERTY

sealybobo said:


> I didn't say that.  Yea, but you were thinking it so



Since it's obvious you're a blindly partisan collectivist I realize it's too much to ask for you to be able to handle anything as intellectually complex as telling one poster from another poster but now that you've succeeded in making yourself look like a complete fool, care to go for the utter & complete blue ribbon? or would rather slink back off into left wing utopia and lick your wounds?


----------



## MaggieMae

Shogun said:


> WHISTLER, British Columbia (Reuters) - Canadian municipal leaders threatened to retaliate against the "Buy America" movement in the United States on Saturday, warning trade restrictions will hurt both countries' economies.
> 
> The Federation of Canadian Municipalities endorsed a controversial proposal to support communities that refuse to buy products from countries that put trade restrictions on products and services from Canada.
> 
> The measure is a response to a provision in the U.S. economic stimulus package passed by Congress in February that says public works projects should use iron, steel and other goods made in the United States.
> 
> The United States is Canada's largest trading partner, and Canadians have complained the restrictions will bar their companies from billions of dollars in business that they have previously had access to.
> 
> "This U.S. protectionist policy is hurting Canadian firms, costing Canadian jobs and damaging Canadian efforts to grow our economy in the midst of a worldwide recession," said Sherbrooke, Quebec, Mayor Jean Perrault, also president of the federation that represents cities and towns across Canada.
> 
> The municipal officials meeting at the federation's convention in Whistler, British Columbia, endorsed the measure despite complaints by Canadian trade officials.
> 
> Trade Minister Stockwell Day told the group on Friday that Ottawa was actively negotiating with Washington to get the "Buy American" restrictions removed.
> 
> The measure's supporters agreed to modify it slightly by suspending implementation for 120 days, in order to give Canadian trade officials and U.S. critics of the "Buy America" rules more time to work on the issue.
> 
> 
> more
> 
> Canadians angered over Buy American rule | Reuters
> 
> 
> 
> The people of Canadia can kiss my balls.



It's a non-issue brought about (again) by a bunch of whiners--this time a small group of Canadians. We buy enough oil from Canada to balance out our trade with them. What else do they sell that we want anyway? Canadian beer?


----------



## Missourian

sealybobo said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> STAND4LIBERTY said:
> 
> 
> 
> SHOCKING! You mean our statist, pro-protectionism President wants to "renegotiate" existing trade agreements, say it ain't so Joe..... I wonder what he'll do if the Mexicans and Canadians tell him to go bugger off?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vote "present"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said boys, there may not be anything Obama can do about this problem.
> 
> But we know for sure that there is nothing the GOP would do about this problem.
> 
> *One would but can't, the other won't. Maybe if the one who can't had more support???*
> 
> But you support the one that won't.
> 
> So you must be pro NAFTA and anti American workers/middle class.
> 
> Checkmate.
Click to expand...

 

Sealy...I'm on your side,   I am a protectionist.  More jobs for more American is a good thing for America...there is no downside.  If China decides their going to stop sending us wobbly-headed plastic dolls,  I think we'll live.  If Canada stops importing steel, we'll forge more in Erie Pennsylvania.

NAFTA is nothing more than selling out America.

But...to say President Obama CAN'T renegotiate or abandon NAFTA,  with a DEM controlled house and senate because he needs SUPPORT is ludicrous.

President Obama could and would abandon NAFTA if he had half the backbone George Bush did.  President Bush did what he believed was right, and to hell with support.

Obama is a spineless waffler who is more concerned about being popular than doing what he believes is right.  He's the President of the United States for crap sake,  if he can't do it, who can.


----------



## MaggieMae

STAND4LIBERTY said:


> wvulax said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you look at just the company's balance sheet than yes that is a logical statement but from the government's POV there is a line drawn around the nation.  The money that changes hands inside the circle doesn't change the nations balance sheet except in titles.
> 
> 
> 
> So we should reward uncompetitive, ineffecient producers with taxpayer dollars just because they happen to be domestic producers?
Click to expand...


If it means an immediate flood of another 100,000 unemployed people all suddenly collecting unemployment benefits and needing "welfare," we pay for it at the other end anyway. You people are blaming the workers for the mistakes of management when you allege "rewarding inefficient producers." And puleeze don't blame it *all* on unions. They don't sign those contracts without the signature of management as well.


----------



## STAND4LIBERTY

Missourian said:


> Sealy...I'm on your side,   I am a protectionist.  More jobs for more American is a good thing for America...there is no downside.



Except for the fact that protectionism has never worked in a developed industrialized nation, unless of course you consider lowering standards of living "working", all it does is inflict deadweight loss on the economy with no appreciable long term benefits, not to mention giving today's global economy runs the risk of inviting retaliation from our trading partners. 

What if instead of China not sending us any "wobbly-headed plastic dolls" China instead decides to say .. stop financing our debt and dumps dollars on the open market, or Canada decides to say sell their oil to the Chinese and Indians instead of the United States, you think you'll still be forging that steel in Eerie Pennsylvania?... "no downside", that's a good one. 

Heck even that hero of the left Paul Krugman opposes protectionism.


----------



## Cecilie1200

MaggieMae said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHISTLER, British Columbia (Reuters) - Canadian municipal leaders threatened to retaliate against the "Buy America" movement in the United States on Saturday, warning trade restrictions will hurt both countries' economies.
> 
> The Federation of Canadian Municipalities endorsed a controversial proposal to support communities that refuse to buy products from countries that put trade restrictions on products and services from Canada.
> 
> The measure is a response to a provision in the U.S. economic stimulus package passed by Congress in February that says public works projects should use iron, steel and other goods made in the United States.
> 
> The United States is Canada's largest trading partner, and Canadians have complained the restrictions will bar their companies from billions of dollars in business that they have previously had access to.
> 
> "This U.S. protectionist policy is hurting Canadian firms, costing Canadian jobs and damaging Canadian efforts to grow our economy in the midst of a worldwide recession," said Sherbrooke, Quebec, Mayor Jean Perrault, also president of the federation that represents cities and towns across Canada.
> 
> The municipal officials meeting at the federation's convention in Whistler, British Columbia, endorsed the measure despite complaints by Canadian trade officials.
> 
> Trade Minister Stockwell Day told the group on Friday that Ottawa was actively negotiating with Washington to get the "Buy American" restrictions removed.
> 
> The measure's supporters agreed to modify it slightly by suspending implementation for 120 days, in order to give Canadian trade officials and U.S. critics of the "Buy America" rules more time to work on the issue.
> 
> 
> more
> 
> Canadians angered over Buy American rule | Reuters
> 
> 
> 
> The people of Canadia can kiss my balls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a non-issue brought about (again) by a bunch of whiners--this time a small group of Canadians. We buy enough oil from Canada to balance out our trade with them. What else do they sell that we want anyway? Canadian beer?
Click to expand...


I know a lot of people who like Canadian whiskey, although I frankly think it's crap.


----------



## MaggieMae

WillowTree said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> why am I dumb? doyathink???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't let em cross the border?  Obamalama's fault?
> 
> When I first met you, you were wrong but at least seemed to be rational.  Now you are just soooo anti obama that its crazy.
> 
> *Like the bitches/whores and ***** that were anti bill clinton.  He did a good job but you never shut the fuck up about how everything was his fault. *
> 
> Meanwhile he would have gotten in your panties with one shake of his thumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shows ya what you know DUmmie! I was a democwat back in them days,, and the republicans picked unmercifully on Clinton.. made me mad too,, til the DUMBF. knowing,, full well, that the Republicans were after him,, went right on ahead and did his Monica Thang.. that's the day I walked away from being a DUMMIE!
Click to expand...


Thank God you stumbled your way out. Now just stay put.


----------



## Cecilie1200

As an American taxpayer, I would prefer that the overriding concerns in public works projects be cost effectiveness and quality of end product.  As an American citizen, however, I don't give a rat's ass what people from another country think of the US's domestic policies, and never have.


----------



## Toro

MaggieMae said:


> It's a non-issue brought about (again) by a bunch of whiners--this time a small group of Canadians. We buy enough oil from Canada to balance out our trade with them. What else do they sell that we want anyway? Canadian beer?



You *have* to buy the oil, bitches.


----------



## MaggieMae

jgbkab said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't let em cross the border?  Obamalama's fault?
> 
> When I first met you, you were wrong but at least seemed to be rational.  Now you are just soooo anti obama that its crazy.
> 
> *Like the bitches/whores and ***** that were anti bill clinton.  He did a good job but you never shut the fuck up about how everything was his fault. *
> 
> Meanwhile he would have gotten in your panties with one shake of his thumb.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shows ya what you know DUmmie! I was a democwat back in them days,, and the republicans picked unmercifully on Clinton.. made me mad too,, til the DUMBF. knowing,, full well, that the Republicans were after him,, went right on ahead and did his Monica Thang.. that's the day I walked away from being a DUMMIE!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you became a republican because of Clinton's dick policy?
Click to expand...


Nah, she was pissed because no matter how hard she tried, Bill never noticed her:


----------



## STAND4LIBERTY

MaggieMae said:


> If it means an immediate flood of another 100,000 unemployed people all suddenly collecting unemployment benefits and needing "welfare," we pay for it at the other end anyway.


Say what? do you have a credible source for such numbers or did you just yank them outta your rear end? 



> You people


I love the old "you people" phrase, it's a big red signal flare announcing "everything that follows is utter nonsense". 



> are blaming the workers for the mistakes of management when you allege "rewarding inefficient producers." And puleeze don't blame it *all* on unions. They don't sign those contracts without the signature of management as well.


and yep, that flare was accurate again ...... please go back and point to where I blamed the workers, the unions or even management. I said inefficient producers, if you can read with comprehension at all you'll note that statement does not assign blame. 

We should not engage in rewarding inefficient producers no matter what caused them to be inefficient in the first place as doing so damages the long term health of the economy. Rewarding inefficient producers ties up scarce resources (like for example labor) that would be better off being freed to be utilized by efficient producers,  It's like handing over gasoline to an arsonist.


----------



## MaggieMae

WillowTree said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would be nice ....
> 
> ... if we could actually buy American ... but I don't get why Canada is being so pissy, they are part of this continent as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> because,, cupcake,, we aren't Americans anymore! we are left and right.. it's their way or the high way,, case you ain't good and awake,, we live under one party rule, and the democrats just kicked the shit outta thousands of law abiding tax paying high earning Americans... I'm pulling for Canada..
Click to expand...


So where were you during 7+ years of Republican our-way-or-the-highway? Drunk? Nevermind...


----------



## elvis

MaggieMae said:


> STAND4LIBERTY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wvulax said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you look at just the company's balance sheet than yes that is a logical statement but from the government's POV there is a line drawn around the nation.  The money that changes hands inside the circle doesn't change the nations balance sheet except in titles.
> 
> 
> 
> So we should reward uncompetitive, ineffecient producers with taxpayer dollars just because they happen to be domestic producers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it means an immediate flood of another 100,000 unemployed people all suddenly collecting unemployment benefits and needing "welfare," we pay for it at the other end anyway. You people are blaming the workers for the mistakes of management when you allege "rewarding inefficient producers." And puleeze don't blame it *all* on unions. They don't sign those contracts without the signature of management as well.
Click to expand...


I think he meant the corps as a whole.  I blame GM for not listening to the consumer.


----------



## WillowTree

MaggieMae said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't let em cross the border?  Obamalama's fault?
> 
> When I first met you, you were wrong but at least seemed to be rational.  Now you are just soooo anti obama that its crazy.
> 
> *Like the bitches/whores and ***** that were anti bill clinton.  He did a good job but you never shut the fuck up about how everything was his fault. *
> 
> Meanwhile he would have gotten in your panties with one shake of his thumb.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shows ya what you know DUmmie! I was a democwat back in them days,, and the republicans picked unmercifully on Clinton.. made me mad too,, til the DUMBF. knowing,, full well, that the Republicans were after him,, went right on ahead and did his Monica Thang.. that's the day I walked away from being a DUMMIE!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank God you stumbled your way out. Now just stay put.
Click to expand...


Phuck yew ya stupid bitch!


----------



## WillowTree

MaggieMae said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would be nice ....
> 
> ... if we could actually buy American ... but I don't get why Canada is being so pissy, they are part of this continent as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> because,, cupcake,, we aren't Americans anymore! we are left and right.. it's their way or the high way,, case you ain't good and awake,, we live under one party rule, and the democrats just kicked the shit outta thousands of law abiding tax paying high earning Americans... I'm pulling for Canada..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So where were you during 7+ years of Republican our-way-or-the-highway? Drunk? Nevermind...
Click to expand...


   phuck yew,, dimwit..


----------



## MaggieMae

STAND4LIBERTY said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> funny how you think you know my voting record, considering you keep guessing incorrectly.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't sweat it elvis, that's just a tactic weaker minds take when they cannot defeat your arguements with reason or logic, they try to change the subject and make it personal.  I'm guessing the next thing he'll wanna know is your religion so he can attempt to attack that instead of actually addressing the content of your posts.
Click to expand...


Did Elvis say something important? I must have missed it.


----------



## WillowTree

MaggieMae said:


> jgbkab said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> shows ya what you know DUmmie! I was a democwat back in them days,, and the republicans picked unmercifully on Clinton.. made me mad too,, til the DUMBF. knowing,, full well, that the Republicans were after him,, went right on ahead and did his Monica Thang.. that's the day I walked away from being a DUMMIE!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you became a republican because of Clinton's dick policy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, she was pissed because no matter how hard she tried, Bill never noticed her:
Click to expand...


phuck yew


----------



## Yurt

canada sucks!  canada rules!

i stole a canadian, hit her over the head with my caveman club...american made dammmit.....married her and now she is american  but thinks she owns me, she doesn't, i'm american and i rule

but when i go to canada, she reverts to this weird accent and gets all polite and shit.  says hi to everyone, never litters and gets all snuggley in that cold ass weather.  fuck those clean streets and good chocolate up there.  who needs canada....


i love canada, their women are HOT.


----------



## MaggieMae

elvis3577 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> do you find out where Obama is every day so you can face that direction when you worship him?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stand for liberty wrote to you:  that is just a tactic weaker minds take when they cannot defeat your arguements with reason or logic, they try to change the subject and make it personal. I'm guessing the next thing he'll wanna know is your religion so he can attempt to attack that instead of actually addressing the content of your posts.
> 
> And then you go and post this reply to me?
> 
> POT, MEET KETTLE!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it was in response to you defending Obama for EXACTLY the same thing Bush would say regarding NAFTA.  So which way are you facing today?  Let me see if I can find out where Obama is so you can face EXACTLY that direction when you get on your knees.
Click to expand...


You people had better just get used to the fact that Democrats and Independents to a large degree continue to support Barack Obama, so nothing you can say in your most clever rhetoric will change that until we can see that his proposed policies ARE failing (not "projected to fail" or "hoped to fail" as is YOUR desire), and couple that with some person on YOUR "side" of all these serious issues who has a better proposition. You don't have one, for any of it.


----------



## STAND4LIBERTY

MaggieMae said:


> Did Elvis say something important? I must have missed it.



As soon as you post something other than off topic nonsense in this thread, I'll provide you with the answer to your question, after all I enjoy helping the less than fully literate with their reading.


----------



## MaggieMae

STAND4LIBERTY said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Barack Obama, who threatened during the presidential campaign to withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement unless he could renegotiate it, may delay trying to rework the accord as he focuses on the U.S. economic crisis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SHOCKING! You mean our statist, pro-protectionism President wants to "renegotiate" existing trade agreements, say it ain't so Joe..... I wonder what he'll do if the Mexicans and Canadians tell him to go bugger off?
Click to expand...


A little behind the times are we? Those statements were made by candidate Obama back in February *2008*.


----------



## WillowTree

Yurt said:


> canada sucks!  canada rules!
> 
> i stole a canadian, hit her over the head with my caveman club...american made dammmit.....married her and now she is american  but thinks she owns me, she doesn't, i'm american and i rule
> 
> but when i go to canada, she reverts to this weird accent and gets all polite and shit.  says hi to everyone, never litters and gets all snuggley in that cold ass weather.  fuck those clean streets and good chocolate up there.  who needs canada....
> 
> 
> i love canada, their women are HOT.







I'm on Canada's side.. We signed an "agreement" we are just pissants if we go back on it.. but then ya know,, we gots us some pissants running the place.. they shit all over Americans so why not they shit on a few Canadians?? me I'm on Canada's side..


----------



## STAND4LIBERTY

MaggieMae said:


> STAND4LIBERTY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Barack Obama, who threatened during the presidential campaign to withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement unless he could renegotiate it, may delay trying to rework the accord as he focuses on the U.S. economic crisis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SHOCKING! You mean our statist, pro-protectionism President wants to "renegotiate" existing trade agreements, say it ain't so Joe..... I wonder what he'll do if the Mexicans and Canadians tell him to go bugger off?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A little behind the times are we? Those statements were made by candidate Obama back in February *2008*.
Click to expand...


ROFLMAO ! You and that Sealybobo fella rode to school on the same short bus to remedial reading class, huh ? 

Where do these folks come from? collectivist utopia illiteracy re-education farms?


----------



## MaggieMae

STAND4LIBERTY said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say that.  Yea, but you were thinking it so
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since it's obvious you're a blindly partisan collectivist I realize it's too much to ask for you to be able to handle anything as intellectually complex as telling one poster from another poster but now that you've succeeded in making yourself look like a complete fool, care to go for the utter & complete blue ribbon? or would rather slink back off into left wing utopia and lick your wounds?
Click to expand...


Interesting that you must not consider yourself blindly partisan. I'm always amused by that allegation from one who does exactly the same thing he is accusing another of. There must be a word for that. Hmmm.... oh yeah, HYPOCRITE!!


----------



## STAND4LIBERTY

MaggieMae said:


> Interesting that you must not consider yourself blindly partisan.


I wish I could but since I don't belong to a political party the gub'ment denied my blindly partisan mental disability benefits, I'm glad you and sealy got yours though 



> I'm always amused by that allegation from one who does exactly the same thing he is accusing another of. There must be a word for that. Hmmm.... oh yeah, HYPOCRITE!!


Actually If you'll learn to ummm...read, I was accussing him of being unable to perform the complex intellectual task of telling one poster from another, the blindly partisan collectivist portion went to the reason as to why this was so, ... I know, comprehension is overrated ....


----------



## MaggieMae

Missourian said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Vote "present"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said boys, there may not be anything Obama can do about this problem.
> 
> But we know for sure that there is nothing the GOP would do about this problem.
> 
> *One would but can't, the other won't. Maybe if the one who can't had more support???*
> 
> But you support the one that won't.
> 
> So you must be pro NAFTA and anti American workers/middle class.
> 
> Checkmate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sealy...I'm on your side,   I am a protectionist.  More jobs for more American is a good thing for America...there is no downside.  If China decides their going to stop sending us wobbly-headed plastic dolls,  I think we'll live.  If Canada stops importing steel, we'll forge more in Erie Pennsylvania.
> 
> NAFTA is nothing more than selling out America.
> 
> But...to say President Obama CAN'T renegotiate or abandon NAFTA,  with a DEM controlled house and senate because he needs SUPPORT is ludicrous.
> 
> President Obama could and would abandon NAFTA if he had half the backbone George Bush did.  President Bush did what he believed was right, and to hell with support.
> 
> Obama is a spineless waffler who is more concerned about being popular than doing what he believes is right.  He's the President of the United States for crap sake,  if he can't do it, who can.
Click to expand...


Well, China and NAFTA are two different deals. We can't stop buying broken, smelly crap from China or they will stop buying our T-bonds to prop up the economy. But at least we stopped fast-tracking trade deals with Latin American countries with no congressional approval. Unfortunately, free trade didn't stop at NAFTA. 

FTD - Congressional Highlights


----------



## MaggieMae

Cecilie1200 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHISTLER, British Columbia (Reuters) - Canadian municipal leaders threatened to retaliate against the "Buy America" movement in the United States on Saturday, warning trade restrictions will hurt both countries' economies.
> 
> The Federation of Canadian Municipalities endorsed a controversial proposal to support communities that refuse to buy products from countries that put trade restrictions on products and services from Canada.
> 
> The measure is a response to a provision in the U.S. economic stimulus package passed by Congress in February that says public works projects should use iron, steel and other goods made in the United States.
> 
> The United States is Canada's largest trading partner, and Canadians have complained the restrictions will bar their companies from billions of dollars in business that they have previously had access to.
> 
> "This U.S. protectionist policy is hurting Canadian firms, costing Canadian jobs and damaging Canadian efforts to grow our economy in the midst of a worldwide recession," said Sherbrooke, Quebec, Mayor Jean Perrault, also president of the federation that represents cities and towns across Canada.
> 
> The municipal officials meeting at the federation's convention in Whistler, British Columbia, endorsed the measure despite complaints by Canadian trade officials.
> 
> Trade Minister Stockwell Day told the group on Friday that Ottawa was actively negotiating with Washington to get the "Buy American" restrictions removed.
> 
> The measure's supporters agreed to modify it slightly by suspending implementation for 120 days, in order to give Canadian trade officials and U.S. critics of the "Buy America" rules more time to work on the issue.
> 
> 
> more
> 
> Canadians angered over Buy American rule | Reuters
> 
> 
> 
> The people of Canadia can kiss my balls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a non-issue brought about (again) by a bunch of whiners--this time a small group of Canadians. We buy enough oil from Canada to balance out our trade with them. What else do they sell that we want anyway? Canadian beer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know a lot of people who like Canadian whiskey, although I frankly think it's crap.
Click to expand...


Canadian whiskey is like Kentucky Burbon with a bite. A "pro" can tell the difference. My husband only drank Crown Royal for years until he drank too much of it, lost his job, then would drink anything.


----------



## MaggieMae

STAND4LIBERTY said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it means an immediate flood of another 100,000 unemployed people all suddenly collecting unemployment benefits and needing "welfare," we pay for it at the other end anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> Say what? do you have a credible source for such numbers or did you just yank them outta your rear end?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I love the old "you people" phrase, it's a big red signal flare announcing "everything that follows is utter nonsense".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are blaming the workers for the mistakes of management when you allege "rewarding inefficient producers." And puleeze don't blame it *all* on unions. They don't sign those contracts without the signature of management as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and yep, that flare was accurate again ...... please go back and point to where I blamed the workers, the unions or even management. I said inefficient producers, if you can read with comprehension at all you'll note that statement does not assign blame.
> 
> We should not engage in rewarding inefficient producers no matter what caused them to be inefficient in the first place as doing so damages the long term health of the economy. Rewarding inefficient producers ties up scarce resources (like for example labor) that would be better off being freed to be utilized by efficient producers,  It's like handing over gasoline to an arsonist.
Click to expand...


I thought whomever I posted that for was talking about the auto industry. Maybe I was wrong. However, GM simply dies by Chapter 11, 80,000 direct factory workers would immediately be laid off, and another 20,000+ in supporting businesses also would be laid off. Those are certainly NOT unreal projections I pulled out of my ass, but ones that are discussed every single day if you're paying attention.

The "you people" phrase originated with none other than Rush Limbaugh, years ago. Imagine that...


----------



## MaggieMae

elvis3577 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> STAND4LIBERTY said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we should reward uncompetitive, ineffecient producers with taxpayer dollars just because they happen to be domestic producers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it means an immediate flood of another 100,000 unemployed people all suddenly collecting unemployment benefits and needing "welfare," we pay for it at the other end anyway. You people are blaming the workers for the mistakes of management when you allege "rewarding inefficient producers." And puleeze don't blame it *all* on unions. They don't sign those contracts without the signature of management as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think he meant the corps as a whole.  I blame GM for not listening to the consumer.
Click to expand...


Thank you, Elvis. A whisper of common sense.


----------



## MaggieMae

elvis3577 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> STAND4LIBERTY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't sweat it elvis, that's just a tactic weaker minds take when they cannot defeat your arguements with reason or logic, they try to change the subject and make it personal.  I'm guessing the next thing he'll wanna know is your religion so he can attempt to attack that instead of actually addressing the content of your posts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did Elvis say something important? I must have missed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess I'll have to agree with Willow that you're a fucking bitch.
Click to expand...


She's been attacking me with her crude insults since I joined this board. I can get down and dirty too. Where people like Willow are concerned, I wear the bitch badge with pride.


----------



## WillowTree

MaggieMae said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did Elvis say something important? I must have missed it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I'll have to agree with Willow that you're a fucking bitch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She's been attacking me with her crude insults since I joined this board. I can get down and dirty too. Where people like Willow are concerned, I wear the bitch badge with pride.
Click to expand...





phuck yew!


----------



## AllieBaba

MaggieMae said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a non-issue brought about (again) by a bunch of whiners--this time a small group of Canadians. We buy enough oil from Canada to balance out our trade with them. What else do they sell that we want anyway? Canadian beer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know a lot of people who like Canadian whiskey, although I frankly think it's crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Canadian whiskey is like Kentucky Burbon with a bite. A "pro" can tell the difference. My husband only drank Crown Royal for years until he drank too much of it, lost his job, then would drink anything.
Click to expand...


I'm a pro.
Canadian whisky is BLENDED whisky.

Bourbon is corn liquor.

Big, BIG diff.


----------



## AllieBaba

Canadia whisky isn't sweet.

Bourbon is, very, very sweet and syrupy.


----------



## MaggieMae

STAND4LIBERTY said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did Elvis say something important? I must have missed it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as you post something other than off topic nonsense in this thread, I'll provide you with the answer to your question, after all I enjoy helping the less than fully literate with their reading.
Click to expand...


Off topic? Oh gee, sorry if I get defensive occasionally. So, bring it on, genius. I just love a good debate with a billious pompous ass who loves to brag about his credentials.


----------



## STAND4LIBERTY

MaggieMae said:


> STAND4LIBERTY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it means an immediate flood of another 100,000 unemployed people all suddenly collecting unemployment benefits and needing "welfare," we pay for it at the other end anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> Say what? do you have a credible source for such numbers or did you just yank them outta your rear end?
> 
> 
> I love the old "you people" phrase, it's a big red signal flare announcing "everything that follows is utter nonsense".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are blaming the workers for the mistakes of management when you allege "rewarding inefficient producers." And puleeze don't blame it *all* on unions. They don't sign those contracts without the signature of management as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and yep, that flare was accurate again ...... please go back and point to where I blamed the workers, the unions or even management. I said inefficient producers, if you can read with comprehension at all you'll note that statement does not assign blame.
> 
> We should not engage in rewarding inefficient producers no matter what caused them to be inefficient in the first place as doing so damages the long term health of the economy. Rewarding inefficient producers ties up scarce resources (like for example labor) that would be better off being freed to be utilized by efficient producers,  It's like handing over gasoline to an arsonist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought whomever I posted that for was talking about the auto industry. Maybe I was wrong. However, GM simply dies by Chapter 11, 80,000 direct factory workers would immediately be laid off, and another 20,000+ in supporting businesses also would be laid off. Those are certainly NOT unreal projections I pulled out of my ass, but ones that are discussed every single day if you're paying attention.
Click to expand...

Hmmm.. maybe you should check the topic of thread and the poster before you simply "respond"? 

*hint: this thread has nothing to do with GM or Chrysler nor was I referring to either company in the post you responded to. 



> The "you people" phrase originated with none other than Rush Limbaugh, years ago. Imagine that...


So I guess that makes it okay to just keep robotically repeating it?


----------



## elvis

MaggieMae said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stand for liberty wrote to you:  that is just a tactic weaker minds take when they cannot defeat your arguements with reason or logic, they try to change the subject and make it personal. I'm guessing the next thing he'll wanna know is your religion so he can attempt to attack that instead of actually addressing the content of your posts.
> 
> And then you go and post this reply to me?
> 
> POT, MEET KETTLE!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it was in response to you defending Obama for EXACTLY the same thing Bush would say regarding NAFTA.  So which way are you facing today?  Let me see if I can find out where Obama is so you can face EXACTLY that direction when you get on your knees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You people had better just get used to the fact that Democrats and Independents to a large degree continue to support Barack Obama, so nothing you can say in your most clever rhetoric will change that until we can see that his proposed policies ARE failing (not "projected to fail" or "hoped to fail" as is YOUR desire), and couple that with some person on YOUR "side" of all these serious issues who has a better proposition. You don't have one, for any of it.
Click to expand...

did you get used it when a majority of independents and republicans supported Bush?


----------



## MaggieMae

STAND4LIBERTY said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting that you must not consider yourself blindly partisan.
> 
> 
> 
> I wish I could but since I don't belong to a political party the gub'ment denied my blindly partisan mental disability benefits, I'm glad you and sealy got yours though
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm always amused by that allegation from one who does exactly the same thing he is accusing another of. There must be a word for that. Hmmm.... oh yeah, HYPOCRITE!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually If you'll learn to ummm...read, I was accussing him of being unable to perform the complex intellectual task of telling one poster from another, the blindly partisan collectivist portion went to the reason as to why this was so, ... I know, comprehension is overrated ....
Click to expand...


Oh dear, pardon please. It's just that your postings are sooooooo, um, _deep_ that I have to read them several times before ah git what yer sayin'.


----------



## MaggieMae

AllieBaba said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know a lot of people who like Canadian whiskey, although I frankly think it's crap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canadian whiskey is like Kentucky Burbon with a bite. A "pro" can tell the difference. My husband only drank Crown Royal for years until he drank too much of it, lost his job, then would drink anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a pro.
> Canadian whisky is BLENDED whisky.
> 
> Bourbon is corn liquor.
> 
> Big, BIG diff.
Click to expand...


Yes, thanks for the clarification.


----------



## AllieBaba

Liquor is serious.


----------



## MaggieMae

STAND4LIBERTY said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> STAND4LIBERTY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Say what? do you have a credible source for such numbers or did you just yank them outta your rear end?
> 
> 
> I love the old "you people" phrase, it's a big red signal flare announcing "everything that follows is utter nonsense".
> 
> 
> and yep, that flare was accurate again ...... please go back and point to where I blamed the workers, the unions or even management. I said inefficient producers, if you can read with comprehension at all you'll note that statement does not assign blame.
> 
> We should not engage in rewarding inefficient producers no matter what caused them to be inefficient in the first place as doing so damages the long term health of the economy. Rewarding inefficient producers ties up scarce resources (like for example labor) that would be better off being freed to be utilized by efficient producers,  It's like handing over gasoline to an arsonist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought whomever I posted that for was talking about the auto industry. Maybe I was wrong. However, GM simply dies by Chapter 11, 80,000 direct factory workers would immediately be laid off, and another 20,000+ in supporting businesses also would be laid off. Those are certainly NOT unreal projections I pulled out of my ass, but ones that are discussed every single day if you're paying attention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hmmm.. maybe you should check the topic of thread and the poster before you simply "respond"?
> 
> *hint: this thread has nothing to do with GM or Chrysler nor was I referring to either company in the post you responded to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "you people" phrase originated with none other than Rush Limbaugh, years ago. Imagine that...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So I guess that makes it okay to just keep robotically repeating it?
Click to expand...


A lot of threads that have hundreds of comments don't rigidly stick to the typed topic. Are you nuts or just a creep constantly trolling for a fight?


----------



## MaggieMae

STAND4LIBERTY said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> STAND4LIBERTY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "you people" phrase originated with none other than Rush Limbaugh, years ago. Imagine that...
> 
> 
> 
> So I guess that makes it okay to just keep robotically repeating it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Smarts when the tables are turned, eh? Tough.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## STAND4LIBERTY

MaggieMae said:


> Oh dear, pardon please. It's just that your postings are sooooooo, um, _deep_ that I have to read them several times before ah git what yer sayin'.


If I were you I'd forgo any attempt at witty sarcasm about "postings" and "depth" when your lack of reading comprehension is being called into question. 

Besides you own musing aren't exactly Walt Whitman and people in glass houses probably shouldn't take up rock throwing as a hobby. Perhaps instead you should just stick with the inane talking point parroting, you seem to have a talent for that.


----------



## Missourian

STAND4LIBERTY said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sealy...I'm on your side, I am a protectionist. More jobs for more American is a good thing for America...there is no downside.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except for the fact that protectionism has never worked in a developed industrialized nation, unless of course you consider lowering standards of living "working", all it does is inflict deadweight loss on the economy with no appreciable long term benefits, not to mention giving today's global economy runs the risk of inviting retaliation from our trading partners.
> 
> What if instead of China not sending us any "wobbly-headed plastic dolls" China instead decides to say .. stop financing our debt and dumps dollars on the open market, or Canada decides to say sell their oil to the Chinese and Indians instead of the United States, you think you'll still be forging that steel in Eerie Pennsylvania?... "no downside", that's a good one.
> 
> Heck even that hero of the left Paul Krugman opposes protectionism.
Click to expand...

 
So you're point is China owns us!  Behold the fruit globalization hath wrought. 

As for Canadian oil, even more reason to drill our own oil here and lessen our reliance on foreign oil.


----------



## MaggieMae

elvis3577 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> it was in response to you defending Obama for EXACTLY the same thing Bush would say regarding NAFTA.  So which way are you facing today?  Let me see if I can find out where Obama is so you can face EXACTLY that direction when you get on your knees.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You people had better just get used to the fact that Democrats and Independents to a large degree continue to support Barack Obama, so nothing you can say in your most clever rhetoric will change that until we can see that his proposed policies ARE failing (not "projected to fail" or "hoped to fail" as is YOUR desire), and couple that with some person on YOUR "side" of all these serious issues who has a better proposition. You don't have one, for any of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> did you get used it when a majority of independents and republicans supported Bush?
Click to expand...


I don't think independents ever strongly supported Bush. He certainly didn't win reelection by any landslide, in spite of Kerry's roadblocks and unpopularity in general.


----------



## WillowTree

Missourian said:


> STAND4LIBERTY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sealy...I'm on your side, I am a protectionist. More jobs for more American is a good thing for America...there is no downside.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except for the fact that protectionism has never worked in a developed industrialized nation, unless of course you consider lowering standards of living "working", all it does is inflict deadweight loss on the economy with no appreciable long term benefits, not to mention giving today's global economy runs the risk of inviting retaliation from our trading partners.
> 
> What if instead of China not sending us any "wobbly-headed plastic dolls" China instead decides to say .. stop financing our debt and dumps dollars on the open market, or Canada decides to say sell their oil to the Chinese and Indians instead of the United States, you think you'll still be forging that steel in Eerie Pennsylvania?... "no downside", that's a good one.
> 
> Heck even that hero of the left Paul Krugman opposes protectionism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're point is China owns us!  Behold the fruit globalization hath wrought.
> 
> As for Canadian oil, even more reason to drill our own oil here and lessen our reliance on foreign oil.
Click to expand...


  the democwat socalist libtards will never let that happen..


----------



## elvis

MaggieMae said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> You people had better just get used to the fact that Democrats and Independents to a large degree continue to support Barack Obama, so nothing you can say in your most clever rhetoric will change that until we can see that his proposed policies ARE failing (not "projected to fail" or "hoped to fail" as is YOUR desire), and couple that with some person on YOUR "side" of all these serious issues who has a better proposition. You don't have one, for any of it.
> 
> 
> 
> did you get used it when a majority of independents and republicans supported Bush?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think independents ever strongly supported Bush. He certainly didn't win reelection by any landslide, in spite of Kerry's roadblocks and unpopularity in general.
Click to expand...


It's early.  At the 100 day mark, Obama's approval rating was the same as Carter's and Reagan's at their 100 day mark.  Both presidents had replaced unpopular presidents (most  thought ford a continuation of Nixon) and one year later the approval ratings were down to 40.


----------



## Yurt

WillowTree said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> canada sucks!  canada rules!
> 
> i stole a canadian, hit her over the head with my caveman club...american made dammmit.....married her and now she is american  but thinks she owns me, she doesn't, i'm american and i rule
> 
> but when i go to canada, she reverts to this weird accent and gets all polite and shit.  says hi to everyone, never litters and gets all snuggley in that cold ass weather.  fuck those clean streets and good chocolate up there.  who needs canada....
> 
> 
> i love canada, their women are HOT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm on Canada's side.. We signed an "agreement" we are just pissants if we go back on it.. but then ya know,, we gots us some pissants running the place.. they shit all over Americans so why not they shit on a few Canadians?? me I'm on Canada's side..
Click to expand...


canada sucks!!!!  canada is so clean and pretty, and so are the women


----------



## MaggieMae

STAND4LIBERTY said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh dear, pardon please. It's just that your postings are sooooooo, um, _deep_ that I have to read them several times before ah git what yer sayin'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I were you I'd forgo any attempt at witty sarcasm about "postings" and "depth" when your lack of reading comprehension is being called into question.
> 
> Besides you own musing aren't exactly Walt Whitman and people in glass houses probably shouldn't take up rock throwing as a hobby. Perhaps instead you should just stick with the inane talking point parroting, you seem to have a talent for that.
Click to expand...


Well, you're *NOT* me, so I guess you lose again. I'm not going anywhere. 

Hey!! Aren't you "going off topic" by your personal attacks on me and not sticking to the subject?


----------



## STAND4LIBERTY

MaggieMae said:


> A lot of threads that have hundreds of comments don't rigidly stick to the typed topic.


Yes except when rational people go off topic they are generally cognizant of the fact, it was obvious you didn't even know the topic of the thread or the post you were responding to. 



> Are you nuts or just a creep constantly trolling for a fight?


You started it you responded to me with your line of nonsense, remember? If don't like getting picked on don't start up crap with other people in the first place.


----------



## Cecilie1200

MaggieMae said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a non-issue brought about (again) by a bunch of whiners--this time a small group of Canadians. We buy enough oil from Canada to balance out our trade with them. What else do they sell that we want anyway? Canadian beer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know a lot of people who like Canadian whiskey, although I frankly think it's crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Canadian whiskey is like Kentucky Burbon with a bite. A "pro" can tell the difference. My husband only drank Crown Royal for years until he drank too much of it, lost his job, then would drink anything.
Click to expand...


I can tell the difference just fine, which is why I consider Canadian whiskey to be crap.  I prefer American or Irish.

Nevertheless, whiskey is something they sell us besides oil.


----------



## Missourian

Cecilie1200 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know a lot of people who like Canadian whiskey, although I frankly think it's crap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canadian whiskey is like Kentucky Bourbon with a bite. A "pro" can tell the difference. My husband only drank Crown Royal for years until he drank too much of it, lost his job, then would drink anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can tell the difference just fine, which is why I consider Canadian whiskey to be crap. I prefer American or Irish.
> 
> Nevertheless, whiskey is something they sell us besides oil.
Click to expand...

 

Once again shamelessly promoting my home state, McCormick Distillery in Weston Missouri is the nations oldest continuously operating distillery. They produce the finest American Whiskey to be had anywhere. They also distill a very fine Canadian Whiskey.




 




http://www.mccormickdistilling.com/content/index.php​


----------



## Toro

No, Canada's biggest exports to the US are not beer, hockey equipment and beaver pelts.  Canada's biggest exports are



Of the $303.4 billion in American imports from Canada in 2006, the following product categories had the highest values.

   1. Petroleum products US$63.7 billion (21% of Canada to U.S. exports, up 6% from 2005)
   2. Passenger cars  $36.6 billion (12.5%, up 1.5%)
   3. Car parts & accessories  $15.6 billion (5.1%, down 2.5%)
   4. Complete & assembled cars  $12.2 billion (4%, down 2.3%)
   5. Aluminum  $7.7 billion (2.5%, up 36.1%)
   6. Lumber  $6.6 billion (2.2%, down 8.9%)
   7. Finishing materials (e.g. shingles, wallboard)  $5.9 billion (2.0%, down 10.7%)
   8. Plastics  $5.8 billion (1.9%, up 7.9%)
   9. Telecommunications  $4 billion (1.3%, down 0.7%)
  10. Engines & parts  $3.98 billion (1.3%, down 8.6%) 


Canadaâs Top Exports & Imports: Most Popular Products in Trade Between Canada & America | Suite101.com


----------



## Steve Jobs

I don't care where my stuff comes from as long as it's good. 

I like my cars German, my cameras/TVs Japanese, and my alcohol Canadian/French.

Oh, yes, and my oil Alaskan.


----------



## sealybobo

Steve Jobs said:


> I don't care where my stuff comes from as long as it's good.
> 
> I like my cars German, my cameras/TVs Japanese, and my alcohol Canadian/French.
> 
> Oh, yes, and my oil Alaskan.



You don't get your oil from Alaska.  You get yours from S. America, Canada, Africa and the Arab world.  

Oil companies don't share the spoils with America.  Well, maybe they share a little with Alaskan's, but the other 49 states don't get DICK.

Just like in Africa, the oil companies are thieves!  No one in Africa is making anything off of their oil, except the corrupt government and the oil companies.  Sounds like America to me.  

Shell, Nigerian Families Settle For $15.5 Million : NPR

They take and take and they do not give back.  

Or do you think oil companies care more about you than they do Africans because you are American?  Don't make me laugh.


----------



## GHook93

Canada is also our biggest trade partner also. People have to realize that when you take oil out of the picture (their biggest export to us) then we trade around the same amount. But that needs to be viewed in prespective. Canada has a population of 33 million and the US has a population of 310 million! Bigger population create bigger needs! 




Toro said:


> No, Canada's biggest exports to the US are not beer, hockey equipment and beaver pelts.  Canada's biggest exports are
> 
> 
> 
> Of the $303.4 billion in American imports from Canada in 2006, the following product categories had the highest values.
> 
> 1. Petroleum products US$63.7 billion (21% of Canada to U.S. exports, up 6% from 2005)
> 2. Passenger cars  $36.6 billion (12.5%, up 1.5%)
> 3. Car parts & accessories  $15.6 billion (5.1%, down 2.5%)
> 4. Complete & assembled cars  $12.2 billion (4%, down 2.3%)
> 5. Aluminum  $7.7 billion (2.5%, up 36.1%)
> 6. Lumber  $6.6 billion (2.2%, down 8.9%)
> 7. Finishing materials (e.g. shingles, wallboard)  $5.9 billion (2.0%, down 10.7%)
> 8. Plastics  $5.8 billion (1.9%, up 7.9%)
> 9. Telecommunications  $4 billion (1.3%, down 0.7%)
> 10. Engines & parts  $3.98 billion (1.3%, down 8.6%)
> 
> 
> Canadaâs Top Exports & Imports: Most Popular Products in Trade Between Canada & America | Suite101.com


----------



## Shogun

STAND4LIBERTY said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> funny how you think you know my voting record, considering you keep guessing incorrectly.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't sweat it elvis, that's just a tactic weaker minds take when they cannot defeat your arguements with reason or logic, they try to change the subject and make it personal.  I'm guessing the next thing he'll wanna know is your religion so he can attempt to attack that instead of actually addressing the content of your posts.
Click to expand...


says the guy hiding behind bullshit rhetoric.  Tell me, dipshit, just how far down the standard of living pole should Americans fall down in order to normalize their "competitiveness" with that of a fucking chinese sweat shop factory.  Or, I daresay, a fucking Mexican auto plant whose labor comes strait from the dirtpile shit culture of ghetto Mexico?  Your kind would have America eating fucking (only) rice for dinner in order to justify your bullshit failure of an economic scheme.  Again, this nation didn't flex it's dominance 50 fucking years ago by outsourcing labor and products just because it was cheapier for pussies like you despite your (lack of) national heritage.  Instead of admitting how you'd LOWER American standards of living to that of a fucking Asian pauper go ahead and hide behind bullshit jargon some more.  Lord fucking knows it's funny when you talk about inferior minds while hiding like a bitch behind words like "competitive".


----------



## Shogun

elvis3577 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> NONE of the candidates in 2008 were AGAINST NAFTA.  To Obama, you are nothing more than someone who "clings to anti-trade".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama was very clever in how he worded things.
> 
> Obama said he was going to fix what is wrong with NAFTA:
> 
> The Canadian Government says it was the Clinton campaign who told them not to worry about NAFTA, not Obama's.
> 
> NAFTA-Gate Shocker: Did Hillary's Camp Lie and Frame Obama? | Video | AlterNet
> 
> Now that we know from the 11,000 pages of Clinton White House documents released this week that former First Lady was an ardent advocate for NAFTA; now that we know she held at least five meetings to strategize about how to win congressional approval of the deal; now that we know she was in the thick of the manuevering to block the efforts of labor, farm, environmental and human rights groups to get a better agreement. Now that we know all of this, how should we assess the claim that Hillary's heart has always beaten to a fair-trade rhythm?
> 
> Now that we know from official records of her time as First Lady that Clinton was the featured speaker at a closed-door session where 120 women opinion leaders were hectored to pressure their congressional representatives to approve NAFTA; now that we know from ABC News reporting on the session that "her remarks were totally pro-NAFTA" and that "there was no equivocation for her support for NAFTA at the time;" now that we have these details confirmed, what should we make of Clinton's campaign claim that she was never comfortable with the militant free-trade agenda that has cost the United States hundreds of thousands of union jobs, that has idled entire industries, that has saddled this country with record trade deficits, undermined the security of working families in the US and abroad, and has forced Mexican farmers off their land into an economic refugee status that ultimately forces them to cross the Rio Grande River in search of work?
> 
> As she campaigns now, Clinton says, "I have been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning."
> 
> But the White House records confirm that this is not true.
> 
> Her statement is, to be precise, a lie.
> 
> When it comes to the essential test of the trade debate, Clinton has been identified as a liar - a put-in-boldface-type "L-I-A-R" liar.
> 
> Some Canadian news outlets reported last week that Barack Obama's campaign had reached out to Canadian officials, telling them to effectively ignore Obama's concerns about NAFTA, claiming the rhetoric was just political posturing. Those reports turned out to be false. Canadian news also noted that Obama aides had contacted the Canadian ambassador with the same message. That turned out to be false, too. Both Hillary Clinton and John McCain read almost identical talking points, but much of the accusations proved to be unfounded. Nevertheless, given the attention and scrutiny, the largely controversy had a fairly significant impact in Tuesday's primaries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> do you find out where Obama is every day so you can face that direction when you worship him?
Click to expand...


uh, weren't you JUST crying on someone's shoulder about how THEY get personal, guy?  funny how that works.


----------



## elvis

Shogun said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama was very clever in how he worded things.
> 
> Obama said he was going to fix what is wrong with NAFTA:
> 
> The Canadian Government says it was the Clinton campaign who told them not to worry about NAFTA, not Obama's.
> 
> NAFTA-Gate Shocker: Did Hillary's Camp Lie and Frame Obama? | Video | AlterNet
> 
> Now that we know from the 11,000 pages of Clinton White House documents released this week that former First Lady was an ardent advocate for NAFTA; now that we know she held at least five meetings to strategize about how to win congressional approval of the deal; now that we know she was in the thick of the manuevering to block the efforts of labor, farm, environmental and human rights groups to get a better agreement. Now that we know all of this, how should we assess the claim that Hillary's heart has always beaten to a fair-trade rhythm?
> 
> Now that we know from official records of her time as First Lady that Clinton was the featured speaker at a closed-door session where 120 women opinion leaders were hectored to pressure their congressional representatives to approve NAFTA; now that we know from ABC News reporting on the session that "her remarks were totally pro-NAFTA" and that "there was no equivocation for her support for NAFTA at the time;" now that we have these details confirmed, what should we make of Clinton's campaign claim that she was never comfortable with the militant free-trade agenda that has cost the United States hundreds of thousands of union jobs, that has idled entire industries, that has saddled this country with record trade deficits, undermined the security of working families in the US and abroad, and has forced Mexican farmers off their land into an economic refugee status that ultimately forces them to cross the Rio Grande River in search of work?
> 
> As she campaigns now, Clinton says, "I have been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning."
> 
> But the White House records confirm that this is not true.
> 
> Her statement is, to be precise, a lie.
> 
> When it comes to the essential test of the trade debate, Clinton has been identified as a liar - a put-in-boldface-type "L-I-A-R" liar.
> 
> Some Canadian news outlets reported last week that Barack Obama's campaign had reached out to Canadian officials, telling them to effectively ignore Obama's concerns about NAFTA, claiming the rhetoric was just political posturing. Those reports turned out to be false. Canadian news also noted that Obama aides had contacted the Canadian ambassador with the same message. That turned out to be false, too. Both Hillary Clinton and John McCain read almost identical talking points, but much of the accusations proved to be unfounded. Nevertheless, given the attention and scrutiny, the largely controversy had a fairly significant impact in Tuesday's primaries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> do you find out where Obama is every day so you can face that direction when you worship him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> uh, weren't you JUST crying on someone's shoulder about how THEY get personal, guy?  funny how that works.
Click to expand...


What are you referring to?


----------



## Shogun

STAND4LIBERTY said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Barack Obama, who threatened during the presidential campaign to withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement unless he could renegotiate it, may delay trying to rework the accord as he focuses on the U.S. economic crisis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SHOCKING! You mean our statist, pro-protectionism President wants to "renegotiate" existing trade agreements, say it ain't so Joe..... I wonder what he'll do if the Mexicans and Canadians tell him to go bugger off?
Click to expand...


Yea, Mexico and Canadia really have that kind of a trump card!    Lord fucking knows they would both remain bastions of fucking wealth were the US to pull the nafta rug out from under their fucking feet.  Give me a fucking break.  Yea, Canadia sure is an imposing economic figure!  Just look at all that trade deficit that they ALREADY don't muster.  Yea, dude!  I'm fucking AFRAID of Canadia!  THIS is why you stupid, free market motherfuckers avoid Trade disparity like a cat does a bath.



Americas trade imbalance with Canada grew by nearly $6 billion in October, according to a report released Thursday by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.

American companies exported $22.01 billion of goods to Canada during the month, but U.S. consumers bought $27.97 billion of Canadian imports. The result was a shortfall of $5.96 billion.
U.S.-Canada trade deficit nears $6B - Wichita Business Journal:


----------



## elvis

Shogun said:


> STAND4LIBERTY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Barack Obama, who threatened during the presidential campaign to withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement unless he could renegotiate it, may delay trying to rework the accord as he focuses on the U.S. economic crisis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SHOCKING! You mean our statist, pro-protectionism President wants to "renegotiate" existing trade agreements, say it ain't so Joe..... I wonder what he'll do if the Mexicans and Canadians tell him to go bugger off?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea, Mexico and Canadia really have that kind of a trump card!    Lord fucking knows they would both remain bastions of fucking wealth were the US to pull the nafta rug out from under their fucking feet.  Give me a fucking break.  Yea, Canadia sure is an imposing economic figure!  Just look at all that trade deficit that they ALREADY don't muster.  Yea, dude!  I'm fucking AFRAID of Canadia!  THIS is why you stupid, free market motherfuckers avoid Trade disparity like a cat does a bath.
> 
> 
> 
> Americas trade imbalance with Canada grew by nearly $6 billion in October, according to a report released Thursday by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.
> 
> American companies exported $22.01 billion of goods to Canada during the month, but U.S. consumers bought $27.97 billion of Canadian imports. The result was a shortfall of $5.96 billion.
> U.S.-Canada trade deficit nears $6B - Wichita Business Journal:
Click to expand...


How much of that is the strength of our currency relative to theirs?


----------



## sealybobo

elvis3577 said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> do you find out where Obama is every day so you can face that direction when you worship him?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uh, weren't you JUST crying on someone's shoulder about how THEY get personal, guy?  funny how that works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you referring to?
Click to expand...


Stand for Liberty said this to you yesterday:  Don't sweat it elvis, that's just a tactic weaker minds take when they cannot defeat your arguements with reason or logic, they try to change the subject and make it personal. I'm guessing the next thing he'll wanna know is your religion so he can attempt to attack that instead of actually addressing the content of your posts. 

So then you have a weak mind?  And do you do it because you cannot defeat our arguments with reason or logic?  

Seems like Stands4liberty was talking about you.


----------



## sealybobo

Shogun said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama was very clever in how he worded things.
> 
> Obama said he was going to fix what is wrong with NAFTA:
> 
> The Canadian Government says it was the Clinton campaign who told them not to worry about NAFTA, not Obama's.
> 
> NAFTA-Gate Shocker: Did Hillary's Camp Lie and Frame Obama? | Video | AlterNet
> 
> Now that we know from the 11,000 pages of Clinton White House documents released this week that former First Lady was an ardent advocate for NAFTA; now that we know she held at least five meetings to strategize about how to win congressional approval of the deal; now that we know she was in the thick of the manuevering to block the efforts of labor, farm, environmental and human rights groups to get a better agreement. Now that we know all of this, how should we assess the claim that Hillary's heart has always beaten to a fair-trade rhythm?
> 
> Now that we know from official records of her time as First Lady that Clinton was the featured speaker at a closed-door session where 120 women opinion leaders were hectored to pressure their congressional representatives to approve NAFTA; now that we know from ABC News reporting on the session that "her remarks were totally pro-NAFTA" and that "there was no equivocation for her support for NAFTA at the time;" now that we have these details confirmed, what should we make of Clinton's campaign claim that she was never comfortable with the militant free-trade agenda that has cost the United States hundreds of thousands of union jobs, that has idled entire industries, that has saddled this country with record trade deficits, undermined the security of working families in the US and abroad, and has forced Mexican farmers off their land into an economic refugee status that ultimately forces them to cross the Rio Grande River in search of work?
> 
> As she campaigns now, Clinton says, "I have been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning."
> 
> But the White House records confirm that this is not true.
> 
> Her statement is, to be precise, a lie.
> 
> When it comes to the essential test of the trade debate, Clinton has been identified as a liar - a put-in-boldface-type "L-I-A-R" liar.
> 
> Some Canadian news outlets reported last week that Barack Obama's campaign had reached out to Canadian officials, telling them to effectively ignore Obama's concerns about NAFTA, claiming the rhetoric was just political posturing. Those reports turned out to be false. Canadian news also noted that Obama aides had contacted the Canadian ambassador with the same message. That turned out to be false, too. Both Hillary Clinton and John McCain read almost identical talking points, but much of the accusations proved to be unfounded. Nevertheless, given the attention and scrutiny, the largely controversy had a fairly significant impact in Tuesday's primaries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> do you find out where Obama is every day so you can face that direction when you worship him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> uh, weren't you JUST crying on someone's shoulder about how THEY get personal, guy?  funny how that works.
Click to expand...


It was Stand4liberty who said it, but he was talking to his lover Elvis.  He said:

Don't sweat it elvis, that's just a tactic weaker minds take when they cannot defeat your arguements with reason or logic, they try to change the subject and make it personal. I'm guessing the next thing he'll wanna know is your religion so he can attempt to attack that instead of actually addressing the content of your posts.


----------



## Shogun

STAND4LIBERTY said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sealy...I'm on your side,   I am a protectionist.  More jobs for more American is a good thing for America...there is no downside.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except for the fact that protectionism has never worked in a developed industrialized nation, unless of course you consider lowering standards of living "working", all it does is inflict deadweight loss on the economy with no appreciable long term benefits, not to mention giving today's global economy runs the risk of inviting retaliation from our trading partners.
> 
> What if instead of China not sending us any "wobbly-headed plastic dolls" China instead decides to say .. stop financing our debt and dumps dollars on the open market, or Canada decides to say sell their oil to the Chinese and Indians instead of the United States, you think you'll still be forging that steel in Eerie Pennsylvania?... "no downside", that's a good one.
> 
> Heck even that hero of the left Paul Krugman opposes protectionism.
Click to expand...


OH yea!  Just take a fucking gander at what your FREE TRADE BULLSHIT has done for Mexico-US TRADE DEFICITS!


Month 	Exports 	Imports 	Balance
January 2009 	9,790.6 	12,474.6 	-2,684.0
February 2009 	9,277.0 	12,371.7 	-3,094.7
March 2009 	10,020.1 	13,929.9 	-3,909.8
TOTAL 	29,087.7 	38,776.2 	-9,688.5

FTD - Statistics - Country Data - U.S. Trade Balance with Mexico


GOOD JOB, DUDE!  BRAV-FUCKING-O  


CHINA, you say?  Well let me go ahead and provide facts and figures that your reptilian fucking brain tries to avoid with bullshit jargon.. Ready, lil guy?  Strap on your fucking seat belt!


Month 	Exports 	Imports 	Balance
January 2009 	4,178.1 	24,748.0 	-20,569.9
February 2009 	4,678.4 	18,874.5 	-14,196.1
March 2009 	5,569.9 	21,187.7 	-15,617.8
TOTAL 	14,426.5 	64,810.2 	*-50,383.7*

FTD - Statistics - Country Data - U.S. Trade Balance with China


Gosh, I WONDER what that NEGATIVE sign means, dickhead!


----------



## elvis

sealybobo said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> uh, weren't you JUST crying on someone's shoulder about how THEY get personal, guy?  funny how that works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you referring to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stand for Liberty said this to you yesterday:  Don't sweat it elvis, that's just a tactic weaker minds take when they cannot defeat your arguements with reason or logic, they try to change the subject and make it personal. I'm guessing the next thing he'll wanna know is your religion so he can attempt to attack that instead of actually addressing the content of your posts.
> 
> So then you have a weak mind?  And do you do it because you cannot defeat our arguments with reason or logic?
> 
> Seems like Stands4liberty was talking about you.
Click to expand...


Maybe you'd like to explain what the fuck that has to do with whether or not I was  crying about things being personal.


----------



## sealybobo

elvis3577 said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> STAND4LIBERTY said:
> 
> 
> 
> SHOCKING! You mean our statist, pro-protectionism President wants to "renegotiate" existing trade agreements, say it ain't so Joe..... I wonder what he'll do if the Mexicans and Canadians tell him to go bugger off?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, Mexico and Canadia really have that kind of a trump card!    Lord fucking knows they would both remain bastions of fucking wealth were the US to pull the nafta rug out from under their fucking feet.  Give me a fucking break.  Yea, Canadia sure is an imposing economic figure!  Just look at all that trade deficit that they ALREADY don't muster.  Yea, dude!  I'm fucking AFRAID of Canadia!  THIS is why you stupid, free market motherfuckers avoid Trade disparity like a cat does a bath.
> 
> 
> 
> Americas trade imbalance with Canada grew by nearly $6 billion in October, according to a report released Thursday by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.
> 
> American companies exported $22.01 billion of goods to Canada during the month, but U.S. consumers bought $27.97 billion of Canadian imports. The result was a shortfall of $5.96 billion.
> U.S.-Canada trade deficit nears $6B - Wichita Business Journal:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How much of that is the strength of our currency relative to theirs?
Click to expand...


Not enough to make you right.


----------



## elvis

sealybobo said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, Mexico and Canadia really have that kind of a trump card!    Lord fucking knows they would both remain bastions of fucking wealth were the US to pull the nafta rug out from under their fucking feet.  Give me a fucking break.  Yea, Canadia sure is an imposing economic figure!  Just look at all that trade deficit that they ALREADY don't muster.  Yea, dude!  I'm fucking AFRAID of Canadia!  THIS is why you stupid, free market motherfuckers avoid Trade disparity like a cat does a bath.
> 
> 
> 
> Americas trade imbalance with Canada grew by nearly $6 billion in October, according to a report released Thursday by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.
> 
> American companies exported $22.01 billion of goods to Canada during the month, but U.S. consumers bought $27.97 billion of Canadian imports. The result was a shortfall of $5.96 billion.
> U.S.-Canada trade deficit nears $6B - Wichita Business Journal:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How much of that is the strength of our currency relative to theirs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not enough to make you right.
Click to expand...


I was asking for his opinion on the matter, you stupid ****.


----------



## sealybobo

elvis3577 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are you referring to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stand for Liberty said this to you yesterday:  Don't sweat it elvis, that's just a tactic weaker minds take when they cannot defeat your arguements with reason or logic, they try to change the subject and make it personal. I'm guessing the next thing he'll wanna know is your religion so he can attempt to attack that instead of actually addressing the content of your posts.
> 
> So then you have a weak mind?  And do you do it because you cannot defeat our arguments with reason or logic?
> 
> Seems like Stands4liberty was talking about you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you'd like to explain what the fuck that has to do with whether or not I was  crying about things being personal.
Click to expand...


I replied with fact/logic/details and you came back with this:

"do you find out where Obama is every day so you can face that direction when you worship him?"

I agree with stan4liberty.   Your reply is what you get when weaker minds cannot defeat your arguements with reason or logic, they try to change the subject and make it personal. Rather than actually addressing the content of my post.


----------



## elvis

sealybobo said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stand for Liberty said this to you yesterday:  Don't sweat it elvis, that's just a tactic weaker minds take when they cannot defeat your arguements with reason or logic, they try to change the subject and make it personal. I'm guessing the next thing he'll wanna know is your religion so he can attempt to attack that instead of actually addressing the content of your posts.
> 
> So then you have a weak mind?  And do you do it because you cannot defeat our arguments with reason or logic?
> 
> Seems like Stands4liberty was talking about you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you'd like to explain what the fuck that has to do with whether or not I was  crying about things being personal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I replied with fact/logic/details and you came back with this:
> 
> "do you find out where Obama is every day so you can face that direction when you worship him?"
> 
> I agree with stan4liberty.   Your reply is what you get when weaker minds cannot defeat your arguements with reason or logic, they try to change the subject and make it personal. Rather than actually addressing the content of my post.
Click to expand...


Are you an idiot?  what do those comments have to do with Shogun's post?


----------



## Shogun

STAND4LIBERTY said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh dear, pardon please. It's just that your postings are sooooooo, um, _deep_ that I have to read them several times before ah git what yer sayin'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I were you I'd forgo any attempt at witty sarcasm about "postings" and "depth" when your lack of reading comprehension is being called into question.
> 
> Besides you own musing aren't exactly Walt Whitman and people in glass houses probably shouldn't take up rock throwing as a hobby. Perhaps instead you should just stick with the inane talking point parroting, you seem to have a talent for that.
Click to expand...


Thats pretty funny coming from the guy who sounds like Ken Mehlman in the spin room during his entire foray into this thread.  Read any interesting trade deficit stats lately or does your free market capitalista bullshit keep you from noticing the negative sign in front of the big, scary number?


----------



## sealybobo

elvis3577 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much of that is the strength of our currency relative to theirs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not enough to make you right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was asking for his opinion on the matter, you stupid ****.
Click to expand...


Elvis was a hero to some but he never meant shit to me you see he's flat out racist, simple and plain so fuck him and John Wayne.


----------



## sealybobo

elvis3577 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you'd like to explain what the fuck that has to do with whether or not I was  crying about things being personal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I replied with fact/logic/details and you came back with this:
> 
> "do you find out where Obama is every day so you can face that direction when you worship him?"
> 
> I agree with stan4liberty.   Your reply is what you get when weaker minds cannot defeat your arguements with reason or logic, they try to change the subject and make it personal. Rather than actually addressing the content of my post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you an idiot?  what do those comments have to do with Shogun's post?
Click to expand...


I'm done explaining it to you shit for brains.


----------



## elvis

sealybobo said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not enough to make you right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was asking for his opinion on the matter, you stupid ****.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Elvis was a hero to some but he never meant shit to me you see he's flat out racist, simple and plain so fuck him and John Wayne.
Click to expand...


I'm going to steal from shogun.  Your opinion of Elvis Presley and John Wayne means two things to me:  Jack and Shit.


----------



## Shogun

Missourian said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> Canadian whiskey is like Kentucky Bourbon with a bite. A "pro" can tell the difference. My husband only drank Crown Royal for years until he drank too much of it, lost his job, then would drink anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell the difference just fine, which is why I consider Canadian whiskey to be crap. I prefer American or Irish.
> 
> Nevertheless, whiskey is something they sell us besides oil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Once again shamelessly promoting my home state, McCormick Distillery in Weston Missouri is the nations oldest continuously operating distillery. They produce the finest American Whiskey to be had anywhere. They also distill a very fine Canadian Whiskey.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.mccormickdistilling.com/content/index.php​
Click to expand...


Although I do hate Mccormick alcohol (come on, enough with the plastic bottles and orange whiskey) I knew a gal who knew a dude who designed a few of their bottles.


Nice Missouri plug though.  VIVA THE SHOW ME STATE!


----------



## elvis

Shogun said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama was very clever in how he worded things.
> 
> Obama said he was going to fix what is wrong with NAFTA:
> 
> The Canadian Government says it was the Clinton campaign who told them not to worry about NAFTA, not Obama's.
> 
> NAFTA-Gate Shocker: Did Hillary's Camp Lie and Frame Obama? | Video | AlterNet
> 
> Now that we know from the 11,000 pages of Clinton White House documents released this week that former First Lady was an ardent advocate for NAFTA; now that we know she held at least five meetings to strategize about how to win congressional approval of the deal; now that we know she was in the thick of the manuevering to block the efforts of labor, farm, environmental and human rights groups to get a better agreement. Now that we know all of this, how should we assess the claim that Hillary's heart has always beaten to a fair-trade rhythm?
> 
> Now that we know from official records of her time as First Lady that Clinton was the featured speaker at a closed-door session where 120 women opinion leaders were hectored to pressure their congressional representatives to approve NAFTA; now that we know from ABC News reporting on the session that "her remarks were totally pro-NAFTA" and that "there was no equivocation for her support for NAFTA at the time;" now that we have these details confirmed, what should we make of Clinton's campaign claim that she was never comfortable with the militant free-trade agenda that has cost the United States hundreds of thousands of union jobs, that has idled entire industries, that has saddled this country with record trade deficits, undermined the security of working families in the US and abroad, and has forced Mexican farmers off their land into an economic refugee status that ultimately forces them to cross the Rio Grande River in search of work?
> 
> As she campaigns now, Clinton says, "I have been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning."
> 
> But the White House records confirm that this is not true.
> 
> Her statement is, to be precise, a lie.
> 
> When it comes to the essential test of the trade debate, Clinton has been identified as a liar - a put-in-boldface-type "L-I-A-R" liar.
> 
> Some Canadian news outlets reported last week that Barack Obama's campaign had reached out to Canadian officials, telling them to effectively ignore Obama's concerns about NAFTA, claiming the rhetoric was just political posturing. Those reports turned out to be false. Canadian news also noted that Obama aides had contacted the Canadian ambassador with the same message. That turned out to be false, too. Both Hillary Clinton and John McCain read almost identical talking points, but much of the accusations proved to be unfounded. Nevertheless, given the attention and scrutiny, the largely controversy had a fairly significant impact in Tuesday's primaries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> do you find out where Obama is every day so you can face that direction when you worship him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> uh, weren't you JUST crying on someone's shoulder about how THEY get personal, guy?  funny how that works.
Click to expand...


Nope, someone commented that Bobo attacked me for my voting record.  all I said was that he wasn't able to surmise my voting record.


----------



## Shogun

elvis3577 said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> STAND4LIBERTY said:
> 
> 
> 
> SHOCKING! You mean our statist, pro-protectionism President wants to "renegotiate" existing trade agreements, say it ain't so Joe..... I wonder what he'll do if the Mexicans and Canadians tell him to go bugger off?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, Mexico and Canadia really have that kind of a trump card!    Lord fucking knows they would both remain bastions of fucking wealth were the US to pull the nafta rug out from under their fucking feet.  Give me a fucking break.  Yea, Canadia sure is an imposing economic figure!  Just look at all that trade deficit that they ALREADY don't muster.  Yea, dude!  I'm fucking AFRAID of Canadia!  THIS is why you stupid, free market motherfuckers avoid Trade disparity like a cat does a bath.
> 
> 
> 
> Americas trade imbalance with Canada grew by nearly $6 billion in October, according to a report released Thursday by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.
> 
> American companies exported $22.01 billion of goods to Canada during the month, but U.S. consumers bought $27.97 billion of Canadian imports. The result was a shortfall of $5.96 billion.
> U.S.-Canada trade deficit nears $6B - Wichita Business Journal:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How much of that is the strength of our currency relative to theirs?
Click to expand...


Are you going to attempt the same sidestpe with China too?  Do you think I'll run out of examples of the US getting pwned by bad trade deals and nations who don't import as much as WE do?


----------



## elvis

Shogun said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, Mexico and Canadia really have that kind of a trump card!    Lord fucking knows they would both remain bastions of fucking wealth were the US to pull the nafta rug out from under their fucking feet.  Give me a fucking break.  Yea, Canadia sure is an imposing economic figure!  Just look at all that trade deficit that they ALREADY don't muster.  Yea, dude!  I'm fucking AFRAID of Canadia!  THIS is why you stupid, free market motherfuckers avoid Trade disparity like a cat does a bath.
> 
> 
> 
> Americas trade imbalance with Canada grew by nearly $6 billion in October, according to a report released Thursday by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.
> 
> American companies exported $22.01 billion of goods to Canada during the month, but U.S. consumers bought $27.97 billion of Canadian imports. The result was a shortfall of $5.96 billion.
> U.S.-Canada trade deficit nears $6B - Wichita Business Journal:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How much of that is the strength of our currency relative to theirs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you going to attempt the same sidestpe with China too?  Do you think I'll run out of examples of the US getting pwned by bad trade deals and nations who don't import as much as WE do?
Click to expand...


Nope.  asking about your opinion on Canada.  China artificially lowers the value of their currency.


----------



## Shogun

elvis3577 said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> do you find out where Obama is every day so you can face that direction when you worship him?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uh, weren't you JUST crying on someone's shoulder about how THEY get personal, guy?  funny how that works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you referring to?
Click to expand...




elvis3577 said:


> STAND4LIBERTY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> funny how you think you know my voting record, considering you keep guessing incorrectly.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't sweat it elvis, that's just a tactic weaker minds take when they cannot defeat your arguements with reason or logic, they try to change the subject and make it personal.  I'm guessing the next thing he'll wanna know is your religion so he can attempt to attack that instead of actually addressing the content of your posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Oh he will and has.*
Click to expand...


Looking familiar yet, tex?


----------



## elvis

Shogun said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> uh, weren't you JUST crying on someone's shoulder about how THEY get personal, guy?  funny how that works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you referring to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> STAND4LIBERTY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't sweat it elvis, that's just a tactic weaker minds take when they cannot defeat your arguements with reason or logic, they try to change the subject and make it personal.  I'm guessing the next thing he'll wanna know is your religion so he can attempt to attack that instead of actually addressing the content of your posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Oh he will and has.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Looking familiar yet, tex?
Click to expand...


That wasn't crying.  I was stating a fact.  Make fun of my religion all you want.  I could care less.


----------



## Shogun

elvis3577 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was asking for his opinion on the matter, you stupid ****.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Elvis was a hero to some but he never meant shit to me you see he's flat out racist, simple and plain so fuck him and John Wayne.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm going to steal from shogun.  Your opinion of Elvis Presley and John Wayne means two things to me:  Jack and Shit.
Click to expand...


HA!

good one!  that made me laugh.

rep for you.


But, I quoted exactly what I'm referring to.  I'm a big fan of evidence like that.


----------



## Shogun

elvis3577 said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much of that is the strength of our currency relative to theirs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you going to attempt the same sidestpe with China too?  Do you think I'll run out of examples of the US getting pwned by bad trade deals and nations who don't import as much as WE do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  asking about your opinion on Canada.  China artificially lowers the value of their currency.
Click to expand...


Perhaps.. but the numbers show that the US is getting the short end of the stick with massive trade deficits all day long.  And has for 20 years.  This is why the whole "free trade' shit is nothing more than a ruse used by greedy fucks whose wallets are more important than the nation crumbling around them.  By throwing the middle class under the bus for the sake of "competitiveness" with a fucking Chinese sweat shop the US is weakened economically all the way around the block.  Our collective cunsuming ability is gutted as capitalistas cry about fucking HEALTH insurance while looking for any way to drive the cost of labor down to the cost that, again, slave shops enjoy.  Sure, dude.. we'd be pretty fucking competitive making Nikes if we paid labor 1 dollar an hour to work 25 hours a day...  But are you a fool enough to think this WONT impact our cultural standard of living by lowering it to that enjoyed by Chinese sweat shop slaves?


----------



## Shogun

elvis3577 said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are you referring to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Oh he will and has.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Looking familiar yet, tex?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That wasn't crying.  I was stating a fact.  Make fun of my religion all you want.  I could care less.
Click to expand...


perhaps...  but then you turned right around and played the same shit talking ballgame.  just saying.


oh, and I tried to pos rep you but I have to spread it around.  Hit me up the next time we're battling it out in a thread about israel.  which...


----------



## elvis

Shogun said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you going to attempt the same sidestpe with China too?  Do you think I'll run out of examples of the US getting pwned by bad trade deals and nations who don't import as much as WE do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  asking about your opinion on Canada.  China artificially lowers the value of their currency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps.. but the numbers show that the US is getting the short end of the stick with massive trade deficits all day long.  And has for 20 years.  This is why the whole "free trade' shit is nothing more than a ruse used by greedy fucks whose wallets are more important than the nation crumbling around them.  By throwing the middle class under the bus for the sake of "competitiveness" with a fucking Chinese sweat shop the US is weakened economically all the way around the block.  Our collective cunsuming ability is gutted as capitalistas cry about fucking HEALTH insurance while looking for any way to drive the cost of labor down to the cost that, again, slave shops enjoy.  Sure, dude.. we'd be pretty fucking competitive making Nikes if we paid labor 1 dollar an hour to work 25 hours a day...  But are you a fool enough to think this WONT impact our cultural standard of living by lowering it to that enjoyed by Chinese sweat shop slaves?
Click to expand...


It makes it tough.  I read an article recently that said in 10 years, the associates degree will be as important as the GED/diploma is now.  It seems everyone will have to specialize just to make ends meet.


----------



## elvis

Shogun said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looking familiar yet, tex?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't crying.  I was stating a fact.  Make fun of my religion all you want.  I could care less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> perhaps...  but then you turned right around and played the same shit talking ballgame.  just saying.
> 
> 
> oh, and I tried to pos rep you but I have to spread it around.  Hit me up the next time we're battling it out in a thread about israel.  which...
Click to expand...


In a way I did.  does this mean you agree that bobo's religion is Obamism?


----------



## Shogun

elvis3577 said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  asking about your opinion on Canada.  China artificially lowers the value of their currency.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps.. but the numbers show that the US is getting the short end of the stick with massive trade deficits all day long.  And has for 20 years.  This is why the whole "free trade' shit is nothing more than a ruse used by greedy fucks whose wallets are more important than the nation crumbling around them.  By throwing the middle class under the bus for the sake of "competitiveness" with a fucking Chinese sweat shop the US is weakened economically all the way around the block.  Our collective cunsuming ability is gutted as capitalistas cry about fucking HEALTH insurance while looking for any way to drive the cost of labor down to the cost that, again, slave shops enjoy.  Sure, dude.. we'd be pretty fucking competitive making Nikes if we paid labor 1 dollar an hour to work 25 hours a day...  But are you a fool enough to think this WONT impact our cultural standard of living by lowering it to that enjoyed by Chinese sweat shop slaves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It makes it tough.  I read an article recently that said in 10 years, the associates degree will be as important as the GED/diploma is now.  It seems everyone will have to specialize just to make ends meet.
Click to expand...


Thats just it though.. we don't HAVE to sacrifice America on the cross of free market capitalism just because some batshit crazy asshole likes to hide behind jargon and self righteousness.  Look at the example of Alan Greenspan.  In the early 90s he was busy preaching about the same shit we hear from the above dickhead about free markets blah blah blah.. and, how did that turn out?  What was his ADMISSIONS after the fact?  There is nothing wrong with a nation using strategies meant to protect itself against competing market forces.  We lose every time when free traders think with their wallet dicks instead of their national heads.  Trade deficits?  FAIL.  Standard of living?  FAIL.  employment opportunities?  double fucking fail.  The US didn't become a first world state by selling out to foreign labor on the advice of economic free agents.  Our (once) solid middle class and it's consuming power is NOT the product of hemorrhaging our national prerogative to the lowest foreign bidder.  This is EXACTLY why the bitch above hides behind bullhsit jargon instead of admitting that by "competitiveness" he means normalizing OUR standard of living with that of a chinese pauper.  Or, lord fucking knows, Nafta loving Mexicans.


----------



## Shogun

elvis3577 said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't crying.  I was stating a fact.  Make fun of my religion all you want.  I could care less.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> perhaps...  but then you turned right around and played the same shit talking ballgame.  just saying.
> 
> 
> oh, and I tried to pos rep you but I have to spread it around.  Hit me up the next time we're battling it out in a thread about israel.  which...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In a way I did.  does this mean you agree that bobo's religion is Obamism?
Click to expand...


Like  wise man once told me: I don't have a dog in that race.  But, I will say this...  Obama is trying to BUY AMERICAN.  Bush, and those who voted for him, keep trying to sell out our American standard of living for the sake of rhetorical bullshit that we SEE yields nothing but economic turds.  You may resent Bobo's infatuation with Obama... but in THIS case he is right on the fucking money.  We can't keep living if we continue to bleed out all over the the world.


----------



## elvis

Shogun said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> perhaps...  but then you turned right around and played the same shit talking ballgame.  just saying.
> 
> 
> oh, and I tried to pos rep you but I have to spread it around.  Hit me up the next time we're battling it out in a thread about israel.  which...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a way I did.  does this mean you agree that bobo's religion is Obamism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like  wise man once told me: I don't have a dog in that race.  But, I will say this...  Obama is trying to BUY AMERICAN.  Bush, and those who voted for him, keep trying to sell out our American standard of living for the sake of rhetorical bullshit that we SEE yields nothing but economic turds.  You may resent Bobo's infatuation with Obama... but in THIS case he is right on the fucking money.  We can't keep living if we continue to bleed out all over the the world.
Click to expand...


that may be true, but Obama, himself, IS a free-trade guy.  Remember his comments about Ohioans "clinging to anti-trade."  Clinton, Bush, and Obama are no different on this issue, whether they claim to be dems or repubs.


----------



## Shogun

elvis3577 said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In a way I did.  does this mean you agree that bobo's religion is Obamism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like  wise man once told me: I don't have a dog in that race.  But, I will say this...  Obama is trying to BUY AMERICAN.  Bush, and those who voted for him, keep trying to sell out our American standard of living for the sake of rhetorical bullshit that we SEE yields nothing but economic turds.  You may resent Bobo's infatuation with Obama... but in THIS case he is right on the fucking money.  We can't keep living if we continue to bleed out all over the the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that may be true, but Obama, himself, IS a free-trade guy.  Remember his comments about Ohioans "clinging to anti-trade."  Clinton, Bush, and Obama are no different on this issue, whether they claim to be dems or repubs.
Click to expand...


Obama is a politician.  He is about as "free trade" as Bush was "for illegal amnesty".  we know how they all talk out of both sides of their mouths.  But, at least he is trying to preserve the domestic economy instead of selling it to the highest foreign bidder.  Hell, remember when Bush was about to sell rights to a PORT to Dubai?  In the shadow of 9/11?  Why the hell would we sell ANY port access to ANY foreign entity?  Ever?


----------



## elvis

Shogun said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like  wise man once told me: I don't have a dog in that race.  But, I will say this...  Obama is trying to BUY AMERICAN.  Bush, and those who voted for him, keep trying to sell out our American standard of living for the sake of rhetorical bullshit that we SEE yields nothing but economic turds.  You may resent Bobo's infatuation with Obama... but in THIS case he is right on the fucking money.  We can't keep living if we continue to bleed out all over the the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that may be true, but Obama, himself, IS a free-trade guy.  Remember his comments about Ohioans "clinging to anti-trade."  Clinton, Bush, and Obama are no different on this issue, whether they claim to be dems or repubs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama is a politician.  He is about as "free trade" as Bush was "for illegal amnesty".  we know how they all talk out of both sides of their mouths.  But, at least he is trying to preserve the domestic economy instead of selling it to the highest foreign bidder.  Hell, remember when Bush was about to sell rights to a PORT to Dubai?  In the shadow of 9/11?  Why the hell would we sell ANY port access to ANY foreign entity?  Ever?
Click to expand...


Trying to sell the ports to Dubai was damned near treasonous.  especially after the whoopla about terrorists smuggling nukes onto freighters and blowing up our ports.


----------



## Toro

Shogun said:


> STAND4LIBERTY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Barack Obama, who threatened during the presidential campaign to withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement unless he could renegotiate it, may delay trying to rework the accord as he focuses on the U.S. economic crisis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SHOCKING! You mean our statist, pro-protectionism President wants to "renegotiate" existing trade agreements, say it ain't so Joe..... I wonder what he'll do if the Mexicans and Canadians tell him to go bugger off?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea, Mexico and Canadia really have that kind of a trump card!    Lord fucking knows they would both remain bastions of fucking wealth were the US to pull the nafta rug out from under their fucking feet.  Give me a fucking break.  Yea, Canadia sure is an imposing economic figure!  Just look at all that trade deficit that they ALREADY don't muster.  Yea, dude!  I'm fucking AFRAID of Canadia!  THIS is why you stupid, free market motherfuckers avoid Trade disparity like a cat does a bath.
> 
> 
> 
> America&#8217;s trade imbalance with Canada grew by nearly $6 billion in October, according to a report released Thursday by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.
> 
> American companies exported $22.01 billion of goods to Canada during the month, but U.S. consumers bought $27.97 billion of Canadian imports. The result was a shortfall of $5.96 billion.
> U.S.-Canada trade deficit nears $6B - Wichita Business Journal:
Click to expand...


Most of that trade deficit is oil.  

Aaaaannnndddd from where does America import most of its oil?

Why Canada of course!

Crude Oil and Total Petroleum Imports Top 15 Countries

Number two is Mexico.

How long would you survive without oil?


----------



## Toro

"Buy America" is merely protectionism.  This is terrible policy by the Obama administration.

Let's not forget the last time the world got all protectionist during a severe economic downturn.



> Using panel data estimates of export and import equations for 17 countries, Jakob B. Madsen (2002) estimated the effects of increasing tariff and non-tariff trade barriers on worldwide trade during the period 19291932. He concluded that real international trade contracted somewhere around 33% overall. His estimates of the impact of various factors included about 14% because of declining GNP in each country, 8% because of increases in tariff rates, 5% because of deflation-induced tariff increases, and 6% because of the imposition of nontariff barriers.



Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah, reeeeeaaaaal intelligent.


----------



## elvis

Toro said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> STAND4LIBERTY said:
> 
> 
> 
> SHOCKING! You mean our statist, pro-protectionism President wants to "renegotiate" existing trade agreements, say it ain't so Joe..... I wonder what he'll do if the Mexicans and Canadians tell him to go bugger off?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, Mexico and Canadia really have that kind of a trump card!    Lord fucking knows they would both remain bastions of fucking wealth were the US to pull the nafta rug out from under their fucking feet.  Give me a fucking break.  Yea, Canadia sure is an imposing economic figure!  Just look at all that trade deficit that they ALREADY don't muster.  Yea, dude!  I'm fucking AFRAID of Canadia!  THIS is why you stupid, free market motherfuckers avoid Trade disparity like a cat does a bath.
> 
> 
> 
> America&#8217;s trade imbalance with Canada grew by nearly $6 billion in October, according to a report released Thursday by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.
> 
> American companies exported $22.01 billion of goods to Canada during the month, but U.S. consumers bought $27.97 billion of Canadian imports. The result was a shortfall of $5.96 billion.
> U.S.-Canada trade deficit nears $6B - Wichita Business Journal:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of that trade deficit is oil.
> 
> Aaaaannnndddd from where does America import most of its oil?
> 
> Why Canada of course!
> 
> Crude Oil and Total Petroleum Imports Top 15 Countries
> 
> Number two is Mexico.
> 
> How long would you survive without oil?
Click to expand...


Economists say free trade is good in theory.  but I am trying to see how it is good in practice.


----------



## Shogun

Toro said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> STAND4LIBERTY said:
> 
> 
> 
> SHOCKING! You mean our statist, pro-protectionism President wants to "renegotiate" existing trade agreements, say it ain't so Joe..... I wonder what he'll do if the Mexicans and Canadians tell him to go bugger off?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, Mexico and Canadia really have that kind of a trump card!    Lord fucking knows they would both remain bastions of fucking wealth were the US to pull the nafta rug out from under their fucking feet.  Give me a fucking break.  Yea, Canadia sure is an imposing economic figure!  Just look at all that trade deficit that they ALREADY don't muster.  Yea, dude!  I'm fucking AFRAID of Canadia!  THIS is why you stupid, free market motherfuckers avoid Trade disparity like a cat does a bath.
> 
> 
> 
> Americas trade imbalance with Canada grew by nearly $6 billion in October, according to a report released Thursday by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.
> 
> American companies exported $22.01 billion of goods to Canada during the month, but U.S. consumers bought $27.97 billion of Canadian imports. The result was a shortfall of $5.96 billion.
> U.S.-Canada trade deficit nears $6B - Wichita Business Journal:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of that trade deficit is oil.
> 
> Aaaaannnndddd from where does America import most of its oil?
> 
> Why Canada of course!
> 
> Crude Oil and Total Petroleum Imports Top 15 Countries
> 
> Number two is Mexico.
> 
> How long would you survive without oil?
Click to expand...


I guess that depends on how soon we are willing to invest in American energy options beyond all the crybaby bullshit about regulating Auto options.


Not that this deficit is excused by such blatant excuses.  If we import their oil then THEY can import other American goods on par with our energy consumption, YES?


----------



## Shogun

Toro said:


> "Buy America" is merely protectionism.  This is terrible policy by the Obama administration.
> 
> Let's not forget the last time the world got all protectionist during a severe economic downturn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Using panel data *estimates* of export and import equations for 17 countries, Jakob B. Madsen (2002) *estimated* the effects of increasing tariff and non-tariff trade barriers on worldwide trade during the period 19291932. He concluded that real international trade contracted somewhere around 33% overall. His *estimates* of the impact of various factors included about 14% because of declining GNP in each country, 8% because of increases in tariff rates, 5% because of deflation-induced tariff increases, and 6% because of the imposition of nontariff barriers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Yeah, reeeeeaaaaal intelligent.
Click to expand...




I tellya.. your free market *ESTIMATES* really seem to pan out, dont they, Mr. Greenspan?


----------



## Shogun

elvis3577 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, Mexico and Canadia really have that kind of a trump card!    Lord fucking knows they would both remain bastions of fucking wealth were the US to pull the nafta rug out from under their fucking feet.  Give me a fucking break.  Yea, Canadia sure is an imposing economic figure!  Just look at all that trade deficit that they ALREADY don't muster.  Yea, dude!  I'm fucking AFRAID of Canadia!  THIS is why you stupid, free market motherfuckers avoid Trade disparity like a cat does a bath.
> 
> 
> 
> Americas trade imbalance with Canada grew by nearly $6 billion in October, according to a report released Thursday by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.
> 
> American companies exported $22.01 billion of goods to Canada during the month, but U.S. consumers bought $27.97 billion of Canadian imports. The result was a shortfall of $5.96 billion.
> U.S.-Canada trade deficit nears $6B - Wichita Business Journal:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of that trade deficit is oil.
> 
> Aaaaannnndddd from where does America import most of its oil?
> 
> Why Canada of course!
> 
> Crude Oil and Total Petroleum Imports Top 15 Countries
> 
> Number two is Mexico.
> 
> How long would you survive without oil?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Economists say free trade is good in theory.  but I am trying to see how it is good in practice.
Click to expand...



I can show you some post-fiasco Alan Greenspan quotes that can clarify just how much of an utter fucking FAIL they are if you'd like.


----------



## Steve Jobs

sealybobo said:


> You don't get your oil from Alaska.  You get yours from S. America, Canada, Africa and the Arab world.



You tell me nothing I do not already know.

*crawls down to sealybobo's level*

I meant to imply that I *WISH* my oil were Alaskan.

Jesus H. Tapdancing Christ...


----------



## sealybobo

Steve Jobs said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't get your oil from Alaska.  You get yours from S. America, Canada, Africa and the Arab world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You tell me nothing I do not already know.
> 
> *crawls down to sealybobo's level*
> 
> I meant to imply that I *WISH* my oil were Alaskan.
> 
> Jesus H. Tapdancing Christ...
Click to expand...


Remember we wanted all the economic stimulus money to go to American companies but multinational corporations complained so the politicians took that rule out?  

Looks like the Chinese play by their own rules:

Asia Times Online :: China News, China Business News, Taiwan and Hong Kong News and Business.

HONG KONG - Foreign businesses keen to benefit from China's 4 trillion yuan (US$586 billion) economic stimulus package announced last November are being thwarted by Chinese government insistence that the funds are public and their spending must therefore be governed by government procurement law. 

This stipulates that public purchases must give priority to Chinese-made products and domestically generated services. Chinese officials also say the procurement law is largely bypassed in practice, especially by local-authority officials. Efforts are being made to limit such deals.


----------

