# NAFTA: Post Election



## Gurdari (Nov 4, 2008)

So, Obama mentioned he would revisit that agreement - McCain less so, I believe.


I say we scrap the unfair parts, or re-write the entire thing.
Too many abdications of soveeign power and allowing corporations to sue governments for protecting their citizens... it took a back-stabbing sell out to sign it in the first place (Mulroney) but we'll see if, ironically enough, the side that gets the best out of NAFTA wants to change it!


----------



## Toro (Nov 4, 2008)

There will be no changes of consequence to NAFTA.

There is no reason for changes.  NAFTA works pretty well.


----------



## Gurdari (Nov 5, 2008)

NAFTA lets governments have less power over their own laws than corporations. I am one of those who think that is a stupid thing (giving up your ability to protect your people due to a business agreement).

Example, a carcinogenic additive included in shipments of gas was banned. The company who makes the gas sued the Canadian government, and won. Cancer-causing additive goes back into the gas. Thanks to NAFTA. Canada paid something like 350 mil or something else equally appalling. Citizens (except those that research stuff like that) have no idea.

never mind the energy supply agreement between Can/US where Canada cannot reduce the percentage of energy it sends South - even if there is a shortage.
What kind of leader signs away his nation's ability to make its own decisions?


----------



## Mad Scientist (Nov 5, 2008)

Obama said during the campaign that he would re-write NAFTA. But it was explained by Barrys handlers that that was just election year rhetoric.


----------



## Gurdari (Nov 5, 2008)

Funny thing is - it's way better for the US than it is for Canada and Mexico... if anyone should re-write it should be the little partners.


----------



## Said1 (Nov 26, 2008)

Re-write nafta, are you joking? Obama wouldn't even live to see revisions.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 21, 2009)

Gurdari said:


> Funny thing is - it's way better for the US than it is for Canada and Mexico... if anyone should re-write it should be the little partners.



Oh really?  Is that why Hillary lied to Canada and the Press and said Obama was going to back out of NAFTA?  And Obama had to assure them he wouldn't?  Seemed like they were more worried about us backing out and not the other way around.

Face it, NAFTA is GREAT if you are an American Corporation.  Not so great if you are part of the labor force.

I love it that people blame the Democrats for NAFTA because Clinton signed it. 

1.  Who came up with NAFTA?

2.  Who bitches whenever there is talk about fixing NAFTA?\

3.  Who made NAFTA worse in 2000-2006 with bad deregulations?  

I find it funny that Republicans try to blame Democrats for NAFTA.


----------



## Said1 (Apr 21, 2009)

Moving away from a branch economy, NAFTA made sense, at least for us. NAFTA doesn't address non-tariff barriers, which is probably the direction Obama will go in the realm of restrictions on Canadian imports.


----------



## editec (Apr 21, 2009)

I'll sign onto NAFTA the moment I'm allowed to use the Canadian Health Care system and move to Canada as vote in their elections.

Don't ANY of you find it ironic that_ things have greater freedom to cross borders than PEOPLE do?_


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 21, 2009)

Said1 said:


> Moving away from a branch economy, NAFTA made sense, at least for us. NAFTA doesn't address non-tariff barriers, which is probably the direction Obama will go in the realm of restrictions on Canadian imports.



I'm not the smartest guy in the world.  Not sure what you just said here.  Did you say that Obama is going to try to fix what is wrong with NAFTA?

For who?  Is he going to fix it so it isn't hurting American labor?  Is that what you are saying?

And you said NAFTA made sense for us.  Who's us?  American labor or Corporations?

Why didn't Bush & the GOP do this?


----------



## Said1 (Apr 21, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Said1 said:
> 
> 
> > Moving away from a branch economy, NAFTA made sense, at least for us. NAFTA doesn't address non-tariff barriers, which is probably the direction Obama will go in the realm of restrictions on Canadian imports.
> ...



I don't think he's going to do anything that will alter NAFTA. 



> Who's us?



Canada.



> Why didn't Bush & the GOP do this?



Do what?


----------



## Gurdari (Apr 21, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Gurdari said:
> 
> 
> > Funny thing is - it's way better for the US than it is for Canada and Mexico... if anyone should re-write it should be the little partners.
> ...





Um, yeah - I agree it is for corporations, not labor. Or the environment. Or democracy.

NAFTA was conceived by big business I assume, I assume that because they benefit most from it.

'Fixing' NAFTA is so vague, anyone could bitch about it.

WHo made it worse? No idea.

REPUB/DEMOCRATS are two halves of the same 'business' party anyway.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 21, 2009)

Gurdari said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Gurdari said:
> ...



Republicans cater more to the rich and to corporations, and Democrats are more the labor party.  Can't deny that.  

Who made NAFTA worse between 2000-2006?  Who controlled all three houses then?  The GOP.  They gave corps tax breaks for going overseas.  How nice of the GOP to give corporations a tax break for taking jobs overseas.

Now if 1 or 5 or 10 Democrats signed that bill, that does not  make them equally liable for sending jobs overseas.  

Last thing.  Who did you vote for?  Why did you decide to vote at all if both parties are two halves of the same party?  Huh?  You need to answer me that if you think they are the same.  Why vote then?  What's the diff?  So it didn't matter if Gore won in 2000?  That's bullshit and you know it.  The parties are night and day.  Maybe at dusk and dawn they are hard to tell apart, but the rest of the time one is dark and one is light.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 21, 2009)

Said1 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Said1 said:
> ...



Oh you're Canadian?  Welcome!!!

I thought you said Obama was going to fix NAFTA.  If you said that my question was....never mind.  You're a Canook.

So, how bout them Red Wings?  Up 2 to nothing.


----------



## Said1 (Apr 21, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Said1 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



You obviously quoted the wrong post, then. I know, like your said, you're not very bright.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 21, 2009)

Said1 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Said1 said:
> ...



Bright enough not to follow the Republicans when they were boycotting Canada because you didn't help us invade Iraq.

I don't meet very many conservative Canadians that defend the GOP.  I love it!!!  

PS.  It's 12th grade, not Grade 12.  Learn to speak you fucking canadians.   What grade are you in?  Grade 12 Aye.  

No, it is said "I'm in the 12th grade".


----------



## Said1 (Apr 21, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Said1 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Ok.


----------



## Toro (Apr 21, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> PS.  It's 12th grade, not Grade 12.  Learn to speak you fucking canadians.   What grade are you in?  Grade 12 Aye.



It's not "aye," eh! It's "eh!"

F****** eh!


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 22, 2009)

Toro said:


> There will be no changes of consequence to NAFTA.
> 
> There is no reason for changes.  NAFTA works pretty well.



you've been brainwashed for worse than I ever thought possible.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 22, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Gurdari said:
> 
> 
> > Funny thing is - it's way better for the US than it is for Canada and Mexico... if anyone should re-write it should be the little partners.
> ...



exactly.Yeah its great if your an american corporation but not for the american people.
the american people are still paying for NAFTA because of that bastard Clinton signing it and Bush accelerating it.With Obama in office it will continue to accelerate as well.God i wish Ron Paul had got elected.He was the only candidate against it.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 22, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > There will be no changes of consequence to NAFTA.
> ...



Just remember that Toro is being an honest Republican.  At least he is willing to admit that in the GOP's eyes, NAFTA is is great, they love it and it is working out just fine.

But they don't give any democrats credit for signing nafta.  They use NAFTA against Democrats when arguing with democrats.  But when they are arguing this way, keep in mind they LOVE NAFTA.  

So when you are arguing with them and they say CLINTON SIGNED NAFTA, remember they are talking out of both sides of their mouth.  Because they are trying to talk down about Clinton for doing something they like. 

They make no sense.  

I don't think I explained this right.  Do you get what I am saying?  When they say Dems are no better than Reps, they usually bring up NAFTA.  But they don't tell you that deep down, they like it too.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 22, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Gurdari said:
> ...



People who supported Obama were calling the Ed Schultz show on Air America yesterday saying the exact same things we are saying.

What good are green jobs going to do if we lose 2 million from GM and Chrysler.

Won't the green jobs go overseas too?

Obama isn't doing anything about bringing jobs home

It seems as if GM and Chrysler have given up

And bankrupsy should only be a last resort, because people were promised pensions, and the company should have to pay those pension, not the US gov.

And GM is now talking about going to China to sell  more cars in China.  That's cool, just don't send them here for sale.


----------



## Toro (Apr 22, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > There will be no changes of consequence to NAFTA.
> ...



OK, Mr. FEMA-Coffins.


----------



## Gurdari (Apr 23, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> PS.  It's 12th grade, not Grade 12.  Learn to speak you fucking canadians.   What grade are you in?  Grade 12 Aye.
> 
> No, it is said "I'm in the 12th grade".



Haha, too many Grade 'A' eggs in our diet... time to switch to A grade and be done with it.

However, speaking of funny things, what does 0 degrees reference in Farenheit? It seems weird to have reference numbers of 32 and 212 (or is it 214) and 98 degrees...


----------



## sealybobo (May 5, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Gurdari said:
> ...




Mexico Hits Back With Higher Tarriffs On U.S. Goods

Mexico Hits Back With Higher Tarriffs On U.S. Goods : NPR


----------

