Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Hmmm.. maybe you should check the topic of thread and the poster before you simply "respond"?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.
*hint: this thread has nothing to do with GM or Chrysler nor was I referring to either company in the post you responded to.
So I guess that makes it okay to just keep robotically repeating it?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?The "you people" phrase originated with none other than Rush Limbaugh, years ago. Imagine that...
Smarts when the tables are turned, eh? Tough.
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.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'.
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.
did you get used it when a majority of independents and republicans supported Bush?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.
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.
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.
did you get used it when a majority of independents and republicans supported Bush?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.
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.
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..
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.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'.
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.
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.A lot of threads that have hundreds of comments don't rigidly stick to the typed topic.
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.Are you nuts or just a creep constantly trolling for a fight?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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%)
Canadaâs Top Exports & Imports: Most Popular Products in Trade Between Canada & America | Suite101.com
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.funny how you think you know my voting record, considering you keep guessing incorrectly.
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.
do you find out where Obama is every day so you can face that direction when you worship him?
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?
uh, weren't you JUST crying on someone's shoulder about how THEY get personal, guy? funny how that works.
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?
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.
