So, we are now all in favor of NAFTA?

[eridani]

Pat Buchanan opposes it, after all, and Buchannan is scum.

[dysfunctional press]

1. i generally try to judge things on my own opinion of their merits or faults...

not what someone else may or may not think about it.

and no- i'm not in favor of nafta. never have been.

[ThomCat]

4. Unfortunately, now that PB is against, and Obama is in favor,

a lot of people here will blindly follow and suddenly be in favor of NAFTA and free trade agreements.

Worse, I'm sure some will rewrite history and insist they were Always in favor of Free trade and insist Obama was too.

[Confusious]

13. WTF Obama's for NAFTA NOW? WTF? WTF?

This deal gets worse and worse all the time.

[boppers]

17. Obama didn't like chunks of it.

OTOH, he liked other chunks.

He's just that way, he doesn't think that *most* things are completely good, or evil.

[Confusious]

21. I'm not either, on most things

Republicans mostly bad, a good one is like finding a needle in a haystack.

NAFTA, bad, like stepping in dog poo. You can clean it off your shoe, if you notice.

[dysfunctional press]

22. "This deal gets worse and worse all the time."

you CANNOT use that line without including a picture of lando. it's a RULE.



billy d...billy d...billy d!

[TK421]

79. "Perhaps you think you're being treated unfairly"?

"Good...it would be unfortunate if I had to move this thread to the Lounge"!

[Ignis]

84. ...

:spray:

Well played.

[ThomCat]

23. One of his first appointments after he took office was Ron Kirk.

Ron Kirk became is Trade Representative. He is staunchly free trade.

It was one of Obama's first public betrayals of his campaign promises. It signaled that all his talk on the campaign trail about the abuses of free trade, and about reigning in free trade and renegotiating free trade agreement were all just bait and switch tactics, lies, to get progressives to vote for him.

[griffi94]

2. wasn't nafta another one those screw jobs

that was supposed to be "fixed" later

[ThomCat]

7. Yes. But once he got into office he suddenly changed his mind.

Not only wasn't he going to fix free trade any more, suddenly he decided to start appointing people who were pro-free trade, and he started working on more free trade agreements.

It was one of his more startling about-faces because it was a kick in the face of environmentalists, the labor movement, and progressives all at once. :(

The fact that the first country he proposed a free trade agreement with was Panama made it worse, because they are a tax shelter country. If Obama implements a free trade agreement with them then the tax shelters are protected and permanent. Corporations can hide profits from taxation there with impunity forever, with Obama's blessings.

[griffi94]

11. i think i'll have another bourbon

and sit here a while and just soak up the change.

[laughingliberal]

29. I can tell you're giddy with excitement. lol nt

[griffi94]

38. i am

my legs all tingly...so i'm either giddy or else i'm having a stroke

[laughingliberal]

43. ROFL! Now that's funny! nt

[fascisthunter]

78. bourbon... the national drink

On 4 May 1964, the United States Congress recognized Bourbon Whiskey as a "distinctive product of the United States." The Federal Standards of Identity for Distilled Spirits (27 C.F.R. 5.22) state that bourbon must meet these requirements:

Bourbon must be made of a grain mixture that is at least 51% corn.<1>
Bourbon must be distilled to no more than 160 (U.S.) proof (80% alcohol by volume).
Bourbon must contain no caramel coloring (E-150)
Bourbon must be aged in new, charred oak aging barrels. <1>
Bourbon may not be stored in the barrel at higher than 125 proof (62.5% alcohol by volume).
Bourbon, like other whiskies, may not be bottled at less than 80 proof (40% alcohol by volume.)
Bourbon which meets the above requirements and has been aged for a minimum of two years, may (but is not required to) be called Straight Bourbon.<2>
Bourbon aged for a period less than four years must be labeled with the duration of its aging.
If an age is stated on the label, it must be the age of the youngest whiskey in the bottle.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourbon_whiskey

[Oregone]

15. He never changed his mind. He was never for renegotiating NAFTA

And if you want to refer to anything he said in the February 27th Ohio debate, I will quickly refute you to pointing out the Canada leak that revealed what he thinks behind closed doors.

[griffi94]

18. i remember that

[boppers]

19. Didn't we just have this discussion?

He was for renegotiation, on some details.

He wasn't serious about cancelling it.

[Oregone]

24. He wasn't serious about any of it (hence the leak)

Thats what you don't get. He contacted Canada and assured them this was all political positioning


Look, I honestly don't care beyond refuting his impeccable image to those who think he never fails (campaigns are ONLY for getting elected, despite what Afghan escalation fans think). As long as most people believe he is the epitome of perfect, there is no united front to fight for real reform. He is a politician, doing what they must do to remain in power. I get it. Id probably lie far more to make up for an offset in charisma. But this example couldn't be more clear. Its not about semantics. It was a flat-out, bold-faced lie. Alright? Accept it, accept he is a politician, and lets focus on policies rather than the smiles that are pushing them.

[boppers]

26. I happen to think he's serious about NAFTA labor policies and environmental policy

NAFTA is here to stay, though.

[Oregone]

30. Thats nice to think that but you are out there in fantasy land n/t

[boppers]

37. Maybe more pressure is needed from Mexico border states.

Pretty messy air/water conditions.

[ThomCat]

34. You really have to be living in a fantasy to think so.

It is just like his posturing to the LGBT community about supporting our rights. If he really had any intention of living up to his pretty words, he had a whole lot of opportunities to do so by now.

If he hasn't lifted his pen to take even trivially easy opportunities yet, then he has no plans to do so.

Instead he has appointed people who support the totally opposite view, and he has given them free reign to work against the stuff you seem to think Obama supports.

Check out Obama's Trade Negotiator, Ron Kirk, for example. :(

[boppers]

36. GLBT rights have already been expanded.

Not as much as I would like, but ignoring progress isn't helpful.

Kirk's big on free trade, with some fairness conditions. So is Obama.

Neither are rabid protectionists.

[ThomCat]

42. GLBT rights have not been expanded at all. Not one iota.

Some paperwork came out redundantly offering some benefits to a few hundred people who already had had those benefits. That's the big bullshit you're cheering about for LGBT people, and we're supposed to see that as progress.

Meanwhile, he has his DoJ arguing against our rights. He refuses to endorse bills to expand our rights. He refuses to endorse efforts in the states to expand our rights. He promotes homophobes and gives them podiums and government offices, and in the case of the office of faith based initiatives he even gives them budgets and policy making authority.

With regard to free trade he he is actively promoting policies that undermine industries in other nations, especially agricultural efforts. That's very directly protectionist.

He is also using trade policies, and foreign policy to help American corporations. Helping American Corporations is one of the charter purposes of foreign policy. Don't be dense enough to think otherwise. That is inherently protectionist.

He is supporting the whole idea of socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor and for foreigners.

You are giving very naive talking points, and you obviously can't back up any of it with facts.

[boppers]

46. "Gay Bashing" is now a FEDERAL CRIME

Maybe you missed that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard_and_James_Byrd,_Jr._Hate_Crimes_Prevention_Act

Having been jumped and beaten by a bunch of skinheads once, I didn't.

You're also using protectionist in a very funny way... he isn't 100% free trade, or 100% environmentally safe, labor friendly, fair trade, or 100% "US first!" trade.

[ThomCat]

53. Yes it is,

and Ted Kennedy, John Conyers, Barney Frank, and Gordon Smith worked their asses off to make it law.

Obama signed it when it finally made it to his desk. But as a senator he didn't cosponsor it. He didn't twist arms for it. He didn't rally votes for it. He didn't campaign on it. But here you are giving HIM the credit for it. Nice. :grr:

And there you are moving the goal posts. Now you only consider someone protectionist if they are 100% protectionist, whatever the hell that means.

You're a real piece of work. :eyes:

Do you ever stop making excuses and cheerleading?

[boppers]

60. Progressives always move the goalposts.

It's how progress is made.

[ThomCat]

62. HA! So you're claiming that moving the goal posts constantly

towards smaller and smaller goals until you fail almost entirely is progressive?

Appointing right of center staff is progressive?

Defending Bush policies and retaining Bush spy powers is progressive?

Moving rightward on every major issue is progressive?

:rofl:

You're a fool if you think Obama is a progressive after everything that has happened this year.

[boppers]

63. MLK didn't think that his ideas would bear fruit in a year.

Sorry that magical fairyland didn't happen in less than a year.

[ThomCat]

66. What the fuck are you talking about?

ARe you just throwing random unrelated topics out there now?

MLK Got out there in the street and sure as hell did believe that he could have an impact within a year. He believed he could have in impact within a month, and often he succeeded.

But you wouldn't understand that because you are too busy making excuses for a failure. :eyes:

Give it up. You've lost. You are in over your head. If this random shit is all you have left then it's past your bed time.

[boppers]

68. Watch 80 years, or 800 years, of history.

You seem to have missed it.

Change doesn't happen overnight.

[ThomCat]

31. You obviously don't remember the Canadian scandal very well.

during the campaign when, on the same day that he was campaigning on renegotiating environmental protections in NAFTA, and specifically mentioned lumber coming from Canada, one of his campaign advisers publicly told the Canadian government not to worry about the speech because he didn't really mean it.

It was all over the news and commentators were asking, "Who should we believe, Obama or his advisor? Does he really want to revisit the environmental problems with free trade, or doesn't he?"

The adviser was the one that told Canada that Obama wasn't going to touch NAFTA. Obama was telling EVERYONE that he would.

It was a huge issue at the time, because anyone who follows campaigns knows that stump speeches are the same speech repeated HUNDREDS of times in front of every audience at every stop with only minor changes. This means Obama was saying this same thing to Everyone everywhere he went. But it was a lie meant to draw in voters, and nothing more.

It would never have been a scandal if Obama had not been telling everyone that he was going to renegotiate NAFTA to address the Labor and Environmental problems.

It's really disingenuous and very intellectually lazy of you to site the Canada leak as proof that Obama supposedly supported NAFTA, when it actually proves the opposite (my point). Nobody before then knew that he supported NAFTA. That was why it was newsworthy. That was why it was a scandal. Before then he was promoting himself as a champion of the people who were hurt by NAFTA. And even after that happened, he denied the adviser. He claimed the adviser was misinformed and kept claiming he was a champion of the people.

[Oregone]

47. I not sure where you are going with whatever, but Im plenty familiar with it

On one hand, Obama was telling the world he is going to threaten to opt out of NAFTA if he can not renegotiate better labor and environmental standards (refer to Feb 27th debate between Obama/Clinton). On the other hand, his campaign was quietly telling Canada not to worry about his public position

Maybe my sarcasm threw ya off. Yeah, he pretended he was for it renegotiating NAFTA, but probably never was

[ThomCat]

55. Sorry. You are right.

We are agreeing. :)

[Xicano]

51. I remember it exactly the way you just spelled it out.

Good post ThomCat. +10

[Jim Sagle]

77. Hey, I always knew he supported NAFTA, no matter what he said about it.

And really, didn't we all? ;)

[jobycom]

20. He didn't change his mind, he just lie when he said he was against it.

That wasn't even a secret. He was caught telling Canadian officials he didn't mean it, though of course he called them liars for revealing it.

[boppers]

28. He said he was against portions of it.

He's not a protectionist.

[jobycom]

52. That's not the impression he tried to create.

During February and March of 08 as the primaries heated up, Obama over and over railed against NAFTA and painted Clinton as a supporter of it. Yes, if you paid attention to Obama's long-term statements and looked at his voting record, he was clearly a supporter of most of NAFTA. But he clearly campaigned during the heat of the primary as being against it, even when he made his few statements that he supported free trade agreements in general. Once he wrapped up the nomination and got out of the rust belt states, around June of 08, he began once again sounding like a free trade supporter.

And for the record, I supported and still support NAFTA with some modifications, so I'm not complaining about his position on it. I'm complaining that he lied about his opinions. That's why his supporters are so upset. They are finally reading the fine print. The fine print was there all along, granted, but one couldn't see it over the glaring banners Obama waved instead.

[Echo In Light]

97. +1

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

89. That's just no fair to bring up in light of the big win.

At least let the faithful get through Christmas before you piss in the punchbowl.

[jonnyblitz]

3. And Pat Buchanan is a racist so if we are against NAFTA

we are racist, too!11 :crazy:

[eridani]

6. What an exemplary example of logical reasoning!

No, really. Thanks for helping to drive the Panglossian logic we are seeing all too much of further into absurdity. Anyone else want to join in?

[jonnyblitz]

10. anytime!!

:hi:

[Enthusiast]

95. This is simply

more of the smoke and mirrors we have endured for the last thirty years.

[sandnsea]

5. Did Jane Hamsher suggest teaming up with Pat Buchannan now?

Boy that is even screwier than teaming up with the teabaggers.

[laughingliberal]

32. There were some strange coalitions that grew up in the * years

Remember Bob Barr and Dick Armey going to work with the ACLU?

[autorank]

8. k*r Righty O

The viciousness has just begun. Oppose "the party line" and you're defamed.

Nice conclusion to the "health" effort.

[leftstreet]

9. LOL K&R

[TreasonousBastard]

12. I'll admit I never had much of a problem with it, but...

I'm a corporatist DCL shill.

(Or something equally bad.)

[Jim Sagle]

14. Why yes, of course we are. Anyone who isn't is a teabagger.

:sarcasm:

[boppers]

16. Ross Perot, and Clinton, too. eom

[boppers]

25. On a serious note, NAFTA was good for me, and my communities.

I've lived both in Tucson, AZ, and Portland, OR (among other places).

NAFTA improved employment, wages, tourism, etc.... but I'm in professional class.

Others didn't fare so well, especially in the clothing and manufacturing industries, where the unskilled labor class took a serious drubbing.

[laughingliberal]

33. And continue to take a drubbing forever and ever, amen nt

[boppers]

39. Since the 70's

What robots couldn't do, cheap labor could.

Kind of like the Artisan class being replaced by the Industrial Revolution.

[laughingliberal]

44. Yeah, all of my working life. I was a nurse. The takeover by the for-profits destroyed us nt

[boppers]

50. How did *that* work?

Reducing the amount of staff on shift to the minimal "needed"?

I don't know much at all about nursing, but it doesn't seem like unskilled labor, or something replaceable by machinery...

[laughingliberal]

74. Yes, staffing shortages and, like all workers, stagnant wages

I graduated from nursing school in the midst of the worst nursing shortage in history. Hospitals in those days were implementing programs to get nurses back to work. Flexible schedules and, of course, higher pay were starting to ease the shortage somewhat. This was the early 80's. Enter the for-profits. By the 90's the takeover of the hospital industry was a steamroller that could not be stopped. The late eighties and early 90's saw lovely tactics like hospital corps calling in 'management consultant' teams. These people went in and stood on hospital floors and timed nurses going in and out of rooms-how long did it take to put in a catheter, start an IV, put down an NG tube, change a dressing, etc... The conclusions, pretty much across the board, were that nurses were spending 20% of their time 'non-productive.' It became assembly line nursing, the blue collarization, if you will, of our profession. They developed the 'just in time' staffing pattern which meant you staffed enough so that problems would be caught within 60 seconds of acceptable. Crashing? We'll find it about 60 seconds before we call the code. With their new found productivity models they were able to declare, mid nineties, that the nursing shortage was over. It was not. Now we had nurses taking, in some cases, double the work loads of the past acceptables. It only worked when nursing was looked at as task oriented. No longer were we paid for what we knew, only for what we did. Now, the trap we were in was that the hospitals emphasis on tasks did not ever relieve us of the burden our licensure carried. Assessment and evaluation were secondary to the employer and paramount to our practice under our licenses. There were other tricks they used to make sure we worked til we dropped. In the past the law had been on the lines of let the master answer. If a nurse in their employee caused harm to a patient the hospital was required to provide your defense. It later became the employer was not required to defend the nurse if she was 'acting outside of policy.' Well, of course any mistake is outside policy. So, there's the set up. In the past they had only been able to push ratios to a certain point. They do know the point at which staffing is so low that errors will, unavoidably, increase. When it put them at risk, they could not afford to push it. Once the laws changed it was a race to the bottom. They could push the staffing levels far below what they had in the past and sell the nurses out to cover the liability. Nurses who objected to staffing levels were told they would be reported to their boards if they did not accept the assignment for 'patient abandonment.' Now, patient abandonment is for a case where a nurse abandons her assignment without arranging for coverage. It is not refusing an unsafe assignment before accepting it. Nevertheless, they used it as a threat. Nurses were also subject to termination if they refused an assignment. The trap here is if an assignment is unsafe and you accepted it that can not be a defense in court. Under the nurse's license it is the nurse's responsibility to refuse an unsafe assignment. Your job or your license? Threats about 'patient abandonment' were also used to force overtime. A nurse would come to work for an eight hour shift and an hour before her shift was over she would be told there was not enough staff for the next shift and she would need to stay. If she tried to refuse the patient abandonment threat would come out. There were, and still are, hospitals who do this to every nurse every day. They staff their hospitals by forcing 2 shifts per day out of the nurses. This allows them to run with 1/2 the FTE's actually needed. Saves them a ton of money. It's worth mentioning that, as this was all going on, the insurance companies had begun finding their ways of not paying. Documentation requirements increased, exponentially. So, a staff which can barely meet patient needs is now having to divert more time to nursing the chart.

In the early nineties the hospitals were, actually, on a mission to drive nurses out. As nurses were driven out by the abuses, the hospital corps started to whine about the shortage. Rather than institute incentives to bring nurses back, they came up with a plan. They would train people called Unlicensed Assistive Personnel. They would be trained in six week courses to do the tasks like putting in catheters, NG tubes, dressing changes, etc. There would be an RN on the floor under whose licenses these people would be working. The plan was to have 1 RN responsible for up to, maybe, 40 patients while these UAP's did the tasks and the nurse did assessments, 2 hour rounds, and charted. They also started training a group of workers known as med techs who were trained, in some instances in an 8 hour course, to give meds. The med tech model has survived in some areas. The UAP's did not. Nurses were revolting across the country. It was a huge set up. The UAP's would work under the nurse's license. Any errors they made put her/his license at risk AND, under the nurse's license, he/she is responsible for determining the competency of the personnel working under her. Nice, huh? Come to work and there's 5 people there you may never have seen before and you get to decide whether you want to place your license in their hands. Nurses, largely in the northeast, began unionizing and negotiating contracts which forbade this practice. The hospitals, for the most part, dropped the plan. It probably did more to foster unionization among nurses than anything else. Those in union states acted smartly and saved us this fate. However, the shortage the hospital corporations had created in order to enact their new plan remains. There are close to enough nurses to solve staffing problems. Two things are working against it 1) the hospitals continue to run on bare minimums to lower labor costs 2) most nurses who have managed to escape are not soon coming back to face this abuse again. For profit hospitals destroyed nursing as a decent profession and it didn't do much to ensure your safety as a patient.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

90. Those nursing shortages almost cost my dad his life twice in the last year.

[Elwood P Dowd]

35. Like the other fake free trade deals, it benefited a few but destroyed many, many more.

I will NEVER forgive Clinton for jumping into bed with the Gingrich crowd on NAFTA.

[boppers]

40. You have an Apple avatar.

Irony abounds.

[ThomCat]

45. You think an avatar is that significant when you

giving such glossy talking points with absolutely no facts or reality backing them up? :wtf:

You keep using that picture in your signature even though Obama has shown repeatedly that he hasn't "got" anything. He keeps backing down from absolutely every single challenge or fight that comes at him from the right.

For example, in the entire health care debate, the only people he could be bothered to call out were Howard Dean an Progressives. Not Lieberman. not Stupak. Not any single one of the conservative democrats who stood in the way and made health care reform impossible.

He backed down from all the conservative democrats who challenged him and gave them every single thing they demanded. He gave in to the republicans in the name of bipartisanship even though he should have been smart enough to see that they weren't going to give him anything in return. He gave in to the insurance industry and the pharma industry over and over and over again, and we got NOTHING in return.

The only people he was brave enough to stand up to were the progressives he is supposed to be fighting for.

That picture in your signature is a total joke, and yet you criticize someone for their Avatar?

:wtf:

[Elwood P Dowd]

48. I like their designs and their OS.

They are no different than all the other major electronics firms in this country. Pass a fake free trade deal, and they manufacture their hardware overseas. If Apple didn't, then they are no longer competitive with the others that manufacture overseas. The companies are forced to do it in order to compete in price. Almost every MP3 player, computer, DVD player, surround sound receiver, car radio, shortwave radio, etc. are now made in China.

Well, at least Steve Jobs and Al Gore are somewhat progressive when you compare them to bible thumping Michael Dell or other repukes like those at HP.

[boppers]

54. Would you pay more for a fair trade, or US made, product?

Or, more importantly, have you done this?

[ThomCat]

56. Are you now requireing people to have money in order to be

progressive?

Who the hell are you to set financial requirements for what people are allowed to think and believe?

You are a real ugly piece of work. :grr:

[boppers]

61. Live a philosophy, or bitch about how "others" should live it.

Pretty simple.

It's as ugly as being a scab, but justifying strikebreakers who "needed the money".

[ThomCat]

64. it's an ugly bit of trolling behavior to dictate to other people

and constantly set conditions for other people that they have to meet before you will "allow" them to hold their own beliefs.

You're certainly not living a philosophy by dictating to people that way. You're coming across as a petty tinpot who believes in double standards.

Real progressives believe that you build from the ground up, helping the poorest first, and those most in need. You don't help yourself, and pat yourself on the back, and then stab other people and set up arguments about why you are so much better than other people because they might be poor.

You're showing over and over and over again that you are no progressive, and you don't even know what being a progressive looks like. :eyes:

[boppers]

65. Real Scotsman. eom

[ThomCat]

67. Now you're misquoting logic?

:eyes:

[boppers]

69. "Real progressive"

Your words.

[ThomCat]

70. Calling a right-wing democrat a progressive

has nothing at all to do with the no true scottman fallacy. Nobody is changing the definition of a progressive. You are simply deluded if you think that anyone as close to republican as Obama is, or has ever been Progressive.

At best, he pretended to be progressive by lying his ass off during the campaign and you're showing how completely gullible you are by believing him.

[boppers]

71. Your colors are showing. eom

[Elwood P Dowd]

57. Oh Yes!

I paid $1,500 for American made home audio speakers. I own an American made truck. The problem is, there is no American made iPod Touch or American made Apple laptop that runs OS X. I refuse to use Windoze shit or anything made by Michael Dell.

If we made the Chinese, and the rest of the world, play by the same rules in regards to VAT, environmental protections, labor laws, and consumer product safety laws, then Apple would make their products here in the USA again like in the past. We have passed fake free trade deals that force all these companies competing against each other to move manufacturing overseas.

[boppers]

72. Nice choices.

I buy american and european stuff. I have no iPod.

[Enthusiast]

98. We are certainly paying for

"unfair trade". We have lost entire industries because of unfair trade. But, that's alright, the people working in these industries, they are unskilled.

[Greyhound]

82. Well then see, it's all right then.

A few thousand parasites get to make good money by ruining millions of lives, and the parasites think it's all good.

[Ignis]

86. "the unskilled labor class" Wow, welcome to DU, Marie.

Is there cake enough for everyone?

[Enthusiast]

96. Congratulations for making it

to the "professional class". You should be so proud.

Yes manufacturing is where the country has lost jobs due to these trade agreements. But, since these people are "unskilled" who gives a fuck. They should get more education, or work harder, just like the Republicans have always told us.

[Patchuli]

27. NO! Never were, never will be!

NAFTA's killing the U.S!

[OHdem10]

41. NAFTA is why we are having so many job losses. Globalization

is trying to equalize standards of living around the world.

Our wages are being harmonized downward so that we are not
so out of step with the rest of the world. People in other
countries do not earn enough to buy our products.(the very
few we make any more. This is why the Middle Class wages
are dropping.

Rubin, L Sommers and A Blinder admitted in a hearing in 2006
before Banking Committee. Trade Agreements had not worked
as they had thought they would.

When they tell it is going to take years for growth in jobs
it is because the Banking Disaster did not causes these
humongous job losses. Some, yes. But most are direct result
of Globalization and POORLY written, and Poorly managed Trade
Laws.

Dontcha just love it. They plan to continue Trade Agreements.
Speaking of digging the hole deeper.

My friends, this is proof the only concern our Leaders have
is keeping the Corporations happy.

[ThomCat]

49. Yes. If Obama has honestly announced during his campaign

that he was going to keep the free trade agreements and expand them, I guarantee he would not be president today. He would have lost a whole lot of support.

Progressives would not have supported anyone who supported this global race to the bottom.

Environmentalists would not have supported anyone who supported gutting the environment for profit, and overriding local laws to do it.

Unions would not have supported anyone who supported moving industry across borders to where ever labor and cheapest and safety standards were relaxed.

Millions of People who have lost their jobs either would not have supported, or would have had second thoughts about supporting anyone who wanted to do more of the same.

Free trade was a HUGE issue in the last election. Obama knew that he had to lie about this, and he was a very good liar. :(

[Elwood P Dowd]

58. He has done a total 180 on trade,

and that will cost him dearly in 2012. This will come up over and over again in the primaries if DK or someone similar is in the mix again. Look at the total clown Obama named as USTR. He wasn't on the job six months before he starting pushing the Panama Free Trade Agreement. When all hell broke loose, Obama was forced to delay it.

[Major Hogwash]

59. When did Obama say this?

I didn't hear that yesterday.

[pampango]

73. PB is just opposed to the Mexican part of NAFTA, isn't he? Not the Canadian part?

Was the Canada – United States FTA that NAFTA replaced acceptable to PB and others who agree with him?

[Romulox]

76. I'm not PB's defender, but this is a (likely deliberate) blatant mischaracterization.

:hi:

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

75. Don't forget that Buchanan was against the Iraq war too.

[eridani]

80. Right. Now DU is somehow obliged to be for it n/t

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

81. Yep!

:rofl:

[treestar]

83. NAFTA seems to have become a DU bogeyman

I doubt anyone really understands it.

[G_j]

87. speak for yourself

you vastly underestimate the knowledge of many here.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

91. Just because Obama is bad at golf you don't need to call him a bogeyman.

[BoneDaddy]

85. typical liberal logic

if my "enemy" opposes it, it must be good. It is the decision making of the stupid. Even a clock is right twice a day. Sometimes those on the right, may be right.

[LiberalAndProud]

88. Rush Limbaugh supports it, after all.

So I'm forced to make a choice between the lesser of two evils once again? Pat B. Wins!

[tritsofme]

92. I have always supported free trade.

Despite it being unpopular here, I have always seen President Clinton's decision to sign NAFTA as an act of political bravery.

[Jim Sagle]

93. Brave indeed to sell out your countrymen for campaign $s.

[DailyGrind51]

94. Jesse Jackson, Ralph Nader, and Ross Perot also opposed NAFTA.

They ALL could not have been wrong.

[Enthusiast]

100. Anyone that STILL

supports NAFTA, after seeing the damage it has done to the American worker, is no Democrat in my eyes. Just sayin'.

[douglas9]

99. Could the Chamber of Commerce be wrong?

North American Free Trade Agreement

.................................................

Trade and investment have generated more and better-paying jobs and created significant new opportunities for businesses, workers, and consumers in all three countries

The U.S. Chamber remains the staunchest advocate of the benefits of the NAFTA, recognizing the importance of the agreement to the welfare of our most important trade relationships.

http://www.uschamber.com/international/policy/nafta.htm

[B Calm]

101. I'm still hearing that sucking sound!