Current Issue
Back Issues
 Subscribe to BartBlog Feed
How to Read
Members ( need password)
Subscribe to BartCop!
Contact Us
Advertise With Us
Link to Us
Why Donate?
The Forum  -
The Reader
Poster Downloads
Shirts & Shots
BartCop Hotties
More Links
BFEE Scorecard
Perkel's Blog
Power of Nightmares
Clinton Fox Interview
Part 1, Part 2
Money Talks
Cost of Bush's greed
White Rose Society
Project 60
Chinaco Anejo


Search Now:
In Association with

Link Roll
American Politics Journal
Barry Crimmins
Betty Bowers
Consortium News 
Daily Howler
Daily Kos
Democatic Underground 
Disinfotainment Today 
Evil GOP Bastards
Faux News Channel 
Greg Palast
The Hollywood Liberal 
Internet Weekly
Jesus General
Joe Conason 
Josh Marshall
Liberal Oasis
Make Them Accountable 
Mark Morford 
Mike Malloy 
Political Humor -
Political Wire
Randi Rhodes
Rude Pundit 
Smirking Chimp
Take Back the Media
More Links


Locations of visitors to this page

 Subject: Bruce Yurgil on NAFTA

Bart, if you WANT to understand NAFTA, you're going to have to do your homework, 
even if that means checking out the links.

Then I may have to remain ignorant on NAFTA, but the point still stands that 
people who are violently opposed to NAFTA should be able to explain why.
If they can't explain it, then I say they should throttle back on the outrage.

NAFTA is a republican policy.
To me, "free trade" is the absence of "terriers and bariffs," to quote Der Monkey.
Substitute the word DEREGULATION for terriers and bariffs and you'll see why. 

Devil's Advocate:
Let's say McCain wins and, to help Detroit, he slaps a $10,000 tariff on every car
made by Honda, Toyota, Nissan etc.   Would anti-NAFTA people like that?

For example, NAFTA would allow trucks from Mexico to drive throughout America 
without any regulation. The trucks would not have to meet U.S. standards for safety and 
the drivers would not have to be able to read our road signs. 

Yes, that's a legitimate outrage, one that can be pointed at and objected to.
Who is for that?  Who wants unsafe trucks and drivers who can't read road signs?
If we fix that segment, does NAFTA then become less of an outrage?

Currently, the UNIONS have been able to forestall this particular aspect of NAFTA, 
but the matter is in legal limbo. Extend this entire policy to all industries and you get 
job flight to foreign countries that do not have to meet U.S. standards or labor agreements.
 Bruce Yurgil

OK, so what if we prevent them from selling their goods back to America? 
Would Hershey's Chocolate move to Mexico if they knew they'd lose the US market to Nestles?

I kinda doubt it.

It's fun to debate/talk policy when both sides act like adults.

Subject: NAFTA

Nafta didn't seem to be a problem in the 90's when Clinton was stewarding the economy.

When the neocons took over in 2001 and started removing all the manufacturing jobs
and creating service industry jobs then NAFTA became a problem.

So this again is, of course, Clinton's fault!

Subject: NAFTA

And of course  you can explain why it`s good I, see

 That's a cheap shot and a stupid one.
 I've said again and again, if you don't know what you're talking about,
 do us all a favor and don't get so goddamn excited about shit you can't explain.

 Have I ever said NAFTA was good?

Subject: NAFTA

How about some N.A.F.T.A. upsides ?

I`m setting here in clothes made in china, a pc made in japan, and when I call
for tech support I get some dude in Calcutta or East Jesus, someplace

ohhh nafta  is fine for investors at pool side waiting on their div checks made with profits
from sweatshop labor, and third world nations willing to work for a cup of rice

you want more of that ?

How`s NAFTA been workin for you, Bart?
Bitter in Pennsylvania,

How's NAFTA working for me?
I can't feel any effects from NAFTA, which is why I asked about the furor.

  Back to

Send e-mail to Bart  |  Discuss it on The BartCop ForumComment on it at the BartBlog

Privacy Policy
. .