Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
NAFTA aligns completely with Neocon policies and goals. Clinton was not a Neocon on paper but he did everything in their interests.
Sad how some would rather blame whole groups of Americans, than recognize that our manufacturing base has been wiped out and we have waged the longest and costliest war in American history where these jobs once were. I won't even get into discriminatory housing and lending policies over the decades, and the harm inflicted on those who are forced to live in these areas.
Ghettos have been around for centuries. I think its often drug related violence and its said murder is the leading cause of death among young blacks males. IMO; it takes individual effort to get out of such situations not collective as always.
"Sadly, Baltimore is not alone. There are whole chunks of cities across the country that have been abandoned and left to rot by globalists/Neocon policies." Really?Where did you come up with that?
Baltimore
Population is 68 % black
police department is 68 % black
fire department is 58% black;
school district is 86% black
school teachers are 72% black;
city council is 90% black;
Mayor is a black;
chief of police is black;
54% of population is on welfare;
and they believe the whites are
the reason they are living in poverty
Some just CAN'T face reality and want to blame others!
Yes he did, that is why I said his biggest mistake was believing the Republicans that NAFTA was good for the country. It turns out the bill they sent to Clinton was not good for Americans, but it was good for corporations.
I wonder what your opinion about NAFTA would have been if the first Bush had signed it like he was planning on doing if he had won reelection?
Yes he did, that is why I said his biggest mistake was believing the Republicans that NAFTA was good for the country. It turns out the bill they sent to Clinton was not good for Americans, but it was good for corporations.
I wonder what your opinion about NAFTA would have been if the first Bush had signed it like he was planning on doing if he had won reelection?
I was a Ross Perot supporter. Everyone with a brain knew he was right when he said that a "giant sucking sound" will be heard as US manufacturing moves south to Mexico. Therefore, my position on NAFTA would have been the same no matter who signed it.
But let's not cloud the issue. Bush could have signed NAFTA...and perhaps he would have if given the opportunity to sign a final bill. The fact of the matter is that Bill Clinton was the anti-Bush/anti-Reagan....a new direction for America....a disposal of the old Cold War era and an ushering in of a New America. Your continued hypothesis that NAFTA was a creation of the GOP, while not wrong overall, completely ignores the fact that the NEW American president continued with the status quo, and that falls 100% on Bill Clinton's shoulders. That's what separation of powers embodies.....Congress passes legislation and the President chooses whether to sign it into law. Clinton made that choice.....the blame rests 100% with him.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
