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 goes back several decades. Bush 1 ceremonially signed it before he left office.
In 1993, the 103rd Congress passed NAFTA.
The House voted in favor of it 234 vs.200. 156 of the nays were Democrat votes.
The Senate passed it 73 to 27. The 27 nays were split 50-50 between Democrats and Republicans.
It takes a village......
And Clinton had the option to veto, but he didn't. Funny how you deflect to Booosh while protecting Clinton.
(Well, actually it's not funny at all. It's part and parcel of your philosophy of protecting Democrats and Barack Obama from the travesties that they have bestowed on this nation. We shouldn't be surprised that you'd protect Clinton too.)
Above, you appear to be advocating for government intervention in people's lives (ie. smoking) in order to effect the greater good through healthier lifestyles. Here you appear to be advocating for unhealthy lifestyles in order to protect jobs and companies.
You are severely confused it looks like. You don't know whether to give government a high five or to slap conservatives across the face for taking a Twinkie away from Tyrone.
I do not view the world through partisan glasses. I am capable of distinguishing facts vs. opinions.
In all SNAP threads, some will post how we should not allow people to buy junk food with their SNAP card. I believe it's important to understand why people are allowed to buy junk food with their SNAP cards and it has nothing to do with my opinion on the topic.
If an overwhelming majority of people took personal responsibility for themselves and the greater good, we would not need most of the laws on the books.
I do not view the world through partisan glasses. I am capable of distinguishing facts vs. opinions.
In all SNAP threads, some will post how we should not allow people to buy junk food with their SNAP card. I believe it's important to understand why people are allowed to buy junk food with their SNAP cards and it has nothing to do with my opinion on the topic.
If an overwhelming majority of people took personal responsibility for themselves and the greater good, we would not need most of the laws on the books.
Again, you contradict yourself. You CANNOT use the example of government interference in the tobacco industry and ignore the jobs lost due to that interference, and then on the very same token turn around and demonstrate that government intervention in the snackfood/EBT world is non-existent because government would be remiss to interfere with jobs.
I'll ask again: Snackfood industry jobs trump tobacco industry jobs? Under what premise?
The two are diametrically opposed and do not support your contentions.
And Clinton had the option to veto, but he didn't. Funny how you deflect to Booosh while protecting Clinton.
(Well, actually it's not funny at all. It's part and parcel of your philosophy of protecting Democrats and Barack Obama from the travesties that they have bestowed on this nation. We shouldn't be surprised that you'd protect Clinton too.)
The impetus for NAFTA actually began with Reagan who campaigned on a North American common market. In 1984, Congress passed the Trade and Tariff Act which gave the President "fast track" authority to negotiate free trade agreements and limited Congress to approve or disapprove, not change the negotiating points.
Reagan, Bush 1 and Clinton were all pro NAFTA. A Republican majority in Congress approved it, as negotiated. Sounds non-partisan to me.
Status:
"Smartened up and walked away!"
(set 29 days ago)
11,799 posts, read 5,804,343 times
Reputation: 14224
Quote:
Originally Posted by itsjustmeagain
I can't believe this is coming from a democrat. You know that these people are your voting base, right?
Just because he's registered as a democrat does not mean he can't think for himself or that his opinions can't differ from the Democratic party. I'm registered democrat but my leanings are very conservative. I agree with a lot of the Republican views - don't make me regret that with your stupidity.
Are the EBT cards "credited" each month? If so, simple solution....withhold the credits till the balance is paid off. You know...the same as actual working people have to do with credit cards. Don't have your welfare money this month? Too bad, shouldn't have tried to defraud someone last month.
You know what...if some "glitch" takes the limit off my credit card, I'm still responsible for whatever tab I run up. EBT card holders should be treated like adults as well.
The same applies to a bad check that you deposit into your account and then overdraw your own account when it bounces. The bank comes after YOU, not the person who wrote the bad check that cause the problem.
Who actually thinks these people will be held accountable though? Most likely, this will be written off by the government, otherwise we're penalizing the poor for not knowing any better. They might go hungry next month if we don't give them their full balance.
People who should be jailed for fraud are going to probably get away with this crime as if nothing had happened.
It's amazing that there are so many people justifying this blatant, mass theft, and so many who think anyone would steal if given the opportunity.
And people cry racism because cities want to send more police into poor neighborhoods because statistics show that the second the opportunity arises, poor people will usually make the WRONG choice and steal from their neighbors.
The impetus for NAFTA actually began with Reagan who campaigned on a North American common market. In 1984, Congress passed the Trade and Tariff Act which gave the President "fast track" authority to negotiate free trade agreements and limited Congress to approve or disapprove, not change the negotiating points.
Reagan, Bush 1 and Clinton were all pro NAFTA. A Republican majority in Congress approved it, as negotiated. Sounds non-partisan to me.
NWO/Globalism..whatever you want to call it, is bigger than D vs R.
Globalism will happen no matter who sits in the Oval Office.
A lot of internet tough guys on this thread...funny considering the OP posted a link to a very racist organization (the CCC). I wonder how accurate the report really is. These people were wrong to abuse the system no doubt...but let's keep the generalizations within the bounds of rationality. Keep it off of CD and take it back to SF, folks...
The impetus for NAFTA actually began with Reagan who campaigned on a North American common market. In 1984, Congress passed the Trade and Tariff Act which gave the President "fast track" authority to negotiate free trade agreements and limited Congress to approve or disapprove, not change the negotiating points.
Reagan, Bush 1 and Clinton were all pro NAFTA. A Republican majority in Congress approved it, as negotiated. Sounds non-partisan to me.
You forget Obama, he wanted to expand NAFTA to the South American countries...
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.
