Death Panels

[Bubbakat]

We started going down hill like a snowball headed for hell about a year after the NAFTA trade agreement was put into place. Now whom did that I wonder.

 

[Guest]

Bubbakat - 9/8/2009 6:08 PM

We started going down hill like a snowball headed for hell about a year after the NAFTA trade agreement was put into place. Now whom did that I wonder.

Here is the vote record: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...fm?congress=103&session=1&vote=00395#position

32 Republican Senators voted Yea
Only 10 Republicans voted Nay. emoSorry

 

[Guest]

R14 - 9/8/2009 6:31 PM

Bubbakat - 9/8/2009 6:08 PM

We started going down hill like a snowball headed for hell about a year after the NAFTA trade agreement was put into place. Now whom did that I wonder.

Here is the vote record: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...fm?congress=103&session=1&vote=00395#position

32 Republican Senators voted Yea
Only 10 Republicans voted Nay. emoSorry

Who signed NAFTA into law?

Maybe this will refresh your memory. He had the FINAL say so.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=Article&id=5584

 

[Guest]

outcaster - 9/8/2009 5:15 PM

cheez - 9/8/2009 6:11 AM

outcaster - 9/7/2009 9:05 PM

Okay, I have to throw the "Bull Crap" flag...... "We will Blame W as long as you Blame Bill, that should take till around 2019 emoLaugh

I have not "blamed" Bill for anything. I have pointed out that he is not the hero you and others claim he is. Matter of fact I never brought up his name until you did. So I throw the BS flag.

You guys are using Bush as a cloak to cover up the incompetance of your heros. In case you have not noticed it is not working anymore. Your hero and his accomplisses approval rating continues to fall. Even your own brethren in the democratic party are backing away from the extreme liberals.

Okay "Bull Crap" flag again...... Cheez Quote #1 "I have not "blamed" Bill for anything. I have pointed out that he is not the hero you and others claim he is. Matter of fact I never brought up his name until you did". But just a few of posts before, you said this: Cheez Quote #2 "Clinton and his cronies are more responsible for the mess we are in right now than Bush is for sure".
You may need to go back and read your own posts again.

emoLaugh

Danny did you have a problem with reading comprehension in school? You sure are now. YOU are the one who brought Bill's name up first in post #2 on page 2. I was simply responding to the lie you posted. Before that I never mentioned his name.

 

[Guest]

cheez - 9/8/2009 7:28 PM
Who signed NAFTA into law?

Maybe this will refresh your memory. He had the FINAL say so.

Cheez from your link:

..though the movement for free trade in North America had begun as a Republican initiative

Sure the president didn't veto it, but calling a bipartisan effort all his is stretching the truth.

The fact remains that 2/3 of republicans in the Senate actually agreed w/ the president.

 

[outcaster]

cheez - 9/8/2009 7:36 PM

outcaster - 9/8/2009 5:15 PM

cheez - 9/8/2009 6:11 AM

outcaster - 9/7/2009 9:05 PM

Okay, I have to throw the "Bull Crap" flag...... "We will Blame W as long as you Blame Bill, that should take till around 2019 emoLaugh

I have not "blamed" Bill for anything. I have pointed out that he is not the hero you and others claim he is. Matter of fact I never brought up his name until you did. So I throw the BS flag.

You guys are using Bush as a cloak to cover up the incompetance of your heros. In case you have not noticed it is not working anymore. Your hero and his accomplisses approval rating continues to fall. Even your own brethren in the democratic party are backing away from the extreme liberals.

Okay "Bull Crap" flag again...... Cheez Quote #1 "I have not "blamed" Bill for anything. I have pointed out that he is not the hero you and others claim he is. Matter of fact I never brought up his name until you did". But just a few of posts before, you said this: Cheez Quote #2 "Clinton and his cronies are more responsible for the mess we are in right now than Bush is for sure".
You may need to go back and read your own posts again.

emoLaugh

Danny did you have a problem with reading comprehension in school? You sure are now. YOU are the one who brought Bill's name up first in post #2 on page 2. I was simply responding to the lie you posted. Before that I never mentioned his name.

I doesn't really matter that I mentioned Bill first. Maybe I did that for a reason........I think I'm starting to really annoy you now. to Quote "W" "Mission Accomplished"

 

[timbo]

R14 - 9/8/2009 8:15 PM

cheez - 9/8/2009 7:28 PM
Who signed NAFTA into law?

Maybe this will refresh your memory. He had the FINAL say so.

Cheez from your link:

..though the movement for free trade in North America had begun as a Republican initiative

Sure the president didn't veto it, but calling a bipartisan effort all his is stretching the truth.

The fact remains that 2/3 of republicans in the Senate actually agreed w/ the president.

And most of the Dem's in Congress voted for the war in Iraq also. Yet all I ever read is that Bush started the war. Are the rules different when we have a Democrat President?

 

[Guest]

I doesn't really matter that I mentioned Bill first. Maybe I did that for a reason........I think I'm starting to really annoy you now. to Quote "W" "Mission Accomplished"[/QUOTE]

Of course it matters that you mentioned Bill first. Especially since you made the unfounded claim that we Republicans are always blaming him. My point is that I never balmed Bill CLinton for anything until you brought up his name.

You are not annoying me but keep trying. You are only showing the rest of the readers here your lack of depth and your refusal to answer pointed questions regarding your stands.

 

[Guest]

timbo - 9/8/2009 8:35 PM

R14 - 9/8/2009 8:15 PM

cheez - 9/8/2009 7:28 PM
Who signed NAFTA into law?

Maybe this will refresh your memory. He had the FINAL say so.

Cheez from your link:

..though the movement for free trade in North America had begun as a Republican initiative

Sure the president didn't veto it, but calling a bipartisan effort all his is stretching the truth.

The fact remains that 2/3 of republicans in the Senate actually agreed w/ the president.

And most of the Dem's in Congress voted for the war in Iraq also. Yet all I ever read is that Bush started the war. Are the rules different when we have a Democrat President?

Of course the rules are different Timbo. Have you not read the liberal playbook?

 

[Guest]

timbo - 9/8/2009 8:35 PM
And most of the Dem's in Congress voted for the war in Iraq also. Yet all I ever read is that Bush started the war. Are the rules different when we have a Democrat President?

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 in the Senate for the Democrats was 29 aye and 21 nays (ie 42%) while the House voted 126 (61%) Nay of 208 Democratic seats.

Again it would be a stretch to call that overwhelming support, 42% and 61% of the Democrats were against it. Also the bill (SJ 45) was based on the white house's original proposal.

As far as NAFTA goes, George H.W. Bush was the one that spearhead and promoted the initial negations, including ceremoniously signing it on December 17, 1992. emoRain

 

[Guest]

R14 - 9/8/2009 8:15 PM

cheez - 9/8/2009 7:28 PM
Who signed NAFTA into law?

Maybe this will refresh your memory. He had the FINAL say so.

Cheez from your link:

..though the movement for free trade in North America had begun as a Republican initiative

Sure the president didn't veto it, but calling a bipartisan effort all his is stretching the truth.

The fact remains that 2/3 of republicans in the Senate actually agreed w/ the president.

Stretching the truth you say.
I went ahead and took the liberty to get the dictionary definition of bipartisan. As we can see it simply means of two parties and not a 50/50 concensus as is being impied here by you.

bi·par·ti·san (bi-pär'ti-z?n, -s?n)
adj. Of, consisting of, or supported by members of two parties, especially two major political parties: a bipartisan resolution.
bi·par'ti·san·ism n., bi·par'ti·san·ship' n

NAFTA was a bipartisan effort despite what your opinion is. Republicans got it passed and Clinton signed it into law. You make it sound like Clinton only had a non active role with your "did not veto" comment. Quite the contrary R14. Clinton MADE IT HAPPEN with an ink pen. Putting it off on Bush Sr. is the only truth stretching I see here.
Granted now Bush Sr. would have signed it but the fact is that a democrat president did the deed. Get over it because try as you may you cannot change history.

 

[Guest]

cheez - 9/8/2009 9:32 PM

NAFTA was a bipartisan effort despite what your opinion is. Republicans got it passed and Clinton signed it into law. You make it sound like Clinton only had a non active role with your "did not veto" comment. Quite the contrary R14. Clinton MADE IT HAPPEN with an ink pen. Putting it off on Bush Sr. is the only truth stretching I see here.
Granted now Bush Sr. would have signed it but the fact is that a democrat president did the deed. Get over it because try as you may you cannot change history.

please cheez, don't mislead others to what i did not say. my response was to:

QUOTE]Bubbakat - 9/8/2009 6:08 PM
We started going down hill like a snowball headed for hell about a year after the NAFTA trade agreement was put into place. Now whom did that I wonder.[/QUOTE]

where bubbakat implies that nafta was a majority democratic effort, which is simple not true. Nafta was a bipartisanship/cooperative effort. no where i have said it was not.

 

[CRAZYHORSE]

Well this has been interesting reading, and educational for me. I will say only this, I applaud both Cheez and Outcaster for taking a stand for what they believe. I believe it is time more of us (I am including myself here) educate ourselves about what is going on in our government and hold those in office accountable for their actions or inactions. This is the greatest country in the world, and only it's citizens can keep it that way.

Crazyhorse

 

[Guest]

R14 - 9/8/2009 10:12 PM

cheez - 9/8/2009 9:32 PM

NAFTA was a bipartisan effort despite what your opinion is. Republicans got it passed and Clinton signed it into law. You make it sound like Clinton only had a non active role with your "did not veto" comment. Quite the contrary R14. Clinton MADE IT HAPPEN with an ink pen. Putting it off on Bush Sr. is the only truth stretching I see here.
Granted now Bush Sr. would have signed it but the fact is that a democrat president did the deed. Get over it because try as you may you cannot change history.

please cheez, don't mislead others to what i did not say. my response was to:

QUOTE]Bubbakat - 9/8/2009 6:08 PM
We started going down hill like a snowball headed for hell about a year after the NAFTA trade agreement was put into place. Now whom did that I wonder.

where bubbakat implies that nafta was a majority democratic effort, which is simple not true. Nafta was a bipartisanship/cooperative effort. no where i have said it was not.

[/QUOTE]


I am not misleading anyone here. At the time that NAFTA actually became law the democrats held the majority in both the house and the senate and they held the office of president. The effort was bipartisan for sure. The problem with all this is the hypocrisy. The democrats claim to be all for the working people.They have duped their supporters into voting for them based on this lie. Now when they had a chance to stop NAFTA in it's tracks they did not and the DEMOCRATIC president signed the deal into law.

Using this exact same logic can we not say that the war in Iraq was a bipartisan effort? If we can say that Bush is responsible for the war then we can say that Clinton is responsible for NAFTA. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[Guest]

Using this exact same logic can we not say that the war in Iraq was a bipartisan effort? If we can say that Bush is responsible for the war then we can say that Clinton is responsible for NAFTA. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

No, I don't think we can say that, at least a not strong bipartisanship. The voting record plainly shows that support for the war effort was nearly equal divided among democrats (ie only half supported). The bill was brought directly over from the white house, very autonomous, and was requested speedy voting (ie without much debate). Yes it did get enough support to gain approve with a democratic controlled house and senate, but just barely.

NAFTA on the other hand, was promoted by Bush, debated in Congress, changes were made (as promoted by Clinton) and the Republicans overwhelmingly voted for it (not split like Iraq). Definitely a true bipartisanship effort.

 

[Guest]

How did I know you were going to come up with something like this.
Typical, predictable liberal thought. Exactly the way the liberal media would portray it. Which one gives you your marching orders? This logic has CNN written all over it with NBC overtones. emoRolleyes

 

[Bubbakat]

Thank you guys for your input on the NAFTA agreement. I would say if both parties passed this then it still was a screw up. I don't care whom started it all I care is that it took away from the American people. Now why does a politician blindly follow a thing like NAFTA when they know its going to go sour. Why not but their heads together to do what they were elected for.
The people of the USA are calling out to their politicians and asking them why do this and that when it doesn't help' Some are listening and some are not. Some influential people are looking at the broad picture now and don't like what they see so that is why the president is gong down hill in his popularity. I still think he is nothing but a puppet on a string and the Clinton's and the Kennedy's are yanking the strings.

 

[Guest]

Bubbakat - 9/9/2009 8:43 AM

Thank you guys for your input on the NAFTA agreement. I would say if both parties passed this then it still was a screw up. I don't care whom started it all I care is that it took away from the American people. Now why does a politician blindly follow a thing like NAFTA when they know its going to go sour. Why not but their heads together to do what they were elected for.
The people of the USA are calling out to their politicians and asking them why do this and that when it doesn't help' Some are listening and some are not. Some influential people are looking at the broad picture now and don't like what they see so that is why the president is gong down hill in his popularity. I still think he is nothing but a puppet on a string and the Clinton's and the Kennedy's are yanking the strings.

Probably the best post on this entire thread. Thank you Willard.

 

[finbully]

outcaster - 9/8/2009 7:30 PM


I doesn't really matter that I mentioned Bill first. Maybe I did that for a reason........I think I'm starting to really annoy you now. to Quote "W" "Mission Accomplished"

Really productive - your mission to annoy. Your screen name suits you well.