Is globalism and "free trade" what's destroying the GOP? (America-first vanity)

[Cringing Negativism Network]

Yesterday I happened upon a post by a fellow FReeper. In retrospect, I am sorry for responding rudely to their post - and I hope they happen upon this apology.

The post was presenting their heartfelt opinion that American industry and our system itself must be allowed to come apart so that something better can replace it.

It was a Rand-ian position. The system is becoming oppressive, therefore we must weaken it.

[1rudeboy]

Listen, you retard: I'm the one arguing that it makes no difference who signed NAFTA, with regard to your imaginary contention that Reagan was somehow against it.

[Mojave]

Listen, you retard:

I've listened to you. You're nothing but generalities. Mostly lies to boot.

[1rudeboy]

Essentially, we can boil [Mojave's] position down to:

I support free trade but I don't like some of the environmental requirements of NAFTA.

That's what's funny, and why you can't get a straight answer. I don't think our friend supports free trade at all, which is why he's so emotional about the Reagan thing.

[1rudeboy]

You want me to post some more “lies,” in Reagan’s own words?

[Mojave]

You want me to post some more “lies,” in Reagan’s own words?

From the version of NAFTA negotiated by Bill Clinton and algore? You haven't been able to quote it yet.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

So Reagan limited Canada from access to governmental procurement, and Canada limited the US from governmental procurement (education and health care).

But do you agree with the following:

Fundamentally, President Reagan believed that free economic trade and private enterprise were the best ways to grow the economy

Would you agree to that? Stop arguing, let's try to find some common ground first!

[Mojave]

Let's discuss specifics.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

That's what's funny, and why you can't get a straight answer. I don't think our friend supports free trade at all, which is why he's so emotional about the Reagan thing.

I think that's abundantly clear... It is objection to free trade at its heart that is the concern, not any obscure rider on a bill that is the concern. His position is fundamentally anti-free-trade - essentially anti-capitalism, and he is using some environmental concern over NAFTA as a cover.

Also interesting to see the other anti-capitalism folks have dropped out, once the references started coming out.

And I still haven't been told which car is more American...:)

[PugetSoundSoldier]

OK, specifics. What do you want to address?

[Mojave]

His position is fundamentally anti-free-trade

And your position is fundamentally hatred of Ronald Reagan and a desire to lie about him without being contradicted.

I'm done with you.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

OK, so much for specifics! I guess my summation of your position was correct, in that you refused to answer.

Rather than hate Reagan, I take the man at his words and deeds. He spoke of free trade, and he passed free trade legislation. He appointed the greatest free-trader economist of our time - Milton Friedman - to his administration.

There is no hatred of Reagan, or his accomplishments from me. None at all. I admire the man, his passion, and his message, and rejoice that he was such a free trade proponent! That he took the step of open trade and open borders and working with our neighbors, that was so opposite of that espoused by Carter.

There is no shame in you stating your beliefs; if you believe otherwise, just state it. A man who does not have the strength of conviction to simply STATE his conviction is not a man. Strength of conviction is what makes us who we are; hiding your beliefs or running when challenged are signs of weakness. Simply state your belief, that’s all I’ve been trying to get you to do!

Have a good evening, I’m off to go enjoy a wonderful meal, brought about by the forces of capitalism and free trade!

[1rudeboy]

What’s ironic is that Nader’s greenies and the Teamsters tried to use environmental laws (if they didn’t try to use some NAFTA provisions/codicils/whatever, you can be sure that they took a long look at them) in order to prevent the cross-border trucking program, and the U.S. Supreme Court bitchslapped them back to California.

[grey_whiskers]

That's like asking, "Who's the better Catholic? Pelosi or Ted Kennedy."

Which is why you're not getting an answer.

Cheers!

[cradle of freedom]

We are totally on the same wave length. I think ‘free trader’ is usually synonymous with rino. These are the people who are corporate shills, who will do anything that the big corporate interests want. They are on their payroll and the big money interests are their ticket to fame and fortune. When I speak of the big corporate interests I don’t mean that big business is necessarily bad. I think some big companies do good things and appear to be run fairly but some other companies have cutthroat ruthless policies, especially those who have no honor towards their American workers.

The Republican Party is supposed to do what is best for the country, it is not supposed to be the paid servants of the monied classes. We should not be anti-business or anti-corporations but we should not be ready to rubber stamp everything they want either.

Your comment about George W. Bush calling you a “vigilante”, this is exactly what happened to me. It was the illegal immigration problem that opened my eyes to the Bush/McCain brand of Republican politics. Even Arnold Schwarzeneggar made a similar comment to a citizen who asked him what he was going to do about illegal immigration. He later made some absurd comment about how shocked he was at the amount of racism there was. This was in reference to the question he got from this citizen at the town hall meeting. I was furious at him for disrespecting this woman who used a rare opportunity to speak to the governor regarding this nation-threatening issue. He just blew her off then obliquely referred to her as a nativist or racist when he was on tv the next day.

The issue of illegal immigration and free trade made me see the phoney heartless side of the rinos. They couldn’t care less if we drop dead. And that is how I feel about them. Maybe finding decent Republicans is like looking for a needle in a haystack, but I am going to keep looking until I find some. One thing that I have learned is that you cannot accept politicians at face value and you must try to find out as much as you can about them.

[1rudeboy]

Never mind Toddster, I was bored and found it myself. Looks like poor, dear Mojave was a little too quick on the trigger:

December 17, 1992: NAFTA is signed by U.S. President George H.W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, and Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari.
December 8, 1993: NAFTA is signed into law by U.S. President Bill Clinton.

So, we are left with two alternatives: 1. President Clinton and Congress were able to add unnegotiated (think about that for a minute) provisions to NAFTA in the space of the year that Congress was also ratifying it (this is Mojave's version of events), or 2. separate negotiations concerning the environment and whatnot occurred during the Clinton Administration beginning in 1993 until 1994 when NAFTA took effect (my version of events, based on about 30 minutes of research).

The second and more likely possibility leads us to an interesting observation: poor, dear Mojave is taking the parallel agreements/codicils/whatever that Clinton initiated, mixing them with the concluded negotiations of Reagan and Bush 41, and claiming that Reagan would not have approved of the work-product of his own Administration and the following Administration of his own Vice President.

Anyone and everyone is welcome to pick the above apart. I'm interested in where you think I might be wrong.

[Mojave]

So, we are left with two alternatives: 1. President Clinton and Congress were able to add unnegotiated (think about that for a minute) provisions to NAFTA in the space of the year that Congress was also ratifying it (this is Mojave's version of events), or 2. separate negotiations concerning the environment and whatnot occurred during the Clinton Administration beginning in 1993 until 1994 when NAFTA took effect (my version of events, based on about 30 minutes of research).

And then there is the third alternative: 3. "Before the negotiations were finalized, Bill Clinton came into office in the U.S. and Kim Campbell in Canada, and before the agreement became law, Jean Chrétien had taken office in Canada."

Of course, the third alternative, which took about 30 seconds to research, was beyond your comprehension.

At least you've finally learned, a mere 15+ years after the law was passed, that is was President Bill Clinton, not President Ronald Reagan, that signed the greenest trade agreement ever written into law. Your mountain of ignorance is one grain of sand smaller.

[Mojave]

That's like asking, "Who's the better Catholic? Pelosi or Ted Kennedy."

Pelosi. She never drowned anyone.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Sure, and it makes the rallying cry “Buy American!” pretty hard to follow!

[1rudeboy]

Dear God. Now you are using Wikipedia. Game over.

[grey_whiskers]

You forgot to mention, that it demonstrates how far globalism has already gone...

Cheers!