Replies

Pure nonsense. Treaties have been entered into throughout history, and only very recently have treaties involved of any kind of independent body to oversee disputes. That's just an embryonic government, plain and simple.

Treaties always have mechanisms for enforcement - be it a third party or the ability to simply leave. As CAFTA is not going to be approved as a treaty, it has even less potentcy. This is a no-brainer - the agreement opens up foreign markets to our exporters.

If you really disagree with the creatoin of NATO there really is no point in continuing this discussion. This is merely about an agreement to open foreign markets in the face of an agressive enemy who would rather they stay shut to us.

The Jordan agreement has many justifications - all equal - and involving both SECURITY and ECONOMICS.

And this conversation will not continue unless you give me one example of our soveriengnty being lost to Canada or Mexico due to NAFTA. You guys made the SAME ARGUMENTS back then about a North American superstate. I don't see it.

As CAFTA is not going to be approved as a treaty, it has even less potentcy.

It has even less constitutionality. But that hasn't been stopped by this Supreme Court yet. Hence the "potency" is derived from the trade war threat. Which is something we should simply take on forthrightly rather than drink the Kool Aid, and allow it to proceed by subterfuge.

Treaties always have mechanisms for enforcement - be it a third party or the ability to simply leave.

As if those two "mechanisms" are remotely similar.

If you really disagree with the creatoin of NATO there really is no point in continuing this discussion.

Translation: You're very eager for an excuse, however flimsy and dishonest, to cut and run.

This is merely about an agreement to open foreign markets in the face of an agressive enemy who would rather they stay shut to us.

So you claim. It's just as likely that this aggressive enemy would have further access to our own economy should this deal go through. And tell me, in what other ways that you can think of has this administration been demonstrating its concern about this "agressive enemy"? Has it, for example, been shutting down Export-Import Bank subsidies to companies that trade with them? How about funds to the IMF that underwrite loans to them because they're a "developing country"?

And this conversation will not continue unless you give me one example of our soveriengnty being lost to Canada or Mexico due to NAFTA.

NAFTA tribunals have been subjecting American courts to an additional layer of review. Yes, I know about the inevitable counterresponse that Americans "don't have to" obey these tribunals. If that's the case, then why have them?