Good Reasons To Reject CAFTA

The Daily Oklahoman ^ | 07-18-05 | Bill Graves

[kaktuskid]

Apparently Canada has no problem with that so-called "dirty" sugar, nor does our gov't who allows the sweets to be imported from Canada. Nor have we heard of mass poisonings from ingestion of Canadian LifeSavers.

BTW, another foe of CAFTA is Sandinista Danny Ortega, who is attempting to regain power in Nicaragua through elections (remember the Contras?)

[hedgetrimmer]

I wouldn't know, having never been to that website. But that text came directly from the Council on Foreign Relations talking points for CAFTA.

[1rudeboy]

Lowering our cost of production means that property owners will see a wholesale crash of the value of their property.

Lord I hope so. Why should taxpayers send them a one billion-plus check per year?

[1rudeboy]

Well, now you know.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

I remember the '80s and that sucked.

Yeah, Reagan did a horrible job.

[hedgetrimmer]

Apparently Canada has no problem with that so-called "dirty" sugar

Nor do they have a problem propping up Fidel Castro by buying sugar from him, either.

So I take it that you think a 19th plantation, slave labor and all, is THE place to purchase your foodstuffs?

[RegulatorCountry]

"Nope. Your friends at the AFL-CIO."

You seem altogether too gleeful at having handed so much ammunition to that bunch of socialists. You don't recognize the problem in having done that, because to you it's just a neat little label, a way to tar conservative opposition to your little globalist do-gooder treaty, which is merely the latest salvo in a long string of globalist do-gooder treaties. You have the gall to hold this up as a way to "avoid" doing business with China, but who the hell was it that made China into the export powerhouse that it is today? The very same people who are touting CAFTA-DR. You, and people just like you, plus your puppetmasters at the UN.

[hedgetrimmer]

Everyone's property values will go down. Then we wouldn't have any money left to put in the Pell grant fund! You could get hurt by it too!

[1rudeboy]

Nice. And no one will afford hedgetrimmers! Whatever will you do?

[hedgetrimmer]

oh, hedges ALWAYS need trimming. Those globalist elitists that run the transnationals don't like seeing a TWIG out of place.

[RegulatorCountry]

"Why should taxpayers send them a one billion-plus check per year?"

Taxpayers? You don't seem especially concerned about taxpayers. Taxpayers are voters. Wonder how many of them are employed by companies that could ostensibly be targeted by GATT, NAFTA , CAFTA-DR, and whatever you reverse colonialists dream up next, like SAFTA for South America? I guess it's costing you too much to load your bong or something, gotta target "Big Weed" next.

[1rudeboy]

You don't seem especially concerned about taxpayers.

An assertion defeating its own premise. Well done.

[RegulatorCountry]

"An assertion defeating its own premise. Well done."

On the other hand, your pose, feigning concern for taxpayers, is not too terribly well done. And neither is this disingenuous attempt at labelling all opposition as being some sort of union ploy. As far as billions in taxpayer dollars, you need to stop and think, or at least try to appear to have done so, before you start bandying about numbers associated with the removal of this or that tariff or subsidy. As if there were no related costs, in tax receipts from salaries lost, not to mention the multiplier effect of these salaries.

However, you just continue right on with your advocacy. You seem loaded for bear on this one. Have at it, but you're not even close to guaranteed a win on this. Bush needs to seriously revisit the timetable. It might be wise to consider future political repercussions as well. The fact that NAFTA has proven to be profoundly unpopular in certain areas of the country will only be compounded by trying to push CAFTA. Just who might go from safe to questionable, in 2006, let alone 2008? There will be a price to pay, no matter how rosy you'd like to depict yet another internationalization of yet another domestic employer.

[1rudeboy]

On the other hand, your pose, feigning concern for taxpayers, is not too terribly well done.

Are you suggesting that I am indifferent to the amount of taxes that I, or we, pay? That is the logical outcome of your reasoning.

And neither is this disingenuous attempt at labelling all opposition as being some sort of union ploy.

Give it a rest. I responded to the following comment:

Labor unions, including the AFL/CIO, say CAFTA will result in a net loss of U.S. jobs, and that the agreement fails to provide adequate education or job training for those left unemployed.

I merely pointed out that the above statement is correct. Disingenuous, indeed.

[RegulatorCountry]

"I merely pointed out that the above statement is correct. Disingenuous, indeed."

You "merely" attempt to tar conservative opposition to your pet treaty by association with the AFL/CIO. Indeed, disingenuous.

[1rudeboy]

You fail to understand that I was reponding to an attempt to "tar" conservative support for the treaty by associating it to the CFR. I'll try to make it easy for you to follow:

person A: Group 1 says this, and these are Group 2's talking points.
person B: They also happen to be Group 1's talking points.

The only disingenuousness you see is in your imagination.

[RegulatorCountry]

"The only disingenuousness you see is in your imagination."

That's called "tarring with the same brush" in my neck of the woods. You'll find that I'm not the only one, with such an imagination.

[1rudeboy]

Fair enough. I'll accept your second definition. I simply wish you'd apply it to everybody, and not simply folks with whom you disagree.

[RegulatorCountry]

"Fair enough. I'll accept your second definition."

Whatever. Go forth, 1rudeboy, and propagandize.