Skip to comments.
Mexico Revokes Antidumping Duties on U.S. Long Grain White Rice
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative ^
| 14. September 2006
| press release
Posted on 09/17/2006 12:50:17 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-35 next last
Good news for Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. More trucks on the Trans-Texas Corridor. Life is good.
One nickel to the first person to mention illegal immigration.
1
posted on
09/17/2006 12:50:17 PM PDT
by
1rudeboy
oops . . . not Mississippi, but Arkansas. Sorry.
2
posted on
09/17/2006 12:51:21 PM PDT
by
1rudeboy
To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
3
posted on
09/17/2006 12:52:28 PM PDT
by
1rudeboy
To: 1rudeboy
One nickel to the first person to mention illegal immigration.
Well, how about anti-dumping duties imposed on each illegal caught? Say...$100K each for costs to American taxpayer?
4
posted on
09/17/2006 12:55:51 PM PDT
by
peyton randolph
(No man knows the day nor the hour of The Coming of The Great White Handkerchief.)
To: 1rudeboy
One nickel to the first person to mention illegal immigration. Well.... I just came up 5 cents short for the vending machine, so... Illegal immigration.
5
posted on
09/17/2006 12:56:59 PM PDT
by
Celtjew Libertarian
("Don't take life so seriously. You'll never get out of it alive." -- Bugs Bunny)
To: 1rudeboy
Good news for Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.
Don't forget Arkansas, #1 producer and California, #2 producer although a lot of theirs is exported East.
6
posted on
09/17/2006 1:06:23 PM PDT
by
deport
(The Governor, The Foghorn, The Dingaling, The Joker, some other fellar...... The Governor Wins)
To: 1rudeboy
Hey, we grow plenty of rice in Mississippi.. in the Delta anyway =)
7
posted on
09/17/2006 1:10:57 PM PDT
by
somniferum
(Annoy a liberal.. Work hard and be happy.)
To: 1rudeboy
So, will this be good news for the toll-takers on the NAFTA Superhighway?
To: 1rudeboy
"One nickel to the first person to mention illegal immigration."At least we have the hard-working Mexicans up here. Maybe the Mexican government has a problem with us dumping rice down there because they might stay home and eat?
9
posted on
09/17/2006 1:21:59 PM PDT
by
USMCPOP
(Father of LCpl. Karl Linn, KIA 1/26/2005 Al Haqlaniyah, Iraq)
To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Good news for those pesky Spaniards. ;)
10
posted on
09/17/2006 1:26:56 PM PDT
by
1rudeboy
To: deport
I don't know enough about California rice-growers to include them . . . one would think that they will benefit from this ruling also, but I suppose it depends on the type of rice they grow.
11
posted on
09/17/2006 1:30:29 PM PDT
by
1rudeboy
To: 1rudeboy
Good example of the sovereignty loss countries face when they sign onto the New World Order (Government). If I'm a Mexican rice farmer, how do I petition for a redress of my grievances? The WTO? Bwahahaha!
"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"
You know? I'm beginning to miss the good 'ol USSR. Kept the elites safely busy protecting their assets. Pun intended.
The money lenders have thrown Jesus out of the temple. Free trade? My ***. A real free trade agreement could be written on one sheet of paper.
12
posted on
09/17/2006 1:42:30 PM PDT
by
outdriving
(Diversity is a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there.)
To: USMCPOP
At least we have the hard-working Mexicans up here. Maybe the Mexican government has a problem with us dumping rice down there because they might stay home and eat?
Except for the out of work Mexican rice farmers and processors -- and the shopkeepers and equipment salesmen and buyers who do business with them.
This is an unintended consequence of "free trade" -- it's not a win-win market. The real big downside is it means that Mexican who didn't own much -- but were owners of something, so had middle-class values -- have to become workers. A good number of whom will consider working in the U.S.
13
posted on
09/17/2006 1:46:37 PM PDT
by
rpgdfmx
To: outdriving
Let me see if I have this straight: Mexico removes a barrier to U.S. rice producers, at the prodding of the U.S. and the W.T.O., and you feel our sovereignty is violated? How?
14
posted on
09/17/2006 1:48:14 PM PDT
by
1rudeboy
To: rpgdfmx
I suppose you get the nickel, albeit you get it in an oblique fashion. Are you suggesting that U.S. trade policy necessarily needs to take into account Mexican subsistence farmers? A jobs program for Mexicans, if you will?
15
posted on
09/17/2006 1:53:32 PM PDT
by
1rudeboy
To: 1rudeboy
Did you read my post?
Your question is nonsensical. Please try again.
16
posted on
09/17/2006 1:58:36 PM PDT
by
outdriving
(Diversity is a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there.)
To: outdriving
Let's cut-through the BS. Explain to me how my question in "nonsensical," as you appear to be suggesting that I need to give a damn about some unnamed Mexican peasant.
17
posted on
09/17/2006 2:00:00 PM PDT
by
1rudeboy
To: rpgdfmx
The Mexican farmers would have a better chance of competing and surviving if we and the Europeans didn't subsidize our agriculture.
To: 1rudeboy
If we wish to help out Mexican peasants (as well as peasants around the world), we and the Europeans should end all agricultural subsidies.
To: outdriving
Notice that Congress wasn't mentioned in the article. The USTR, and the WTO have authority over our trade now.
On Constitution Day, it would be nice if our citizens would stop and reflect on the changes that these "free traders" have wrought on our system of government, and maybe muster up enough conviction for our Republic to summarily toss them out of our government (and maybe put a few in prison).
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-35 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson