There’s no reason to renegotiate NAFTA and it is not worth the risk of antagonizing Canada. It’s not just the oil. There are so many reasons why we want strong relations with Canada.
if I will concede anything it is that we could unilaterally eliminate all trade barriers without resorting to treaties. But experience shows that treaties such as nafta have a greater chance of success at reducing trade barriers on both sides.
I also don’t know what you mean by reducing energy consumption. Sounds like enviro-socialism.
Dear ari-freedom,
You wrote:
>>There’s no reason to renegotiate NAFTA and it is not worth the risk of antagonizing Canada. It’s not just the oil. There are so many reasons why we want strong relations with Canada.
if I will concede anything it is that we could unilaterally eliminate all trade barriers without resorting to treaties. But experience shows that treaties such as nafta have a greater chance of success at reducing trade barriers on both sides.<<
Well, then you DO concede that your initial sarcastic statement (”screw Canada and rely on Saudi oil”) was an absurd mischaracterization of my proposal, right?
>>I also don’t know what you mean by reducing energy consumption. Sounds like enviro-socialism.<<
That is purely your inference! I said nothing about “enviro-socialism,” nor did I suggest that any coercive methods be applied even faintly resembling “enviro-socialism.”
On the contrary: I called for simultaneously exploiting our domestic energy sources to a greater extent! (Parallel to reducing unnecessary energy consumption.) CAN’T YOU READ?
As a PATRIOT, I choose to minimize my consumption of commodities from my country’s adversaries - even if they are not (yet) declared enemies.
Just where do you get off, putting words in my mouth, making false assumptions about my standpoint, and infering things that I haven’t said?!
Regards,