Replies

It sounds to me that the best thing for you to do is vote for Hillary.

Give it a rest Seminar Webber. She's your guy. No matter how much you Fifth Columnists against our country protest, you can't hide your liberalism. You undoubtedly hate these guys

because they were all, all of them (inclusive of Jefferson after 1812), for American tariffs that preferentially supported indigenous industrial independence...which you would label "protectionist" as if that were a bad thing. It wasn't:

If the dems can gain control of the two branches,

Newsflash. They already do. They have Congress along with 9-12 RINOs. And Bush is clearly one of THEM. Fifth Columnist. And then there's the Bureaucracy. That makes Four. And the MSM. That is the "Fifth Estate" in more ways than one.

They control all of these, hence they were astounded when some of their croneys chickened out when faced with "the loud people".

... they will try to re-negotiate NAFTA to add protections for the unions and environment.

First, that renegotiation is unlikely since it was Xlinton that produced it and he has unfailingly echoed Bush's defenses of it since. Second, that renegotiation if pursued would likely prove Irrelevant except as it may inadvertantly slightly level the playing field. That is not enough. We want justice for America. And the only way is if We have independence. And It is not redeemable. No more globalism. It, and its associated entry into the WTO, needs to go in its entirety...to send the appropriate message to all those who have gotten used to betraying the U.S.

"The Party's Over."

They/you can get even with the evil businessmen and investors.

Since I am one, I doubt that helps me. And I like SOME businessmen and investors who actually try to defend America, rather than backstab them like the Quislings do.

So, No. We need Duncan Hunter.

Time to restore proper governmental role to trade. Get the phoney free traitors out of the way, fire their assess from the Commerce Dept, Feds and Treasury. Personnel is policy.

So we have a slew of Quisling enablers of Chicom victory...who need to be Pink Slipped. With extreme prejudice.

"since it was Xlinton that produced it"

A lot of people get mixed over who signed what when.

The official signing of NAFTA was in Dec of 1992 by Bush, Mulroney, and Salinas. It was subject to approval by the Congresses/Parliament.

Even tho the dems had accepted the need for Chap 11 as a shield for US businesses/investors in Latin America, they were uncomfortable with what they saw as a lack of labor and environmental protections, so they insisted that a side, or parallel, agreement be negotiated for that.

The side agreement was negotiated and signed in '93 by Clinton.

NAFTA went into effect in 1994.

The side agreement turned out to be less than ineffective. The lawyers have turned the Chap 11 shield into a sword to attack regulatory law and the dems are fearful that the VRWC will roll back the New Deal.

This is why the dems want to open up NAFTA and put the labor and enviro protections in the agreement. Likewise, the dems will not allow the pending FTAs with side agreements.