quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

41st President of the United States In office
January 20, 1989 – January 20, 1993 Vice President Dan Quayle Preceded by Ronald Reagan Succeeded by Bill Clinton
He wasnt????
wow history says he was

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

Now I am sure you conservatives are going to say it was Clinton, or some other democrat, but the facts are that it was signed by President Bush in 92.

Bush wasn't president in 92, but don't let a little fact like that get in the way of your rant against the right. If you and owner don't keep the hate alive, who will?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

Sad.  The GOP is bankrupt of ideas, so they denigrate the Dems instead of trying to find solutions.

The Dems have no really good ideas, so they try bad ones and blame the GOP.

The GOP's panacea is to cut taxes and expect a strong economy to appear magically.  While ballooning the deficit.

The Dems' answer is to spend like crazy and expect a strong economy to appear magically.  While ballooning the deficit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

Who says its bad? And if you know the history of the legislation you know damn well it was pushed by the Dems. One of the few business related things they did right.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

I think it will resonate with people who have been raised better than those who figure welfare is an entitlement way of life, and want the economy to get better so they can go back to work

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Hold it.  So now the idea is for the GOP to throw their base of Wal-Mart Republicans under the bus?  Isn't that sorta gonna have them left with choking on their own cocks?

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

I think it will resonate with people who have been raised better than those who figure welfare is an entitlement way of life, and want the economy to get better so they can go back to work

Do you honestly believe that most people on welfare wouldn't like to be working instead?

What Newt is doing, and other Republicans seem to be accepting, is to portray the Democrats as preferring people were on unemployment, welfare, and using food stamps.

The flaw in that plan is it also denigrates those needy people in the same manner you have just done.

And those people vote too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam


Rule, I'm gonna say YES, a LOT of people on welfare have no intentions of working. They'd rather sit around and bitch about "Them illegals are taking jobs away from Americans". Try asking one of them if they'd like to mow yards or work in tobacco or finish drywall, though, and they'll tell you "I'm sorry, Im on disability for my nerves".
(By the way, they are HARD core Republicans). This district hasn't had a congressman that was a Democrat since the 19th century.
THAT, sir, Newt's constituency.

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

IS there anyone actually slow enough to not notice that Lucy changed her terms.

No one said GHW was not involved in NAFTA.

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

IS there anyone actually slow enough to not notice that Lucy changed her terms.<snip>
I changed my terms for good reason numbnuts.
first of all lets look at  wilburs originating posts...

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

ORLY? Who signed NAFTA? How does it benefit an economy to overpay for domestic goods and services?

(Post 4)

then said

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Who says its bad? And if you know the history of the legislation you know damn well it was pushed by the Dems. One of the few business related things they did right.

(post 9)



I asked GWH was a dem? (post 10)



He responded with

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy For your own sake, STFU when you dont know what your talking about.

<blah blah snipped>

(post 13)

I changed my terms, because he didnt answer my original question.so I asked

quote:

Are you saying GHW wasnt involved in NAFTA?

(post 15)

Which is when you stuck your nose in, all troll like and it continues with....

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg No one said GHW was not involved in NAFTA.
Some are trying to pretend it was all GHW/Republicans. They are lying. 
Jilf for example says,
"Now I am sure you conservatives are going to say it was Clinton, or some other democrat, but the facts are that it was signed by President Bush in 92.

So where is his pretension ????? is this like obama getting the short end of the stick for the stimulus bush2 signed just before buggering off back to his ranch?
So, if NAFTA is so bad as the Repubs are saying it is, why wont they admit to who in the hell signed the fucking treaty and quit trying to blame the democrats. " Which is clearly and factually false. So deserved to be corrected.

Actually its not factually wrong, You deserve to be corrected oh and the timeline actually starts with Ronnie back in 1979 and again in 81 The official signing of Nafta by american ambassador Carla Hills, took place in  in san antonio texas on October 7th 1992 It was signed on dec 17 1992 by the three leaders   GHW Bush, Mulroney and Carlos Salinas de Gortari. Before  Clinton got to put it through as law

The center of both the Republican and the democrat parties supported NAFTA, while the fringe end of both parties opposed it.
Not quite
INMHO NAFTA is not the problem with our economy, and things would be worse without it. I agree with you on this

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster

quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

They are already the party of food stamps. And it won't ( hope and change ) anytime soon.

"The number of Americans receiving food stamps reached 39.68 million in February 2010, the highest number since the program began in 1962.[4] As of June 2009, the average monthly benefit was $133.12 per person.[5] As of late November 2009, one in eight Americans and one in four children[6] are using food stamps and the program rate is growing at 20,000 people a day.[7] Recipients must have at least near-poverty incomes to qualify for benefits.[8]"
Rounding to simplify, 40 million people get an average of $133 a month x 12 = approx %64billion. 1/4 OF THOSE ARE KIDS.

Meanwhile, Corporate Welfare is about $170 billion a year
Ya gotta dig for it, rightards

And that DOESN'T INCLUDE tax abatements (which end up being covered by property owners) or other indirect subsidies of "Capitalist" corporations.

KILL THE KIDS FOR CORPORATIONS! You sick soulless motherfuckers. Die.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

IS there anyone actually slow enough to not notice that Lucy changed her terms.<snip>
I changed my terms for good reason numbnuts.
first of all lets look at  wilburs originating posts...

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

ORLY? Who signed NAFTA? How does it benefit an economy to overpay for domestic goods and services?

(Post 4)

then said

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Who says its bad? And if you know the history of the legislation you know damn well it was pushed by the Dems. One of the few business related things they did right.

(post 9)



I asked GWH was a dem? (post 10)



He responded with

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy For your own sake, STFU when you dont know what your talking about.

<blah blah snipped>

(post 13)

I changed my terms, because he didnt answer my original question.so I asked

quote:

Are you saying GHW wasnt involved in NAFTA?

(post 15)

Which is when you stuck your nose in, all troll like and it continues with....

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg No one said GHW was not involved in NAFTA.
Some are trying to pretend it was all GHW/Republicans. They are lying. 
Jilf for example says,
"Now I am sure you conservatives are going to say it was Clinton, or some other democrat, but the facts are that it was signed by President Bush in 92.

So where is his pretension ????? is this like obama getting the short end of the stick for the stimulus bush2 signed just before buggering off back to his ranch?
So, if NAFTA is so bad as the Repubs are saying it is, why wont they admit to who in the hell signed the fucking treaty and quit trying to blame the democrats. " Which is clearly and factually false. So deserved to be corrected.

Actually its not factually wrong, You deserve to be corrected oh and the timeline actually starts with Ronnie back in 1979 and again in 81 The official signing of Nafta by american ambassador Carla Hills, took place in  in san antonio texas on October 7th 1992 It was signed on dec 17 1992 by the three leaders   GHW Bush, Mulroney and Carlos Salinas de Gortari. Before  Clinton got to put it through as law

The center of both the Republican and the democrat parties supported NAFTA, while the fringe end of both parties opposed it.
Not quite
INMHO NAFTA is not the problem with our economy, and things would be worse without it. I agree with you on this

Check out what wiki says,  I even have proper sources on top of it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush#NAFTA
"Bush's administration, along with the Progressive Conservative Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, spearheaded the negotiations of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which would eliminate the majority of tariffs on products traded among the United States, Canada, and Mexico, to encourage trade amongst the countries. The agreement came under heavy scrutiny amongst mainly Democrats, who charged that NAFTA resulted in a loss of US jobs. NAFTA also contained no provisions for labor rights (A) according to the Bush administration, the trade agreement would generate economic resources necessary to enable Mexico's government to overcome problems of funding and enforcement of its labor laws. Bush needed a renewal of negotiating authority to move forward with the NAFTA trade talks. Such authority would enable the president to negotiate a trade accord that would be submitted to Congress for a vote, thereby avoiding a situation in which the president would be required to renegotiate with trading partners those parts of an agreement that Congress wished to change. While initial signing was possible during his term, negotiations made slow, but steady, progress. President Clinton would go on to make the passage of NAFTA a priority for his administration, despite its conservative and Republican roots — with the addition of two side agreements — to achieve its passage in 1993
The treaty has since been defended as well as criticized further.

The American economy has grown 54 percent since the adoption of NAFTA in 1993, with 25 million new jobs created; this was seen by some as evidence of NAFTA being beneficial to the US. With talk in early 2008 regarding a possible American withdrawal from the treaty, Carlos M. Gutierrez, current United States Secretary of Commerce(REPUBLICAN), writes, "Quitting NAFTA would send economic shock waves throughout the world, and the damage would start here at home." (B)



A=reference http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/nafta/nafta0401-04.htm
B=reference http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/29/AR2008022902608.html

And just in case you missed the link to the timeline link 

http://www.fina-nafi.org/eng/integ/chronologie.asp?langue=eng&menu=integ
this is what it says up to Clinton being Pres.
November 13, 1979

While officially declaring his candidacy for President, Ronald Reagan proposes a “North American Agreement” which will produce “a North American continent in which the goods and people of the three countries will cross boundaries more freely.”
January 1981

President Ronald Reagan proposes a North American common market.

September 4, 1984 Brian Mulroney (Conservative Party) is elected Prime Minister of Canada with the highest majority in his country’s history.
September 25, 1984 Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney meets President Reagan in Washington and promises closer relations with the US.
October 9, 1984 The US Congress adopts the Trade and Tariff Act, an omnibus trade act that notably extends the powers of the president to concede trade benefits and enter into bilateral free trade agreements. The Act would be passed on October 30, 1984.
September 26, 1985 Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney announces that Canada will try to reach a free trade agreement with the US.
December 10, 1985 President Reagan officially informs Congress about his intention to negotiate a free trade agreement with Canada under the authority of trade promotion. Referred to as fast track, trade promotion authority is an accelerated legislative procedure which obliges the House of Representatives and the Senate to decide within 90 days whether or not to establish a trade trade unit. No amendments are permitted.
October 3, 1987 Conclusion of the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement (FTA) in Washington.
January 2, 1988 Prime Minister Mulroney and President Reagan sign the FTA. January 1, 1989 The FTA takes effect.
November 6, 1987 Signing of a framework agreement between the US and Mexico.
June 10, 1990 Presidents Bush and Salinas announce that they will begin discussions aimed at liberalizing trade between their countries.
August 21, 1990 President Salinas officially proposes to the US president the negotiation of a free trade agreement between Mexico and the US.
February 5, 1991 Negotiations between the US and Mexico aimed at liberalizing trade between the two countries officially become trilateral at the request of the Canadian government.
April 7 to 10, 1991 Cooperation agreements are signed between Mexico and Canada covering taxation, cultural production and exports
May 24, 1991 The American Senate endorses the extension of fast track authority in order to facilitate the negotiation of free trade with Mexico.
June 12, 1991 Start of trade negotiations between Canada, the US and Mexico.

April 4, 1992 Signing in Mexico by Canada and Mexico of a protocol agreement on cooperation projects regarding labour.
August 12, 1992 Signing of an agreement in principle on NAFTA.
September 17, 1992 Creation of a trilateral commission responsible for examining cooperation in the area of the environment.
October 7, 1992 Official signing of NAFTA by Michaël Wilson of Canada (minister), American ambassador Carla Hills and Mexican secretary Jaime Serra Puche, in San Antonio (Texas).
December 17, 1992 Official signing of NAFTA by Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, US president George Bush, and Mexican president Carlos Salinas de Gortari, subject to its final approval by the federal Parliaments of the three countries.

Im full of shit am I??
yeah ok Ill take my truth over yours any day.The only reason Clinton got his monika on it(hah) was cos Bush lost.

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg



Ok you start with insults....Typical for a lame back pedal.

Then you use ridicuolus formatting to make it very hard to follow, for obvious reasons....

and rely on analysis from Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is for simple facts, "what year... how many.." It is worthless for"why"


I am very sure there are people not smart enough to grasp the difference between signing into law, and ceremonialy signing something.


In the Election Clinton and gore enthusiastically and vocally campainged in favor of it. Elect me and I will get it passed.

Bush and Quail enthusiastically and voocall campaingned for it. Elect me And I will finish getting it passed.

Perot ann admiral whats his name enthusiastically and vocall opposed it. Elect me and NAFTA is DEAD.

And Perot took a huge number of Republican votes away from Bush causing Clinton to win with the lowest % of the vote in American history.

And Clinton with the democrat controlled Congress renegotiated and got the existing (the real actuall one that is law) passed and signed it into law.


For some reason your wiki proof leaves out that Clinton was a supporter and campained on getting NAFTA passed.

Also signing a treaty is meaningless. Clinton signed KYOTO.

Treaties are ratified by the Senate. And in this case the democrat Senate ratified it.