PDA

View Full Version : Gecko's blatant lying worked last week, so Gecko continues this week.


boutons_deux
10-08-2012, 02:38 PM
Romney pretends Obama’s free trade agreements simply don’t exist

In a key foreign policy speech (http://www.policymic.com/articles/16079/romney-foreign-policy-speech-transcript-full-text) Monday morning, Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney claimed President Barack Obama “has not signed one new free trade agreement in the past four years,” and promised to “reverse that failure.”

However, Congress passed and Obama signed three major trade deals in 2011, giving American companies access to new markets in South Korea, Panama and Colombia. The Associated Press said (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/21/obama-signs-3-trade-deals-biggest-since-nafta/) the arrangements “could be worth billions to American exporters and create tens of thousands of jobs.” Even Fox News reported on it (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/15/us-colombia-trade-deal-to-be-in-place-in-may-officials-say/).

The treaties passed with Republican support, but two-thirds of House Democrats voted against them (http://thehill.com/homenews/house/186899-trade-deal-votes-to-divide-democrats), saying they were deigned to favor corporations over workers and facilitate outsourcing.

Raw Story (http://s.tt/1puL2) (http://s.tt/1puL2)
Wild Cobra
10-08-2012, 03:55 PM
They are not real treaties. They are just agreements.

2/3rds on the senate, not house, must sign on to a treaty for it to have the force of the constitution.
boutons_deux
10-08-2012, 04:18 PM
They are not real treaties. They are just agreements.

2/3rds on the senate, not house, must sign on to a treaty for it to have the force of the constitution.

Gecko said agreements, not treaties.
Wild Cobra
10-09-2012, 02:00 AM
Yet you wrote this:

The treaties passed with Republican support, but two-thirds of House Democrats voted against them
Sure, it came from your linked material. Maybe you should not post material that is inaccurate.
boutons_deux
10-09-2012, 05:53 AM
Yet you wrote this:

Sure, it came from your linked material. Maybe you should not post material that is inaccurate.

second attempt: Gecko said agreements, not treaties.

The monster, and HYPER-SECRET, agreement is in the works, where the United Corporations of America neuter govts and officially become supranational and above the law.


The Pacific free trade deal that's anything but free

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/27/pacific-free-trade-deal
Wild Cobra
10-09-2012, 06:01 AM
Sorry for being a stickler on the terminology. I mess up so much myself, I have no right.

Chances are, I would be against these new deals that Romney seems to be interested in. I don't know the details, but these trade deals seem to always be against our best interest.
boutons_deux
10-09-2012, 06:08 AM
Sorry for being a stickler on the terminology. I mess up so much myself, I have no right.

Chances are, I would be against these new deals that Romney seems to be interested in. I don't know the details, but these trade deals seem to always be against our best interest.

If you mean the 99% by "our interest", correct. But you're probably wrong, usually are.

Here's an article how US growers bitch when NAFTA hurts US growers, but love it when NAFTA allows US corn growers to destroy MX subsistence corn farmers, 1000s of whom fled to USA to work.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/mexico/article/Politics-raised-in-spat-over-tomatoes-3930427.php
Clipper Nation
10-09-2012, 07:52 AM
In a key foreign policy speech (http://www.policymic.com/articles/16079/romney-foreign-policy-speech-transcript-full-text) Monday morning, Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney claimed President Barack Obama “has not signed one new free trade agreement in the past four years,” and promised to “reverse that failure.”

Translation: "I plan to whore myself out to special interests more than Barry does..."