NAFTA Super HighWay - Canada links to Mexico!
Ruxpercnd @ Mon Sep 04, 2006 2:40 pm
It getting a little clearer to me now.....
Bush was really hedging on stopping illegals... but of course! The real agenda is to open up the Mexican border with the NAFTA Super Highway and all....
Then the corporations and politicians can cut deals with wealthy Mexicans... The poor will be bought and sold as needed for basic labor for meatpacking plants, grape pickers. All truck drivers in North America will be Mexican. ...gardeners and pool cleaners for the Bush class....
Don't get me wrong, I am an conservative... but I see the Bush plan for a stratified class society taking shape.
.... Follow the money, yup!.... follow the money.
Clogeroo @ Mon Sep 04, 2006 3:32 pm
To me Canada has just switched the British with Americans. Our forefathers’ vision was a railway linking the country bringing its wealth of resources and food across the seas and feed and supply the Empire. We hardly were dependent on American trade we emphasized not to be. Imagine if we had NAFTA in 1867. Would Canada even exist now?
So why did we trade the Empire for the republic? When many people warned against it feeling it would leave our country in a submissive position? Economically sure we do get benefits products have become cheaper but it seems our culture and sovereignty is becoming lost because of it. Not too many countries would put all their eggs in one basket either so why do we?
I think Canada would be better off to trade globally for we are a more global country why do we think we have to tie ourselves to North America? Why can't we use our resources and build things? We would get more money selling finished goods than selling raw materials. We should become self-reliant and supply our own country's needs and just export goods and materials to the world. We are the second largest country in the world with vast resources what do we need to import?
Indelible @ Tue Sep 05, 2006 4:46 pm
because america wants it to be that way because it's good for them, and we don't seem to have the balls to say no.
Ruxpercnd @ Tue Sep 05, 2006 7:10 pm
Indelible Indelible:
because america wants it to be that way because it's good for them, and we don't seem to have the balls to say no.
I am sure there is a Canadian rational to it... for example, getting cheap labor to Canada and opening up the Mexican market to Canadian products.
.... and you get a free pass across American real estate .... all the while you are trying to stop us from using international waters in the Arctic. See, Americans are generous and you wll be too when you learn to share your toys. Americans are your friends!
USCAdad @ Tue Sep 05, 2006 10:53 pm
Indelible Indelible:
i've actually known about this for quite a while...i'm really surprised that it's only making the news now.
Sometimes news seems to move slow. There are certainly conservative elements within the US that are just getting wind of this. Ron Paul is an old school conservative congressman from Texas. He doesn't seem all that thrilled on the idea:
$1:
A North American United Nations?
August 28, 2006
Globalists and one-world promoters never seem to tire of coming up with ways to undermine the sovereignty of the United States. The most recent attempt comes in the form of the misnamed "Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America (SPP)." In reality, this new "partnership" will likely make us far less secure and certainly less prosperous.
According to the US government website dedicated to the project, the SPP is neither a treaty nor a formal agreement. Rather, it is a "dialogue" launched by the heads of state of Canada, Mexico, and the United States at a summit in Waco, Texas in March, 2005.
What is a "dialogue"? We don't know. What we do know, however, is that Congressional oversight of what might be one of the most significant developments in recent history is non-existent. Congress has had no role at all in a "dialogue" that many see as a plan for a North American union.
According to the SPP website, this "dialogue" will create new supra-national organizations to "coordinate" border security, health policy, economic and trade policy, and energy policy between the governments of Mexico, Canada, and the United States. As such, it is but an extension of NAFTA- and CAFTA-like agreements that have far less to do with the free movement of goods and services than they do with government coordination and management of international trade.
Critics of NAFTA and CAFTA warned at the time that the agreements were actually a move toward more government control over international trade and an eventual merging of North America into a border-free area. Proponents of these agreements dismissed this as preposterous and conspiratorial. Now we see that the criticisms appear to be justified.
Let's examine just a couple of the many troubling statements on the SPP's US government website:
"We affirm our commitment to strengthen regulatory cooperation...and to have our central regulatory agencies complete a trilateral regulatory cooperation framework by 2007"
Though the US administration insists that the SPP does not undermine US sovereignty, how else can one take statements like this? How can establishing a "trilateral regulatory cooperation" not undermine our national sovereignty?
The website also states SPP's goal to "[i]mprove the health of our indigenous people through targeted bilateral and/or trilateral activities, including in health promotion, health education, disease prevention, and research." Who can read this and not see massive foreign aid transferred from the US taxpayer to foreign governments and well-connected private companies?
Also alarming are SPP pledges to "work towards the identification and adoption of best practices relating to the registration of medicinal products." That sounds like the much-criticized Codex Alimentarius, which seeks to radically limit Americans' health freedom.
Even more troubling are reports that under this new "partnership," a massive highway is being planned to stretch from Canada into Mexico, through the state of Texas. This is likely to cost the US taxpayer untold billions of dollars, will require eminent domain takings on an almost unimaginable scale, and will make the US more vulnerable to those who seek to enter our country to do us harm.
This all adds up to not only more and bigger government, but to the establishment of an unelected mega-government. As the SPP website itself admits, "The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America represents a broad and ambitious agenda." I hope my colleagues in Congress and American citizens will join me in opposing any "broad and ambitious" effort to undermine the security and sovereignty of the United States.
August 28, 2006
Globalists and one-world promoters never seem to tire of coming up with ways to undermine the sovereignty of the United States. The most recent attempt comes in the form of the misnamed "Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America (SPP)." In reality, this new "partnership" will likely make us far less secure and certainly less prosperous.
According to the US government website dedicated to the project, the SPP is neither a treaty nor a formal agreement. Rather, it is a "dialogue" launched by the heads of state of Canada, Mexico, and the United States at a summit in Waco, Texas in March, 2005.
What is a "dialogue"? We don't know. What we do know, however, is that Congressional oversight of what might be one of the most significant developments in recent history is non-existent. Congress has had no role at all in a "dialogue" that many see as a plan for a North American union.
According to the SPP website, this "dialogue" will create new supra-national organizations to "coordinate" border security, health policy, economic and trade policy, and energy policy between the governments of Mexico, Canada, and the United States. As such, it is but an extension of NAFTA- and CAFTA-like agreements that have far less to do with the free movement of goods and services than they do with government coordination and management of international trade.
Critics of NAFTA and CAFTA warned at the time that the agreements were actually a move toward more government control over international trade and an eventual merging of North America into a border-free area. Proponents of these agreements dismissed this as preposterous and conspiratorial. Now we see that the criticisms appear to be justified.
Let's examine just a couple of the many troubling statements on the SPP's US government website:
"We affirm our commitment to strengthen regulatory cooperation...and to have our central regulatory agencies complete a trilateral regulatory cooperation framework by 2007"
Though the US administration insists that the SPP does not undermine US sovereignty, how else can one take statements like this? How can establishing a "trilateral regulatory cooperation" not undermine our national sovereignty?
The website also states SPP's goal to "[i]mprove the health of our indigenous people through targeted bilateral and/or trilateral activities, including in health promotion, health education, disease prevention, and research." Who can read this and not see massive foreign aid transferred from the US taxpayer to foreign governments and well-connected private companies?
Also alarming are SPP pledges to "work towards the identification and adoption of best practices relating to the registration of medicinal products." That sounds like the much-criticized Codex Alimentarius, which seeks to radically limit Americans' health freedom.
Even more troubling are reports that under this new "partnership," a massive highway is being planned to stretch from Canada into Mexico, through the state of Texas. This is likely to cost the US taxpayer untold billions of dollars, will require eminent domain takings on an almost unimaginable scale, and will make the US more vulnerable to those who seek to enter our country to do us harm.
This all adds up to not only more and bigger government, but to the establishment of an unelected mega-government. As the SPP website itself admits, "The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America represents a broad and ambitious agenda." I hope my colleagues in Congress and American citizens will join me in opposing any "broad and ambitious" effort to undermine the security and sovereignty of the United States.
Indelible @ Wed Sep 06, 2006 5:00 pm
i'm not thrilled either....nafta is a joke. "free trade" lately seems to only be free when it's profitable for the states
themasta @ Wed Sep 06, 2006 5:04 pm
Indelible Indelible:
i'm not thrilled either....nafta is a joke. "free trade" lately seems to only be free when it's profitable for the states
Yet how so few politicians realize that fact.
Ruxpercnd @ Wed Sep 06, 2006 9:09 pm
Indelible Indelible:
i'm not thrilled either....nafta is a joke. "free trade" lately seems to only be free when it's profitable for the states
Whoa there partner! A lot of Americans aren't too thrilled with NAFTA either. We have to deal with Canadian government subsidized lumber and allow goods made by non-union, cheap, labor into America.
However, anyone who has taken college level economics has learned that we should allow open and free trade to take advantage of "Competitiive Advantage". And Adam Smith's "laissez-faire" economic theories....
So, What major economist advocates protectionism?
The problem is fairness. Fairness is attempted internally by national trade laws, anti-trust, anti-monopoly, etc. But how to legislate internationally? The answer is though treaties like NAFTA. The problem is enforcement, whereupon we run across sovereignty. Any time someones tries to enforce the rules we all get our sovereign tails in a knot.
I don't know.... maybe y'all can figure it out.
It is possible that America can't be managed at this level, we are just as freaky about sovereignty (when we want to be) as anyone else.
I think the only answer is to keep trying.... and leaders should be totally honest with their citizens. There has been too much backroom dealing. The way people have been displaced without compensation is not fair. Perhaps to implement these agreements, we do in fact give up some sovereignty and just can't be honest with folks about it.
Indelible @ Wed Sep 06, 2006 10:11 pm
$1:
Whoa there partner! A lot of Americans aren't too thrilled with NAFTA either. We have to deal with Canadian government subsidized lumber and allow goods made by non-union, cheap, labor into America.
is it hard to realise that the lumber is from trees that grow in canada and is harvested by canadians, and is processed in canadian mills? that we subsidize the industry is our business, and the tarifs were wrong and damaging to our economy. is this free trade? not in the least. as far as i'm concerned, there ought to be more focus on fair trade rather than free trade. i'm glad that there are americans who oppose NAFTA. it's time for change.
$1:
So, What major economist advocates protectionism?
RCalf
$1:
The problem is fairness. Fairness is attempted internally by national trade laws, anti-trust, anti-monopoly, etc. But how to legislate internationally? The answer is though treaties like NAFTA. The problem is enforcement, whereupon we run across sovereignty. Any time someones tries to enforce the rules we all get our sovereign tails in a knot.
couldn't agree more. maybe we need to think a little more on the lines of small things. to use an allegory....if you don't lile the way we do business, then shop somewhere else. then, if no one comes to your store cuz no one likes how you do business, you have to either change how you do business or close your shop (not an easy option to take). getting along is great but you can't force people to get along. both parties, canada AND the US need to make decisions on their own that will benefit each other, instead of being forced to by NAFTA, that'll never work.
$1:
and leaders should be totally honest with their citizens. There has been too much backroom dealing.
$1:
Perhaps to implement these agreements, we do in fact give up some sovereignty and just can't be honest with folks about it.
first, this sentence doesn't make much sense, and no, i don't think we need to give up sovereignty.
Ruxpercnd @ Wed Sep 06, 2006 11:07 pm
Trade pacts like NAFTA are unfair to Americans.
Thanks for pointing out that free trade may not be fair trade. Good Point.
I agree that Governments should be able to subsidize their industries, but we also have the right not to buy that lumber. Sword cuts both ways.
Actually, I believe that Canadian government subsidies are really unfair to Canadians. It is taking money that should go to Canadian citizens and giving it to big corporations, like Weyerhaueser. I think Canadian citizens should benefit more from Canadian resources. And the average American doesn't benefit from billions of dollars in tariffs collected on Canadian lumber. That money is slated to be distributed American lumber companies, like Weyerhaueser. What Americans get is higher lumber prices.
And if the French taxpayers want to subsidize Airbus, then ok.... it's their nickel. In the long run it is a loser.
At the expense of the American people, trade with China, using China's very cheap labor, has stimulated China economically and perhaps politically. That is a good thing. The world is safer. But the American people have paid a price with job loss and huge trade deficits. We benefit by floating American dollars, that works like a huge loan. But, economically, China has us by the balls with all the American dollars they are holding. Hmmm... I don't think the average citizen benefits from that.
It is ironic that what the average America sees is cheap prices at Walmart and I never shop at Walmart.
Economics can be complicated and obscure. Reading an econ textbook is guaranteed to put you to sleep. But it just fries me that these trade agreements are so undemocratic. We don't get to vote on them to save our own jobs. We don't get to protest against sweatshop labor, child labor, etc.. I would bet the farm that big corporations have a voice.
USCAdad @ Thu Sep 07, 2006 12:49 am
Nafta should definitely be ended. It's unenforceable, it jeopordizes Canadian control of it's water, and it leads to potentially crippeling law suits. UPS suing Canada post would be a prime example.
Indelible @ Thu Sep 07, 2006 6:00 pm
$1:
We don't get to protest against sweatshop labor, child labor, etc..
you sure can, you can protest whatever you want....
just look at those retard 'baptist' people protesting and spreading hatred at fallen soldiers' funerals, with signs that say "god hates fags". you definitely can and should protest sweat shop labour.
Indelible @ Thu Sep 07, 2006 6:06 pm
$1:
But it just fries me that these trade agreements are so undemocratic. We don't get to vote on them to save our own jobs.
oops, i hit submit instead of quoting this next like i wanted to...
anyways, NAFTA came to existence when i was very young, long before i was able to vote.
i agree with most of what you said in your post, while NAFTA may not help the average amweican, it is good for the economy, whereas it is bad for the canadian economy. the tariffs were very damading to our lumber industry and the beef ban was much worse than that.
rabbit20 @ Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:49 pm
yea and this NAFTA is going to destroy the American trucker! America is destroying every job it has here. now our ports are going to get fucked since no one will use them, they will use mexico, and then our truckers will get fucked because we will have mexicans trucking the shit in! FUCK THE NAFTA HIGHWAY AND FUCK THE NORTH AMERICAN UNION!
Canadian_Mind @ Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:02 am
lol, nice res. I still remember this thread too.