VOTE, Dammit!

[scarygirl]

Damned right there is a new America coming. Thank fucking God. No more right wing religious nut jobs, no more right winged judges.

You had your 8 years. You fucked up the entire country.

Call Hillary or Obama Marxists all you want. I would much rather have either of them, than the corrupt sewer fucks we currently have.

So how exactly are we going to get rid of the right wing religious nut jobs and right winged judges? They have rights too. This is still America... or is it?

This is in no way a slam against you, but I have a feeling that once you get what you think you want you won't like it much anymore. But hey, despite being made to bow your knees to the urges of dictators, you'll still have cable.

[ohsherrie]

Here ya go Scary. Hopefully, if you really intend to vote, Dean and I can find a way to enlighten you on the realities of this country's true economic condition.

http://www.amconmag.com/08_11_03/cover.html

http://www.americanmanufacturing.org/ne ... d-tonight/

You can quibble all you want to about the motives of the writers and publishers of this material, but you can't negate the truth of the facts they're presenting.

Here's the biggie. They've already closed out 3.2 million middle class waged manufacturing jobs. Now they're shipping out all those "technical" jobs that they were going to replace them with and retrain the workforce for. Since it's so large I'll provide a few excerpts:

http://www.whitehouseforsale.org/docume ... horing.pdf

"George W. Bush is the first U.S. president since Herbert Hoover to preside over a nation that has
fewer jobs at the end of his first term than when he took office. During the Bush administration,
1.6 million private sector jobs have been lost nationwide.1
However, an important distinction can be made between Bush’s and Hoover’s tenures: During
the Depression, the U.S. economy collapsed and jobs disappeared completely; during the Bush
years, the U.S. economy has continued to grow, and many jobs that disappeared from within our
borders “reappeared” in far-off locations – places where labor costs are significantly lower. This
practice is widely referred to as offshoring."

"In the aftermath of the blue-collar jobs meltdown, offshoring now has gained major momentum
among service sector companies seeking lower employment costs and higher profit margins.
This job migration began with lower-wage, “back office” operations, such as telemarketing,
reservations and data processing. However, service sector offshoring has moved up the skills
ladder, so that millions of high-paying, high-skilled jobs are now at risk. In other words,
corporations increasingly are shipping out the very kinds of white-collar jobs in which the United
States theoretically should have a competitive advantage and that were supposed to replace
offshored manufacturing jobs.
The newest wave of offshoring is primarily occurring in three industry sectors: financial services,
computer products and services, and telecommunications services – the subjects of this report.
This report’s major findings include:
· At least 53,000 white-collar finance, computer and telecommunications services
jobs have been offshored by 29 companies since 2000. Public Citizen estimates that
more than 11,000 financial services jobs, nearly 25,000 computer products and services jobs
and at least 17,000 telecommunications services jobs have gone abroad. Job losses are almost
certainly much higher, considering the fact that companies resist disclosing such information
and no federal or state reporting requirements exist for jobs sent offshore.
· The Bush administration has taken numerous actions to promote the offshoring
of jobs or failed to take actions to stem the flow of jobs abroad.
· It opposes proposals to include anti-offshoring provisions into government
procurement contracts. Twice in the past 18 months, measures have been considered
in Congress that would restrict the federal government from giving contracts to
companies that send work offshore. In both instances, the Bush administration opposed
the proposals.
· It encourages companies to create jobs overseas by deferring the taxation
of overseas profits. President Bush, who has eagerly revised the tax code to benefit
wealthy corporate CEOs, supports continuing a key incentive for companies to ship jobs
overseas. It allows the profits of U.S.-based multinationals to be subject to taxation only
when their foreign earnings are repatriated. Two years ago, the Treasury Department
promised to issue new regulations to address some of the loopholes that permit this
activity, but even draft changes have not been forthcoming.
· It has been inactive on the threat offshoring poses to consumer privacy
protections for medical and financial information. Increased offshoring by U.S.
companies means that an unprecedented amount of sensitive personal data is being
shipped overseas. Strong privacy protections, however, effectively end at our borders.
Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) has asked nine federal agencies how the Bush
administration is addressing this threat to consumer information privacy – but the
responses, while providing even more proof that new legislation is needed, failed to
address the regulatory holes that exist.
· It has made efforts to expand the World Trade Organization (WTO) into
more service sectors and undermine anti-offshoring policies in
procurement chapters of trade agreements. The White House is trying to
expand the scope of the WTO’s “services” agreement, the General Agreement on
Trade in Services (GATS), by bringing more service sectors under its scope, thereby
limiting the ability of governments to independently regulate service sectors. The
administration is passionately pushing service-sector privatization and deregulation
through new regional and bilateral free trade agreeme nts, such as the Central American
Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) and the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas
(FTAA), a 31-nation NAFTA expansion. The administration also has sought to
undermine state laws by lobbying state governors to get them to bind their states to
new procurement rules in a dozen proposed bilateral free trade agreements. These rules
would threaten state bans on the public purchase of goods produced in sweatshops or
state laws requiring recycled content in paper products and similar goods. They would
also outlaw measures that have been introduced in more than 30 state legislatures to
prohibit the use of state funds for contracts that employ overseas workers.

[ohsherrie]

Same source:

Financial Services
Bank of America 1,500
Bank of America had sent 1,500 technology jobs to India by March
2003 (BusinessWeek , Feb. 2, 2003) and is building a subsidiary
there, which it plans to staff with up to 1,000 by 2005
(ComputerWeekly.com, Feb. 19, 2004).
Charles Schwab 150
San Francisco brokerage Charles Schwab moved part of its
information technology division to a contractor in Bangalore, India, in
2003, where about 150 people do programming for Schwab's internal
computer networks and Web site. This followed a 25 percent
company -wide layoff (The Sun Herald (Biloxi, Miss.) Oct. 27, 2002).
Citigroup 500
Citigroup cut 500 U.S. call center workers at the same time it
acquired an Indian outsourcing firm (Phoenix Business Journal, April
23, 2004).
Fidelity
Investments/FMR
Corp.
1,000 TechsUnite’s Offshore Tracker*
Goldman Sachs 250 TechsUnite’s Offshore Tracker*
HSBC USA 768
HSBC has transferred 768 customer service, collections and "backoffice"
positions from Buffalo, N.Y., to India during the last three
years (Buffalo News , Feb. 22, 2004).
JP Morgan Chase &
Co.
5,040
J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. has said it plans to expand its cost-savingsupport
operations in India to as many as 5,000 employees during
the next several years (Wall Street Journal, Oct. 15, 2003). The
company expected to have 40 research analysts in Mumbai, India, by
the end of 2003 (USA Today, Aug. 5, 2003).
Mellon Financial 230 TechsUnite’s Offshore Tracker*
Merrill Lynch 800 TechsUnite’s Offshore Tracker*
Morgan Stanley 1,000
Morgan Stanley has sent portions of its information technology work
to offshore outsourcers, relying on roughly 1,000 contract workers in
Canada, India and the Philippines (Information Week , Sept. 22,
2003).
Wachovia Not Available
TechsUnite’s Offshore Tracker* reports that an unknown number of
software, web developer and engineer jobs have gone to Latvia,
Lithuania and other unknown locations.
Financial Services
Subtotal
11,238

Computer Products & Services
Applied Materials Inc. 200 TechsUnite’s Offshore Tracker*
Cisco Systems 2,300 TechsUnite’s Offshore Tracker*
Computer Associates
International
300
CAI reported that it planned to add several hundred workers to its
software development centers in India. The company already
employed 300 in India (Newsday, Oct. 12, 2003).
Dell Inc. 5,700
Dell eliminated 5,700 jobs in Central Texas at the same time it
opened a call center in India (Austin American-Statesman, Oct. 21,
2002 and TechsUnite Offshore Tracker*).
Hewlett-Packard 1,200 HP shifted 1,200 Compaq customer-service jobs from Florida to an
existing HP center in India (Fort Worth Star-Telegram, July 21, 2003).
IBM Corp. 3,500
IBM said it intends to send 3,000 American jobs to other countries in
2004 (Wall Street Journal, April 8, 2004). As of December 2003, IBM
had hired 500 engineers in India (Wall Street Journal, Apr. 15, 2003).
Intel Corp. 3,000
After Intel announced plans to cut 4,000 jobs in the United States, the
company said it planned to add 200 workers in India, eventually
tripling its number of engineers there to more than 3,000 (Austin
American Statesman, Oct. 21, 2002).
Microsoft Corp. 900
In Hyderabad, India, Microsoft employs 325 software developers and
125 information technology staff (Seattle Post-Intelligencer, May 28,
2004). Microsoft plans to increase the number of staff in Hyderabad
by 300 by 2005 (ComputerWeekly.com, June 3, 2004). In Bangalore,
India, about 150 Microsoft employees receive customer service calls
(Charlotte Observer, Dec. 14, 2003).
NCR Corp. 350 TechsUnite’s Offshore Tracker*
Oracle Corp. 6,200 TechsUnite’s Offshore Tracker*
Sun Microsystems Not Available
TechsUnite’s Offshore Tracker* reports that an unknown number of
software, Web developer and engineer jobs have gone to
undisclosed offshore locations.
Texas Instruments 1,000
TI was the first company to offshore design work to India. It opened a
design center in Bangalore in 1985. Today, TI has two R&D facilities
there, employing more than 1,000 engineers in chip design and
embedded software. (Business Week , Nov. 11, 2002 and Economist
Intelligence Unit – ViewsWire, June 10, 2004).
Computer Products
& Services Subtotal
24,650


Telecommunications Services
AT&T Corp. 440 TechsUnite’s Offshore Tracker*
Bell South Not Available
Bell South is currently assessing the viability of sending 900
information technology jobs to India by 2007 (America’s Network ,
Feb. 15, 2004).
MCI Inc. 7,500 TechsUnite’s Offshore Tracker*
SBC Communications 4,520
TechsUnite’s Offshore Tracker* reports that SBC hired Indian
contractors to handle inquiries about its high-speed Internet service
at the same time that it eliminated thousands of U.S. positions.
Sprint FON Group 4,500
TechsUnite’s Offshore Tracker.* Sprint has given contracts to IBM
Global Services and EDS to outsource hundreds of information
technology jobs. The jobs are expected to be moved offshore. More
recently, Sprint signed a contract with IBM to outsource 1,600
customer service jobs. Though IBM has said the jobs will not be sent
overseas, it is expected that eventually the work could be handled by
call centers in India or other countries (Kansas City Star, Feb. 14,
2004).
Verizon
Communications 200
Verizon has eliminated hundreds of U.S. contract employees and
replaced them with developers who work for computer-services firms
abroad, primarily in India (Wall Street Journal, March 11, 2003).
Telecommunications
Services Subtotal
17,160
TOTAL 53,048

[ohsherrie]

The 29 companies that are leading offshorers have contributed substantially to
Bush presidential campaigns.
· The 29 companies and their employees have given a total of at least $19.1
million – an average of $657,000 per company– in campaign contributions
to President Bush and the Republican National Committee (RNC) since
2000. These donations include company political action committee and employee
contributions; soft money contributed to the RNC, which is banned in the 2004 election
cycle; and corporate contributions to the Bush-Cheney Inaugural fund. Eleven offshoring
companies in the financial services sector have given a total of $9.3 million to Bush, the
RNC and the inaugural fund since 2000. Twelve offshoring companies in the computer
products and services sector have given a total of $4.6 million to Bush, the RNC and the
inaugural fund since 2000. Six offshoring companies in the telecommunications sector
have given a total of $5.2 million to Bush, the RNC and the inaugural fund since 2000.
· Twenty-three Rangers and Pioneers from the 29 companies bundled
together a minimum of $3.5 million to assist President Bush in the 2000 and
2004 campaigns. Rangers and Pioneers are the honorary titles given by the Bush
campaign to fundraisers who bundle at least $200,000 or $100,000, respectively, in
maximum $2,000 contributions. They are typically corporate executives who often round
up much more than the minimum required to receive the campaign’s special designation.
· The amount raised by the 23 Rangers and Pioneers from these 29
companies increased 10 times from 2000 to 2004. In 2000, just five individuals
from the 29 companies pledged to become Bush Pioneers. Three of them raised at least
$100,000, but the campaign did not confirm whether two others reached their goal or
exactly how much money either of them raised. In 2004, the number of bundlers from the
29 companies had swollen to 19 (10 Rangers and 9 Pioneers), who raised at least $3.2
million. This is a tenfold increase in money raised.
· These 23 Rangers and Pioneers came from just 11 leading offshoring
companies. Seven companies in the financial services sector provided 15 Bush
bundlers, including four from Morgan Stanley and three from Goldman Sachs. The
leading offshoring companies in the computer products and services industry had a total
of four bundlers – two each from Microsoft and Texas Instruments. The leading
offshoring companies in the telecommunications industry had a total of four bundlers,
two each from SBC Communications and Verizon Communications.

· Skilled, white-collar employees are as vulnerable to offshoring as
manufacturing workers.
Researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, have calculated that more than 14
million highly skilled, white-collar jobs paying an annual average salary of $40,000 are
vulnerable to being offshored.4 A widely cited projection by Forrester Research, a technology
research firm, estimates that 3.4 million white-collar jobs will move offshore by 2015,
including 830,000 by 2005, up from their original projection of 588,000.5 A Goldman Sachs
study estimates that as many as 6 million U.S. service jobs could move overseas in the next
decade.6
· Offshoring is sweeping through industries employing highly educated workers
in technology, financial services, information and professional services.
Specialized industry projections include the Gartner Group’s estimate that 10 percent of U.S.
technology jobs will have moved offshore by 2005.7 Despite the brewing political backlash,
Gartner found that up to 25 percent of traditional information technology jobs will be relocated
from developed to developing countries by 2010.8 Mark Zandi, an economist at
Economy.com, estimates that between 750,000 and 1.2 million U.S. jobs have gone offshore
since early 2001, and that 19 percent of these were in information, financial and business
services.9
A.T. Kearney predicts 500,000 financial services jobs (8 percent of all U.S. jobs in banking,
brokerage and insurance) will be shipped overseas by May 2008.10 Almost 5 percent of U.S.
human resources jobs had been sent offshore by mid-2003, a figure that is expected to rise to
at least 15 percent by 2007, according to a national human resources publication. 11
While information technology, back-office accounting and telemarketing jobs have been going
offshore since the mid 1990s,12 professional positions in law, investment research, taxpreparation,
technical writing, and medical transcription are now at risk of being sent
offshore.13
· Low-paying positions have replaced information technology jobs in the
government’s projections for most rapid employment growth.
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) projects that over the next decade six of the 10
occupations expected to gain the most ground are low-wage occupations that do not require a
college degree.14 This represents a major shift from earlier government estimates. Just two
years ago, the BLS projected nearly the opposite: that the seven most rapidly growing
occupations would be in information technology from 2000 to 2010.15
· Many workers’ wages are dramatically reduced by offshoring.
Besides domestic job loss, a major effect of globalization is the suppression of wages in
affluent countries. A recent worker displacement survey conducted by the U.S. government
found that 56.9 percent of those who said they were re-employed were earning less in their
new jobs than in the jobs they had lost. Thirty- four percent of those displaced workers who
were re-employed reported earnings losses of 20 percent or more.16 A Brookings Institution
study estimates that, for every dollar of U.S. services activity offshored, “re-employed”
workers recover less than half – 47 cents.17

[ohsherrie]

A bit more food for thought, if you can stomach the reality of it.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?pid=117962

You'll want to pooh-pooh this because John Kerry used the information in his campaign, but that makes it no less factual and true:

http://www.aflcio.org/issues/jobseconomy/ns10212004.cfm

http://www.parade.com/articles/editions ... lede_story

http://www.ndn.org/advocacy/globalization/wages.html

[ohsherrie]

Just a thought or two on how the economic policies explained above have contributed to the health care coverage crisis:

http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml

This is another of those biggies, I'll provide excerpts:

http://images1.americanprogress.org/il8 ... s_data.pdf

"The results are bleak: The number of uninsured Americans increased significantly,
climbing to 46.6 million in 2005, up 6.8 million since 2000. Compared to 2000,
median income is 2.7 percent lower in real terms, and 5.4 million more are living in
poverty.
The small improvement in median income between 2004 and 2005 was insufficient to
erase the over $1,800 loss in median income experienced from 2000-2004. Full-time,
year round workers also lost ground with median income for men falling by $774 and for
women falling by $427.
The Census report confirms that the recovery from the last recession has been weak,
echoing other data showing slower than expected growth in employment, output and
business investment. These problems did not just happen: they resulted from flawed
economic and health policies which force Americans to work more for less."

Health Insurance Changes:
• The number of uninsured increased to 46.6 million in 2005, 1.3 million more
than in 2004 and 6.8 million more than in 2000.
• The rate of uninsured children rose for the first time in five years; 8.3 million
children lacked health insurance in 2005, 11.2 percent of all children. Over
one in five (20.5%) of non-elderly adults lacked health insurance in 2005, up
by 6.8 million since 2000.
• The rate of employer coverage dropped between 2004 and 2005. Since 2000,
over 3 million people have lost employer-based insurance. People who work
full time were hard hit: a million more full-time workers were uninsured in
2005, despite the drop in the number of full-year, full-time workers. The rate
of uninsured, full-time workers has increased by 13 percent since 2000.
• Workers in small firms were most likely to lose health insurance: the rate of
workers covered by their own employers dropped by 6 percent from 2000 to
2005, compared to a 3 percent drop among workers in large (1,000 or more
employee) firms. In 2005, there were more uninsured workers in small firms
than workers actually covered by those firms (13.5 versus 13.0 million).
• Since 2000, this Administration has created over 3 times as many uninsured
Americans as new jobs: 6.8 million uninsured versus 1.9 million new jobs
between December 2000 and 2005.
• In 2005, for every wealthy family that got a tax cut due to 2001 and 2003
legislation, there were 160 uninsured Americans who struggled to afford basic
health care. The amount of the tax cut for millionaires averaged over
$100,000 – enough to buy health insurance for roughly 50 children, at an
average total cost of $2,000 per child.
• The increase in the uninsured is nearly three times the increase in new
homeowners (6.8 million new uninsured versus 2.4 million more home
owners in 2005 than 2000).

Income and Poverty Changes:
• The failure of wage and salary increases to cover inflation has meant a real
reduction of median income between 2000 and 2005 of 2.7 percent for
households.
• Through 2004, median incomes fell in each year since 2000 – falling by over
$1,800. The increase of $509 in 2005 only makes up a fraction of this overall
loss. While the recession in 2001 caused the majority of the overall drop,
median income had continued to decline even after the official end of the
recession.
• The decline in workers’ real income was especially pronounced for full-time,
year-round workers. For men, median incomes fell by $774 from 2004-2005
and for women, median incomes fell by $427. Incomes in this group fell to
their lowest levels since 1997 for men, and lowest level since 2000 for
women.
• The number of people in poverty has increased by 5.4 million since 2000, the
number of children in poverty has grown by 1.3 million, and the poverty rate
is up by 1.3 percentage points. The overall poverty rate was 12.7 percent in
2004, and 12.6 percent in 2005, which the Census Bureau indicated reflected
no statistically significant change.
• The share of Americans living in extreme poverty – with incomes less than 50
percent of the poverty line – remained unchanged at 5.4 percent in 2005,
compared with 4.5 percent in 2000. The number of Americans living in
extreme poverty – 15.9 million – has grown by 3.3 million since 2000, and is
now at its highest level since 1993.
• While poverty rates for most groups remained essentially flat in 2005, the
poverty status of children in female-headed families deteriorated further.
Among related children in female-headed families, the poverty rate rose from
41.9 percent to 42.8 percent between 2004 and 2005, compared with 40.1
percent in 2000. While the Administration has repeatedly highlighted the
successes of welfare reform, the poverty rate for children in female-headed
families is now at its highest since 1998.
Conclusions:
These facts suggest that typical workers in the U.S. are worse off today than they were in
2000. At the same time that median incomes have fallen, Americans’ health insurance
costs have skyrocketed. The number of uninsured Americans continues to climb as slight
income gains between 2004 and 2005 were from enough to set the country on the right
economic path.

[7 Wishes]

Wow. That is a lot of infallible data...no debating any of those facts, since they're facts. So much for the Republican mantra of "cutting spending" and "decreasing the size of the government". Well done, Sherrie.

[ohsherrie]

I've been asked by several people to post sources to back up what they seem to see as unsubstantiated or uninformed claims and opinions.

These are just a few of the sources available to anyone interested enough to inform themselves. I'm not the one who needs to do the research though especially when I don't think most of you really want to know the truth.

You just want to stay within the comfort zone of your belief system and vote the way your parents did, or your religion says you should, or because "by God, war stands for Mom, Apple Pie, the Waving Flag and the Saluting Soldier and we're all supposed to honor that" by voting for the party who's man started it.

We're all supposed to stand and salute while ignoring those flags that are no longer waving because they're covering the coffins of all those soldiers who are no longer saluting while the war also distracts us from the socio/economic rot that's setting in among the people who form the base of this country's economy.

[ohsherrie]

Thanks Daniel. The sad truth though is that it's only those of us who already know it who'll pay any attention to it. They like to ask for proof and sources to try and discredit us and distract from the issues, but they can't deal with them when we provide them.

[bluejeangirl76]

Thanks Daniel. The sad truth though is that it's only those of us who already know it who'll pay any attention to it. They like to ask for proof and sources to try and discredit us and distract from the issues, but they can't deal with them when we provide them.

I can't wait for the replies. This should be fun.
Next person that tells Sherrie she babbles on without citing sources is getting a foot in their ass.

[ohsherrie]

Not quite FF:

http://newswithviews.com/Kress/joe6.htm Self explanatory.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h2025.html


Relevant excerpt: "President Bush sought to seize new opportunities through a policy of free trade, pushing to lower trade restrictions and tariff barriers in the GATT talks. In this hemisphere, President Bush's free trade efforts culminated in the Enterprise for the Americas initiative and the North American Free Trade Agreement, (NAFTA). With the passing of the Cold War came new challenges, including seeking to demonstrate the post-Cold War possibilities of collective security."

http://encarta.msn.com/text_761571000__ ... _Bush.html

Relevant excerpt: "In 1991 Bush proposed a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between the United States, Mexico, and Canada, which would lower or eliminate tariffs on trade between the three nations. The proposal, favored by Canada and Mexico, was designed to help North America compete against the growing free-trade zones of Europe and Asia. The agreement was eventually taken up by his successor, Bill Clinton, and ratified by the U.S. Congress in November 1993."

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761 ... er.html#s9

Relevant excerpt: "Conservative political columnist Pat Buchanan, arguing that the NAFTA would cost thousands of U.S. workers their jobs, challenged Bush for the Republican Party nomination and scared the president with a surprising 37-percent, second-place showing in the New Hampshire primary. Bush responded by adopting more conservative positions on issues; he hoped to obtain the votes of conservative Buchanan Republicans."

G. H. W. Bush was clearly the architect of NAFTA. Bill Clinton was nothing more than the man who regrettably signed his name to a done deal.

The mass exodus of jobs out of the US didn't start until G. Dumbya Bush's reign though, as documented in the material I provided in previous links. The reps have been trying to pass NAFTA off as a Democratic decision since '92 while they were making out like the economic bandits they are ever since.

[7 Wishes]

Ouch. They're really going to have to dig deep and cook the books to retort on any of these facts, too. Somebody hand me some popcorn.

[7 Wishes]

Using your logic...since Bill Clinton signed into Law in 1998 that the Official Policy of the United States was regiem change in Iraq. Then W just regrettably signed his name to a done deal.

Clinton, like Bush Sr., was a master of diplomacy, unlike your war-avoiding, drunken-sailor brawler of a President. RIDCULOUS.

Clinton or President Gore NEVER EVER EVER would have invaded Iraq. Supposing 9/11 did occur on President Gore's watch, I'm sure he would have agreed on invading Afghanistan. Only Gore would have stayed until the job was done and Bin Laden was dead. He NEVER would have invaded Iraq. Period.

[ohsherrie]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1942128/posts

October 1992: On October 7, 1992, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NATFA) was signed by leaders of the three American nations. Participating were President George H.W. Bush, Mexican President Carlos Salinas and Prime Minister Brian Mulroney of Canada.:

http://www.c-span.org/presidentiallibra ... aspx?ID=41

"Led by Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, US President George H. W. Bush and the Mexican president Carlos Salinas de Gortari. The three-nation NAFTA was signed on 17 December 1992, pending its ratification by the legislatures of the three countries. There was considerable opposition on all three":

http://www.politicalfriendster.com/show ... 8&id2=5009

Oh, and this one is a must read for any Dumbya supporters:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/31/opini ... edman.html

"It was also the elder Bush who laid the groundwork for the Nafta free-trade accord, completed by President Bill Clinton."

[scarygirl]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1942128/posts

October 1992: On October 7, 1992, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NATFA) was signed by leaders of the three American nations. Participating were President George H.W. Bush, Mexican President Carlos Salinas and Prime Minister Brian Mulroney of Canada.:

http://www.c-span.org/presidentiallibra ... aspx?ID=41

"Led by Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, US President George H. W. Bush and the Mexican president Carlos Salinas de Gortari. The three-nation NAFTA was signed on 17 December 1992, pending its ratification by the legislatures of the three countries. There was considerable opposition on all three":

http://www.politicalfriendster.com/show ... 8&id2=5009

Oh, and this one is a must read for any Dumbya supporters:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/31/opini ... edman.html

"It was also the elder Bush who laid the groundwork for the Nafta free-trade accord, completed by President Bill Clinton."

Like you said, the Nafta agreement was completed by Clinton. Everyone knows this. So now, if Mrs. Clinton make office, do you realy think she's going to undo all these things? Like I've said before, they are all in it together. It's all part of the plan.

BTW, I am not a Bush supporter. I am no more enthralled by him that you are. What I can't stand though is the overlook by Democrats, like all that is wrong with the world is the sole invention of the Republican party.

As to your facts and figures. Particularly the ones that involve female headed households. There were choices made by the individual that led to that poverty. Obviously men and women are equally culpable, but as an individualist nation one has to realize that for every action there is a consequence. By a woman not waiting until she is in a stable relationship with a man who will stand by her side and the education to land a well paying job in case he leaves of course she will find herself and her children living in abject poverty.

As to the health care issue. Again, I do not believe it up to the government to fund such mandates. We are stretched thin as it is. If one wants health care, they simply need to decide what is most important to them and budget accordingly. If that means not eating out, and not having cable, internet, and cell phones, and whatever else that is most decidedly unecessary then so be it.

[scarygirl]

Another thing. THis is the bottom line for me. I really don't care. At least not about having to fund other people's crap. I have my own things to deal with. My own bills to pay. If you call that selfish, so be it. If Hilary gets in and passes UNIVERSAL HELL CARE, then it will make it harder for all of us to live as all our money will be going to support other people. Sorry, I don't want that. I just spent the last two years working my ASS off paying close to 10 grand in cc debt off. I spent all that money myself and then I turned around and paid if all off myself. All without the help of big brother government. Now, I am probably going to accumulate a little more debt all over again because I need to have some dental work done, but I don't expect nor want universal health care to pay for it.

Hopefully, the amount of money I'm going to have to shell out want be too awful much. I don't want to go into debt again.

[ohsherrie]

Like you said, the Nafta agreement was completed by Clinton. Everyone knows this. So now, if Mrs. Clinton make office, do you realy think she's going to undo all these things? Like I've said before, they are all in it together. It's all part of the plan.

BTW, I am not a Bush supporter. I am no more enthralled by him that you are. What I can't stand though is the overlook by Democrats, like all that is wrong with the world is the sole invention of the Republican party.

As to your facts and figures. Particularly the ones that involve female headed households. There were choices made by the individual that led to that poverty. Obviously men and women are equally culpable, but as an individualist nation one has to realize that for every action there is a consequence. By a woman not waiting until she is in a stable relationship with a man who will stand by her side and the education to land a well paying job in case he leaves of course she will find herself and her children living in abject poverty.

As to the health care issue. Again, I do not believe it up to the government to fund such mandates. We are stretched thin as it is. If one wants health care, they simply need to decide what is most important to them and budget accordingly. If that means not eating out, and not having cable, internet, and cell phones, and whatever else that is most decidedly unecessary then so be it.

Please tell me this is just a ditsy internet persona and you're not really this obtuse.

[scarygirl]

Like you said, the Nafta agreement was completed by Clinton. Everyone knows this. So now, if Mrs. Clinton make office, do you realy think she's going to undo all these things? Like I've said before, they are all in it together. It's all part of the plan.

BTW, I am not a Bush supporter. I am no more enthralled by him that you are. What I can't stand though is the overlook by Democrats, like all that is wrong with the world is the sole invention of the Republican party.

As to your facts and figures. Particularly the ones that involve female headed households. There were choices made by the individual that led to that poverty. Obviously men and women are equally culpable, but as an individualist nation one has to realize that for every action there is a consequence. By a woman not waiting until she is in a stable relationship with a man who will stand by her side and the education to land a well paying job in case he leaves of course she will find herself and her children living in abject poverty.

As to the health care issue. Again, I do not believe it up to the government to fund such mandates. We are stretched thin as it is. If one wants health care, they simply need to decide what is most important to them and budget accordingly. If that means not eating out, and not having cable, internet, and cell phones, and whatever else that is most decidedly unecessary then so be it.

So you mean to tell me we're not responsible for our own choices?



Please tell me this is just a ditsy internet persona and you're not really this obtuse.

[7 Wishes]

Oh, and this one is a must read for any Dumbya supporters:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/31/opini ... edman.html

"It was also the elder Bush who laid the groundwork for the Nafta free-trade accord, completed by President Bill Clinton."

I've always contended Senior was one of our best Presidents. I voted for him in 1988 and 1992 (yes, that's right...I didn't vote for Clinton until 1996, and I haven't voted Republican again...given the horrendous choice of W).

[7 Wishes]

As to your facts and figures. Particularly the ones that involve female headed households. There were choices made by the individual that led to that poverty. Obviously men and women are equally culpable, but as an individualist nation one has to realize that for every action there is a consequence. By a woman not waiting until she is in a stable relationship with a man who will stand by her side and the education to land a well paying job in case he leaves of course she will find herself and her children living in abject poverty.

As to the health care issue. Again, I do not believe it up to the government to fund such mandates. We are stretched thin as it is. If one wants health care, they simply need to decide what is most important to them and budget accordingly. If that means not eating out, and not having cable, internet, and cell phones, and whatever else that is most decidedly unnecessary then so be it.

[/quote]

Come on. You have got to be kidding me.

I guess women are supposed to have some kind of prescience that would allow them to see years into the future to determine if their prospective boyfriends or husbands are going to be able to support them in 5, 10, or 15 years.

This not the way to engender equality. This is a father-knows-best traditionalist view...

And by the way, among the many fantastic programs Democratic leaders elect to spend taxes on are those that help women who did not have that magnanimous prescience and wound up in bad relationships. These programs actually enable them to pay for day care and post-secondary education or training, so that they can get higher paying jobs and provide a better future for their children.

[scarygirl]

As to your facts and figures. Particularly the ones that involve female headed households. There were choices made by the individual that led to that poverty. Obviously men and women are equally culpable, but as an individualist nation one has to realize that for every action there is a consequence. By a woman not waiting until she is in a stable relationship with a man who will stand by her side and the education to land a well paying job in case he leaves of course she will find herself and her children living in abject poverty.

As to the health care issue. Again, I do not believe it up to the government to fund such mandates. We are stretched thin as it is. If one wants health care, they simply need to decide what is most important to them and budget accordingly. If that means not eating out, and not having cable, internet, and cell phones, and whatever else that is most decidedly unnecessary then so be it.

Come on. You have got to be kidding me.

I guess women are supposed to have some kind of prescience that would allow them to see years into the future to determine if their prospective boyfriends or husbands are going to be able to support her in 5, 10, or 15 years.

This not the way to engender equality. This is a father-knows-best traditionalist view...

And by the way, among the many fantastic programs Democratic leaders elect to spend taxes on are those that help women who did not have that magnanimous prescience and wound up in bad relationships. These programs actually enable them to pay for day care and post-secondary education or training, so that they can get higher paying jobs and provide a better future for their children.[/quote]

A woman can see, they just don't want too. How he treats you today is no different that how he'll treat you tomorrow. Women who grow up with abusive parents see any kind of love as love. They mistake him wanting to be with them every second to the exclusion of friends, family and interests as wow, he must really care about me. They second guess the warning sirens going off in their head because they have not been taught any better. Even so, this is not envitable. When you're all grown up outside of the chains of a dismissive abusive family you have a choice to make. Am I my family and all the choices they made, or am I myself deserving of so much more? Those that make the latter choice will not fall. That is not father knows best. That is in fact feminist thinking.

A woman can truly do anything, without or without a man. But if she chooses a life partner, she better damn well choose wisely. The next generation depends on it. Children learn by example.

[bluejeangirl76]

How he treats you today is no different that how he'll treat you tomorrow.

That is comeplete and utter bullshit. And it's a stupid generalization. I'm not about to spill the details of my personal life to prove a point but to believe a man (or woman) is going to continue treating you the same way on day 1000 as he did on day 1 is ridiculous. People change and relationships change.

Its very easy to say "choose wisely". But when you live through something that you believed was the best choice in the world on day one took a horrible turn you truly never saw coming, you change that naive opinion but quick. And it doesn't mean you were unwise to begin with.

You know all about it? No, you know all about YOUR situation. To generalize and apply to everyone is just crazy.

[scarygirl]

How he treats you today is no different that how he'll treat you tomorrow.

That is comeplete and utter bullshit. And it's a stupid generalization. I'm not about to spill the details of my personal life to prove a point but to believe a man (or woman) is going to continue treating you the same way on day 1000 as he did on day 1 is ridiculous. People change and relationships change.

Its very easy to say "choose wisely". But when you live through something that you believed was the best choice in the world on day one took a horrible turn you truly never saw coming, you change that naive opinion but quick. And it doesn't mean you were unwise to begin with.

You know all about it? No, you know all about YOUR situation. To generalize and apply to everyone is just crazy.

Yeah, BJG I know a lot about it. No, I won't spill my personal bullshit either. But yeah, you can see it coming. Sorry, but you really, really can. If you can't find a good, decent, honest, hard working partner then you're just not looking hard enough. By not settling you'll never have to tell your kids your sorry.

[bluejeangirl76]

How he treats you today is no different that how he'll treat you tomorrow.

That is comeplete and utter bullshit. And it's a stupid generalization. I'm not about to spill the details of my personal life to prove a point but to believe a man (or woman) is going to continue treating you the same way on day 1000 as he did on day 1 is ridiculous. People change and relationships change.

Its very easy to say "choose wisely". But when you live through something that you believed was the best choice in the world on day one took a horrible turn you truly never saw coming, you change that naive opinion but quick. And it doesn't mean you were unwise to begin with.

You know all about it? No, you know all about YOUR situation. To generalize and apply to everyone is just crazy.

Yeah, BJG I know a lot about it. No, I won't spill my personal bullshit either. But yeah, you can see it coming. Sorry, but you really, really can.

No, you really really can't. Again, a very stupid generalization. Does not apply to everyone.
However, I forgot that you know everything so I'll just concede right now and you can fight with someone else.
It's not worth another ounce of my time.

[scarygirl]

How he treats you today is no different that how he'll treat you tomorrow.

That is comeplete and utter bullshit. And it's a stupid generalization. I'm not about to spill the details of my personal life to prove a point but to believe a man (or woman) is going to continue treating you the same way on day 1000 as he did on day 1 is ridiculous. People change and relationships change.

Its very easy to say "choose wisely". But when you live through something that you believed was the best choice in the world on day one took a horrible turn you truly never saw coming, you change that naive opinion but quick. And it doesn't mean you were unwise to begin with.

You know all about it? No, you know all about YOUR situation. To generalize and apply to everyone is just crazy.

Yeah, BJG I know a lot about it. No, I won't spill my personal bullshit either. But yeah, you can see it coming. Sorry, but you really, really can.

No, you really really can't. Again, a very stupid generalization. Does not apply to everyone.
However, I forgot that you know everything so I'll just concede right now and you can fight with someone else.
It's not worth another ounce of my time.

God really? I thought that was your job. Knowing everything. I'm not a thin skinned person, so you and Oh Sherrie calling me stupid and whatever else you think of me has zero effect. But hey, keep trying.

[bluejeangirl76]

Can the drama. I never called you stupid. I said it was a stupid generalization.


http://forums.melodicrock.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=32462

[scarygirl]

Can the drama. I never called you stupid. I said it was a stupid generalization.


http://forums.melodicrock.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=32462

Oh whatever. Fine you said it was a stupid generalization. I think it's stupid that people don't realize all the power they possess. That we really are in charge of our destiny.

[7 Wishes]

Yeah, BJG I know a lot about it. No, I won't spill my personal bullshit either. But yeah, you can see it coming. Sorry, but you really, really can. If you can't find a good, decent, honest, hard working partner then you're just not looking hard enough. By not settling you'll never have to tell your kids your sorry.

You're just flat out wrong here. Certainly a good percentage of the time, the writing is on the wall...but just as often it is not. I married someone who turned out to be NOTHING like the person I knew the first two years of our relationship. And NO-ONE saw it coming. No-one.

[squirt1]

This is definitely a hold your nose and vote election. It probably will be Obama and McCain.

[scarygirl]

Yeah, BJG I know a lot about it. No, I won't spill my personal bullshit either. But yeah, you can see it coming. Sorry, but you really, really can. If you can't find a good, decent, honest, hard working partner then you're just not looking hard enough. By not settling you'll never have to tell your kids your sorry.

You're just flat out wrong here. Certainly a good percentage of the time, the writing is on the wall...but just as often it is not. I married someone who turned out to be NOTHING like the person I knew the first two years of our relationship. And NO-ONE saw it coming. No-one.

I am not wrong, but that is your opinion and you are entitled to it.