What is Digg?87 Comments
- tucsonwc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22From Wikipedia.
The agreement was initially pursued by free-trade conservative governments in the United States and Canada, led by Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, and U.S. President George H. W. Bush. There was considerable opposition on both sides of the border, but in the United States it was able to secure passage after President Bill Clinton made its passage a major legislative initiative in 1993. Vice President Al Gore attempted to build support for the bill by debating the issue with H. Ross Perot on the Larry King Live talk show. Perot was an outspoken critic of NAFTA during his 1992 presidential campaign, claiming that passage would cause a "giant sucking sound" of jobs leaving the United States for Mexico.
After intense political debate and the negotiation of several side agreements, the U.S. House passed NAFTA by 234-200 (132 Republicans and 102 Democrats voting in favor) and the U.S. Senate passed it by 61-38 (The United States Constitution requires 67 votes in the Senate to ratify a "treaty"). Some opposition persists to the present day, primarily directed towards specific clauses within the agreement. - OBDriftwood, on 10/12/2007, -3/+25I was always dubious about NAFTA. Free Trade? Why do you need a 1000 page tome to describe free trade? It should fit on a pamphlet. Obvious government doublespeak. What made it more pitiful was that it was pushed by a Republican administration and passed by a Democrat.
- freetexas, on 10/12/2007, -14/+31Is this really a good idea? To open up our borders with a giant freeway so the terrorists can just drive right in? Merge what's left of our economy with a corrupt Mexico full of starving people? What idiot came up with this one?
- slois50, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17Big business. It appears they bought off both the dems and repubs in this case.
- Modulo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15I know! I go shopping in Seattle for some stuff and I'm trying to get back to Vancouver and they are all 'Oooh what are these aluminum tubes for." and "the fact that you have a military grade satellite navigation component is suspicious to me" and "why is what's in this metal box setting off my geiger counter" and "GET OUT OF THE CAR, DO NOT TOUCH THE DEADMAN SWITCH!!". F*** NAFTA. Nobody has the right to tell me that I take fireworks displays WAY too seriously.
- Avataren, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Its strange how everyone either ignores, forgets or refuse to believe the massive amounts of information that have surfaced over the past 50 years regarding the federal reserve and its owners. This is just another step in the implementation of world government, controlled by the international banker cartel.
- jo42, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17NAFTA is a total load of bull pies.
As a private individual, just try buying and bringing stuff into Canada from the States.
Harmonization codes, tariffs, duties, paperwork up the wazoo. Bah humbug. - ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Because you got to choose who joined up. We've only have three countries!
Now, would I mind linking up with Canada? Hell no, Canada's cool, but Mexico is like your awkward uncle who keeps eating food out of your fridge, crashes on your couch, and gets paid in beer to fix your roof. - Windstalker, on 10/12/2007, -9/+22Rhiannon1214 is a good friend and I'll do whatever becomes necessary to protect her.
That being said.
The subject about which she speaks is of real concern to Americans. The Honorable Congressman Ron Paul (R) brings it to the forefront in this weeks talking points.
Found Here: http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst103006.htm
Bush's recent signing of legislation to facilitate the declaration of martial law it becomes even more troublesome.
Wake up Amerika!!!
You are under wholesale assault from within!!! - teeks99, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13The implications of this are much bigger than just a highway being built. The idea of it is to encourage the use of cheap labor in Mexico, so that the big corporations can get rid of American jobs, and increase their profits. This proposed highway will go to ports on Mexico's west coast, where ships can be unloaded much cheaper than LA, because they don't have to mess with the unions that support the labor that unloads ships in the US. But that's just one example. Hey, maybe we can stop immigration by putting all our jobs in Mexico, then there won't be anything to cross the border for!
- argoff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11On the other hand, going back to the article, I see it was written by Ron Paul. He is about the only congressman in the US who understands basic economics, and most certainly the only one that gives a damn about peoples economic liberties. I think he's stood up for peoples property rights more than all the rest of the congress combined. The fact that he wrote it carries a LOT of weight, so perhaps I'm missing something here.
- JonnyTrombone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9"They got NAFTA, we got the SHAFTA"
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Texas ought to just amputate itself and be its own country already. I think everyone, including most texans, would be much happier.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Unless it's your land that will be stolen via eminent domain to build it.
- BrokenClock, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11http://www.spp.gov
Free North American trade is a good thing, but homogenizing the United States, Canada, and Mexico into a single state is not. The hidden people behind this movement should be arrested and charged with sedition. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10You know, splitting texas into five states is something the neocons would actually consider--in order to generate more republican senators and representatives. Really, its better that it become its own country. Then at least we could invade it and take its oil.
- Libberkey, on 10/12/2007, -13/+20Reporting bigdavediode for Stalking Rhiannon. Please join me in doing the same by writing abuse@spam.com Thank you.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7So the hell with the Constitution then?
- votamli, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8If I remember correctly from my college days:
International Treaties, approved by the Executive and Legislature, supercedes National and Constitutional Law according to the US Constitution.
Thus that statement "bypass national legislatures & ignore our Constitution, which expressly grants Congress the sole authority to regulate int'l trade" is half-correct. Non-State Actors are increasingly challenging traditional notions of nation-state sovereignty, but its also partially due to the fact that we are in a World where the "Nation-State" as the sole type of actor defining world politics is fading. - polyGone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Someone will shout conspiracy theory and everyone forgets about it....that's how
disgusting really - boundless316, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Where are you people getting the idea that treaties supersede the Constitution? Any treaty the U.S. enters into must be compliant with the Constitution, if it's not the Supreme Court can and will strike it down.
http://www.uhuh.com/control/contrump.htm
As far as the SPP goes, what makes you think a government that has a broader mandate is a good thing? If you're pissed because you think your vote doesn't matter now wait until your voting along side Mexico and Canada. - diggdon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Texas could also invoke its 1845 federally approved right to split into five US states any time it wants. Read about it near the middle of this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Texas
- ViperDaimao, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10I don't believe that is possible. Nothing supersedes the constitution. It is called the Supreme Law of the Land for a reason.
- mutatron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5There's nothing but evil behind this, and Texas Governor Rick Perry is its figurehead. Of four gubernatorial candidates in Texas, only Perry is for the Trans-Texas Corridor. Even the Texas Republican Party is against it! Somebody stands to make a lot of money from this even if it's only ever partly completed.
And Perry is probably going to get re-elected because we have no run-off elections for governor in Texas, it's whoever gets the plurality. Currently Perry is hovering around 36%, with the Democrat Chris Bell at 26%. The other two candidates are around 13% to 18%, but they're taking mostly from Perry anyway. - Koosebane, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5From corridorwatch.org:
RESOLUTION FILED IN U.S. CONGRESS OBJECTING TO
NAFTA SUPERHIGHWAY SYSTEM AND
FOREIGN CONSORTIUM FUNDING & MANAGEMENT
U.S. Representative Virgil Goode, Jr. (R-Va) has introduced a Resolution to express the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada. It also raises concern about a NAFTA Superhighway System funded by foreign consortiums and controlled by foreign management, which threatens the sovereignty of the United States.
http://www.corridorwatch.org/ttc/index.htm
This project is also known as the Trans-Texas Corridor. A Google search turns up quite a bit of additional info. - SerpentMage, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Really we got to choose? Hmmm, did I miss the ballot or something?
What people forget is that Spain shortly before it hooked with the EU was a military dictatorship! Spain was Mexico...Or how about the new EU countries?
If there is one thing the EU learned from the US is that building strong economic ties is what beats poverty and corruption! Again just look at Spain and Portugal now... - LesterKing, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"Texas could also invoke its 1845 federally approved right to split into five US states any time it wants. Read about it near the middle of this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Texas"
I'd be careful with that idea, look what happened to some earlier states when they tried to leave: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Northern_Aggression - GlargTheKelfn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5the nafta hiway will also take land for several miles on each side, with the good spots given to large corporate entitles.
don't forget also that treaties superceed the constitution. - farther, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'm not terribly happy about Canada being sold off in secret meetings. I'm Canadian, and I will not be owned by anyone. I will not become an American unless I say so, and no one else will make that decision for me.
- stealthc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3All I know is that legislating free trade is an oxymoron. Free trade exists when the government gets its ugly nose OUT of trade.
- keyrat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@SerpentMage
Spain was a dicatatorship up until 1975 when Franco died. In 1978 Spain ratified it's new constitution and became a democracy. Spain then joined the EU in 1986, and continues to be one of the countries needing the most financial support. Even so, Mexico is so much worse off than Spain was, and is. Mexico is laced with corruption in all aspects of government to the point where it's impossible to get rid of it without a revolution. Mexico is a developing nation, while Spain is not, and was not. Mexico would drag down an NAU so much.
The best bet would be an NAU with only the US and Canada, and then setting a bar for what Mexico would have to do to join. In Mexico you can still bribe the police if they pull you over in your car. There's no way we could let them in to any type of EU-style union with corruption so far down the line.
All this said, the highway is a good idea. This article trying to link a highway across America to losing sovereignty is retarded. The highway would still have border checks. - MyNameIsSIMPSON, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Zaibatsu has 5 submissions on the front page and you even dugg one of them. Where are your spam comments Dave. Personally I have no issue with the fact but you on the otherhand should try to be consistant. If Rhiannon's submissions are considered spam, by your definition, then so are Ziabatsu's and all the thinkprogress articles that you tend to digg. Stop pretending you have issues with how articles make the front page or who submits them when your real issue is with the fact that you don't agree with the ideology espoused in the articles.
You're a fraud.
See ya in China Troll. - derkaas, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Article VI, second paragraph of the U.S. Constitution:
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
Clearly the Constitution and treaties are indeed the "supreme law of the land." Note, though, that the Constitution is listed before treaties, and that any treaties are made "under the authority of the United States," which together indicate that a treaty has no authority to contravene the US Constitution (it can, however, contravene a state constitution according to the last part of that same paragraph).
Thomas Jefferson: "If the treaty power is unlimited, then we don't have a Constitution. Surely the President and the Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way."
Alexander Hamilton: "A treaty cannot be made which alters the Constitution of the country or which infringes any express exceptions to the power of the Constitution of the United States." - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Where in the Constitution is that stated? I can't seem to find it.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Jeez people. NAFTA was done by both dems and repubs. Guess what, some dems and repubs support it, and some oppose it. This isn't a dems/repubs suck argument. Just state why you love/hate nafta/NAU/superhighway and get over yourself. You can vote in a week for your favorite lesser of two evils anyway.
- there, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Wrong, NAFTA was signed by Clinton. Last I looked he's not a right winger..."
While true... I was around in the 80s when the RIGHT got the ball rolling. In fact the left was originally quite OPPOSED to it (citing many of the reasons some of the right are complaining about now). Even Clinton received a great deal of hostility from the left... not the right...when he signed it into law.
You guys really need to make up your minds up. - Hubris, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Actually under NAFTA there aren't many tariffs, what you are paying is the brokerage...the service charge associated with customs. Taxes and brokerage have mostly made up for any initial decreases today....the average person doesn't benefit from NAFTA.
- bookishboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.... "
Just where does it say that Congress has the SOLE authority to regulate commerce? - there, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@y earl507
"Jeez people. NAFTA was done by both dems and repubs. Guess what, some dems and repubs support it, and some oppose it. This isn't a dems/repubs suck argument."
You're corrrect of course. Even though Republicans got it started... today a mix of left and right is pro-Nafta but if you look at the comments around here it's being portrayed as some communist conspiracy.
I really hate partisan politics but this sort of unaccountable falsehoods is what the right has been speading via Rush, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Coultier , Beck for years. (just check out the "communists dictators" hysteria in this thread). They have groomed hoards of conspiracy theorists that are paranoid about everything... even their own ideas.
This is why the right is going to swept aside this election. Although there are still respectable ones around too many of them have turned into crazy kooks that don't make any sense.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@there
Remember to wipe your chin. - diggdon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Irrepsective of which party holds Texas at any given time, it's always going to benefit the party in power to split Texas into five states. When I was young, Democrats held all the US South, and Republicans held all the north. For some reason I can't understand, things have reversed in 30 years.
- there, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"How is schilling for globalist dictators working out for you?"
I expected to be downmodded and attacked on this issue but it'll happen after all the people that don't agree are dead. The next generation won't care about their hate and fear. And even if they do... the one after that won't be that stupid. Eventually people will indeed stop acting like holier-than-thou territorial idiots.... and it'll happen.... and we'll never look back to the "good ol days" of worrying about nuclear war.
Where you come up with "global dictator" just because of globalization is beyond me. Why would global government work significantly different than national government? When various independent states became the US was Washington a dictator?
As I said it can't be forced. Nations need to vote for it but it won't happen because our generation is still too paranoid about one another. - Xevec, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1god damn it, this section here has many disputes. First of all, the commerce clause. What does the constitution mean by "commerce?" Does it mean all forms of commerce? What did the writers intend that on meaning? That congress can regulate all trade? Obviously, I don't think they wanted that, or they would be going for the same system britian had. And that would contradict everything they fought for, so that isn't it. Thomas woods gives a great lecture on it....it's just that I have to really sit down and listen to it. So I'll get back on it when I listen to it.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Actually, the Texas part is 10 lanes. I haven't seen anything concrete regarding the amount of lanes or infrastructure outside of Texas, but the main stretch of it is the I35 corridor via upgrades to that road. Whether or not that means 10 lanes all the way to Canada or not is a question that I haven't found an answer to.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Didn't this sort of decision making happen all throughout history, by a handful of elites?
- there, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Sorry above was meant for another thread. Disregard.
- MyNameIsSIMPSON, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@there
"When various independent states became the US was Washington a dictator?"
No that didn't happen until some of the states decided that they wanted out of the union. Although they were supposedly allowed to leave if they wished they found out otherwise.
What happens in your world government if and when some countries/states decide they would be better off being independent?
The answer is obvious to me. The same thing will happen whenever states/provinces try to seperate (with a few exceptions) war.
I know this is late but I hope you answer. - derkaas, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That's because it isn't there. Read Article VI, paragraph 2. Treaties can clearly supersede state constitutions, but not the national constitution.
- iTorrey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Standing up for the Constitution is not part of your stupid Left vs. Right paradigm. If something is wrong, it's wrong. The North American Union and the "Amero" (NAU currency) are WRONG. This has nothing to do with Left vs. Right and actually a lot of Neo-Cons are all for the NAU and that is because they aren't actually conservatives, they are Trotskyites.
- iTorrey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@there
How is schilling for globalist dictators working out for you? -
Show 51 - 85 of 85 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is