Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular
NAFTA Superhighway Has Giuliani As Key Player
theconservativevoice.com — At the center of negotiations for multiple legs of the Superhighway Corridor throughout Texas, is none other than Rudolph Giuliani ’s law firm which landed the Comprehensive Development Agreement for a widening of Interstate-35, now referred to as the TTC-35, in addition to the Master Development Plans for State Highways 121 and 130 among other...
Cutkomp- 93 diggs
- digg it
- EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Doesn't anyone in Texas care who is cutting up your state and selling off major strips of land?
- Keach, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Rudolph Giuliani: Your New World Order Candidate!
- EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Vote for me or die. Boo!
- AUTexan5, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Yes, I care because I love my state and I think its the dumbest thing that we could ever allow.
- brokekneck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3 I wasn't gonna to vote for him anyway.
- mutatron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5We've recently had some success in fighting this thing. Of course, our governor is in league with the Devil, so we'll have to get a supermajority to override his veto.
http://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/7297681.html
- Paktu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5From the article:
"His law firm is the exclusive legal counsel for Cintra. Bracewell & Giuliani is comprised of 400 attorneys, based in Houston, TX with offices in New York City, Washington, D.C., London and Kazakhstan."
One of these does not belong...- EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Kazakhstan = oil pipeline. Same players.
- futureb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1this article claims that nafta has led to the influx of mexican immigrants. huh? aren't these the same conservatives that were against NAFTA because we would be losing American jobs to Mexico? so are the jobs going south or north? by all accounts, the Mexican economy has improved since the mid-90s, partially as a result of NAFTA. so it would seem to me that if you're a conservative, you should support free trade and investment in Mexico. that way mexico will develop domestic industries such that immigration to the north becomes less attractive.
i think the REAL reason that you're seeing larger numbers of immigrants starting in the 90s is family reunification.- duggudown, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Your right....but comments like yours are not something conservatives would want to acknowledge because their base wants to hear how Mexicans are taking their jerbs....
- mutatron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You're not very well informed on the subject, and your argument is not reasonable. Mexicans are leaving ghost towns in Mexico because NAFTA, combined with US subsidies for Archer-Daniels-Midland, has helped make their farm economy a shambles. If the Mexican economy were any good, they'd be staying down there and having "family reunification" down there too.
- futureb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@ mutatron
mexican economy not any good? from the world bank site. note the last two sentences. http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/External/lac/lac.nsf/d5c7ea5f4536e705852567d6006b50ff/b32b6c2eebdcbb8f852567ea0006a0ca?OpenDocument
Mexico is the world’s 13th-largest economy, its eighth-largest exporter of goods and services, and fourth-largest oil producer. Far-reaching stabilization and structural reform efforts since the late 1980s are rapidly transforming the Mexican economy and clearly putting the country on a higher growth track. Despite the massive setback from the 1994-95 financial crisis, the country experienced a trend of average annual economic growth during the 1990’s of close to three percent compared to the virtual stagnation of the economy in the 1980’s. The initially export-led recovery after the 1994-95 financial crisis has brought the trend of average annual economic growth close to five percent. Trade liberalization and in particular the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) clearly contributed to this rapid economic transformation. - dforty3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2As I understand it, it might have a been a good thing for Mexico at first, but companies that moved there and were going to move there wound up going to China to find even cheaper labor than that in Mexico.
I believe Globalization is necessary, and for the most part already here, but to let the corporations dictate what this looks like is a recipe for converting America into a third world country. Rather than raising the labor standards around the world, we will wind up being reduced to least common denominator. If we allow companies to sell us goods without Tariffs which they make in parts of the world where they can pay a laborer $1 per week, than the $10 to $18 dollar an hour worker in America will likely wind up around, well you do the math but it ain't good for us.
These corporations can care less about our welfare, the US Constitution or global labor rights. They recognize that the growth and focus in the world is in India and China. And our rights that we have fought so hard for is just a nuisance for them. Their motivation is profit, not the welfare and viability of the middle and lower class Americans. 30 years ago about 25% to 30% of our workforce was unionized. Starting with Reagan, the Globalists have worked hard to remove unions from the picture. Today the unionized workforce is around 8%.
As far as I'm concerned, I can care less where a company goes in the world to get cheap labor. That's that country's problem if they want to enslave their people. We have little control over that. But they should pay a tariff to bring it here so the companies that stay here to produce the same products can compete. Tariffs are the answer.
- duggudown, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Your right....but comments like yours are not something conservatives would want to acknowledge because their base wants to hear how Mexicans are taking their jerbs....
- dukeeeey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tg8suvwS3o
I think this video says it all. Strange Ron Paul pops up in the middle of it.
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by