In article ,
John Barnard wrote:

Telamon wrote:
In article ,
John Barnard wrote:

Telamon wrote:
In article ,
John Barnard wrote:

Telamon wrote:
In article ,
dxAce wrote:

Michael W. Bryant, the totally discredited dufus who once claimed to
have
a
PhD,
wrote:

On Mar 6, 3:37�pm, "~ RHF" wrote:
On Mar 6, 5:24�am, Mike wrote:

On Mar 4, 8:23�pm, Telamon

wrote:
Political and cultural ties sure but I don't know any
conservatives that think the economic treaties between the
USA and China are a good thing.
I remember Ronald Reagan suggesting that trade pacts with
China would eventually make sense. You should also remember
that it was Reagan who got the ball rolling on NAFTA and it
was King George, the First, that pretty much was
responsible for finishing the negotiations on NAFTA.
- Clinton just signed it shortly after being elected.

MWB 'just' More Liberal Re-Writing of History Again.

President Bill Clinton Signed the NAFTA Treaty INTO LAW [.]
-ps- He could have Vetoed It -but- He 'Choose' to Sign the
NAFTA Treaty Into Law.

Yes History Will Show Clinton Was At The Very End
Responsible for the NAFTA Treaty Becoming LAW [. ]

mwb - the facts are the facts ~ RHF �.
RHF,

As usual, you're just choosing to be difficult. Though
Clinton signed NAFTA (and, yes,
he took grief from the labor unions for doing so), but it
was the
Reagan and Bush administrations that were responsible for the
negotiations during the 1980's.

The responsibility for NAFTA was clearly shared by both
Democrats and Republicans. Reagan was famous for his
prediction that countries that trade with each other have
seldom fought wars. Yes, even the great Conservative
supported Free Trade Pacts. The Republican Party has always
been bigger supporters of such pacts.

What, RHF, no URLs to support your insanity this time? That
clearly says something..
What about your insanity, PhDufus?

After all, any 'tard boy who'd lie about having a PhD
certainly must have a screw or two loose.
You want insanity, this is insanity.

Obama's Radicalism Is Killing the Dow

By MICHAEL J. BOSKIN

"It's hard not to see the continued sell-off on Wall Street and
the growing fear on Main Street as a product, at least in part,
of the realization that our new president's policies are
designed to radically re-engineer the market-based U.S.
economy, not just mitigate the recession and financial crisis.

The illusion that Barack Obama will lead from the economic
center has quickly come to an end. Instead of combining the
best policies of past Democratic presidents -- John Kennedy on
taxes, Bill Clinton on welfare reform and a balanced budget,
for instance -- President Obama is returning to Jimmy Carter's
higher taxes and Mr. Clinton's draconian defense drawdown."

Go read the rest of it he
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123629969453946717.html

The obomination is looking more like Carter II everyday.

Failed capitalism and its supporters did Wall Street in NOT
Barack Obama. He has the unfortunate job of picking up the
pieces.
The stock market disagrees with you in strongest possible terms.
It didn't like Jimmy's policies and it doesn't think the
obomination's policies are any better.

The boys on Wall Street are the ones to be held the most
accountable. Their free ride with Georgie and his clan are over
and now they have to own up. Small wonder they are sh*tting
bricks.

The boys on wall street are not responsible for the wealth
destroying actions of the obomination. I know I'm one of the "boys"
as you call them. The market has been down since the obomination
won the election due to his promises to destroy capitalism as we
know it. The obomination speeches since he assumed office have done
nothing but inspire fear in the markets. Those are the facts like
them or not.


Those are not the facts if you take a look at the DJIA over the last
year. The greatest drops occurred with GWB in power. And those are
the facts like them or not.


http://www.djaverages.com/


I don't know what charts you are looking at. Are you saying you exist in
an alternate universe?

I got out of the market a over a year ago now once I saw the Dem's were
likely to take over the white house with all the negative implications
involved in that. My crystal ball didn't show me that the Dem's would
also have control of both houses. Over the course of the election year
the Dem's picked the most liberal Senator to run for office. This looked
pretty bad for the economy and it sure turned out that way. This is the
perfect political storm against the stock market. You may have voted for
it but we are both going to pay for it. I think you should pay my share
for the damage the abomination has done and has yet to do.

How ironic that even Putin thinks the obominator is stupid for following
socialist policies.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California