"Michael Bryant" wrote in message
...
From: (Brian)

There are non-Americans here who also have jobs, some of them
illegals. And they send U.S. $$$'s back to wherever instead of
spending them in our shopping malls, our pharmacies, and our
Blockbusters. But I don't hear you complaining about illegals or the
amount of money leaving America.

Wow, more stellar reasoning!

First, I've never supported illegal workers replacing US workers.
Attacking
Bush outsourcing hardly means I support illegal workers. Duh.

I don't support illegal workers replacing US workers, either.... however,
the predominance of jobs taken by Mexican immigrants, legal or illegal, are
agricultural jobs for low pay that you could not get the "average US worker"
to take, and therefor would simply not get done otherwise. I know this from
practical experience over a long period of time (my teens and beyond).. I
was the only non-Mexican, non Native American worker in any of the fields I
ever worked... we had people in town that griped about the Mexicans taking
away jobs, but when they were offered those jobs, year after year, before
the migrants came in, they always turned them down...

BTW, Bush is now back to discussing a blanket amnesty for illegal Mexican
immigrants, for the very reasons listed above, among others.

From: "Brenda Ann"

don't support illegal workers replacing US workers, either.... however,
the predominance of jobs taken by Mexican immigrants, legal or illegal, are
agricultural jobs for low pay that you could not get the "average US worker"
to take, and therefor would simply not get done otherwise. I know this from
practical experience over a long period of time (my teens and beyond).. I
was the only non-Mexican, non Native American worker in any of the fields I
ever worked... we had people in town that griped about the Mexicans taking
away jobs, but when they were offered those jobs, year after year, before
the migrants came in, they always turned them down...

Right you are, BA! Most US workers couldn't survive on the wages of most
illegal workers. That makes Bush policy favoring the export of higher-paying
job cause even more resentment of illegal workers.


BTW, Bush is now back to discussing a blanket amnesty for illegal Mexican
immigrants, for the very reasons listed above, among others.



Again, you're right on the money. But don't tell any of the Bush-ites. You
might rock their reality!

"Michael Bryant" wrote in message
...
From: (Brian)

My mistake. I thought the subject was a Bush policy. You can
bash
Clinton all you want for all the good it will do now.


Sorry, my post this early morn was mis-typed. It is Bush, not
Clinton, that is
encouraging the outsourcing of US jobs.

Anyone with the minimal effort to check a URL could see that it was
Bush. Check
this URL:


http://www.mcgladrey-family.us/kayne...h_permits_outs
ourcing.html

(For those with not enough time to click a link:)

Bush Permits Outsourcing

"Higher skilled jobs are going away," said Pricilla Tate, Director
of the
Technology Managers Forum, a New York-based group representing IT
executives at
large companies. "There are people who will not get jobs in the IT
industry
again -- they just have been replaced." And the President isn't
going to do a
thing about it.
ComuterWorld is running a story titled "Bush Administration Won't
Impede
Offshore Outsourcing". While it's fully within the power of the
President to
make it harder for companies to outsource work to offshore firms,
there are no
plans to. Instead of providing a solution, Chris Israel, a deputy
assistant
secretary at the U.S. Department of Commerce, said that "the answer
to economic
challenges is growth and innovation."
Growth and innovation. When Detroit and Japan went toe-to-toe over
auto
manufacturing, how quickly did growth and innovation help? Ten
years? Twenty
years? Or how about textile manufacturing, with the United States
going up
against China and other countries with poor human rights records?
The truth is
that the manufacturing jobs went overseas and didn't come back. How
long can
skilled workers remain unemployed?
Growth and innovation aren't standing well in the face of greed and
commoditization. Many of the IT workers in the United States created
processes
and technologies that have enabled the globalization of information
technology,
and they've lost their jobs as a result. They weren't rewarded for
their
innovation.
The Gartner Group predicted that ten percent of all IT jobs are
going offshore
in 2004. Despite the failing economy, despite all the indicators
that this is a
crisis in the making, George Bush isn't doing a thing to prevent
jobs going
overseas. His economic policy of tax cuts for the rich did not
create jobs, and
his economic policy of tax cuts for parents did not create jobs.
He's not even
attempting to set guidelines for trade agreements based on
comparable workers
rights and human rights. His economic policy is a failure, and shows
that he is
incapable of helping to retain the jobs we have, even as more jobs
are lost."

Any evidence to the contrary? No? I wonder why not?


Interesting. Pardon the interruption, but I'm curious as to why you
equate doing nothing to -discourage- outsourcing (assuming that's the
case) with -encouraging- outsourcing. They are not the same,
obviously. The alternative is protectionism, which most who support
a global economy oppose.

"Michael Bryant" wrote in message
...
From: nobody

Msut be why Clinton signed NAFTA.

Try again. GH Bush is the President that spent his whole term
negotiating and
supporting the NAFTA treaty. Clinton signed it shortly after the 92
election.
The negotiating of the details took place under the two Republican
presidents
that preceded him. Actually, the US negotiations for NAFTA were
initiated and
supported by Reagan. Are you aware that GW Bush is currently
pursuing a free
trade agreement to cover US trade with the entire Western
Hemisphere? His
rationale:
It will protect US corporate profits.



Well, where to start? Bush, not Clinton, signed NAFTA in December,
1992. IMO it's also rather ridiculous to suggest Bush spent his
"whole term" negotiating it. I'm quite sure he did a couple of other
things from '89-'92.

The implication that NAFTA was entirely Bush's baby is equally
incorrect. In fact, Clinton expended political capital and -actively-
campaigned for its passage in Congress throughout the early part of
his presidency, leading to the passage in November, '93--10 months
into Clinton's first term. He was not in the least a passive
participant in its Congressional approval, and, again contrary to
implication above, was the most active of the past several presidents
in supporting free trade. This is evidenced by his total support for
GATT in 1994 and the creation of the WTO.

MWB,

The First Rule of Politics is . . .

It's Not Who Did the Work - That Gets the Credit of Blame.

It's Who Signs the Bill (Act of Congress) into LAW [.]

So Give then President Clinton the Credit of the Blame.

~ RHF
..
..
= = = ojunk (Michael Bryant)
= = = wrote in message ...
From: nobody

Msut be why Clinton signed NAFTA.

Try again. GH Bush is the President that spent his whole term negotiating and
supporting the NAFTA treaty. Clinton signed it shortly after the 92 election.
The negotiating of the details took place under the two Republican presidents
that preceded him. Actually, the US negotiations for NAFTA were initiated and
supported by Reagan. Are you aware that GW Bush is currently pursuing a free
trade agreement to cover US trade with the entire Western Hemisphere? His
rationale:
It will protect US corporate profits.

As I said, try again.


Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL
Louisville, KY
R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K,
DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A
GE SRll, Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76
(remove "nojunk" to reply)

ojunk (Michael Bryant) wrote in message ...
From: (Brian)

My mistake. I thought the subject was a Bush policy. You can bash
Clinton all you want for all the good it will do now.


Sorry, my post this early morn was mis-typed. It is Bush, not Clinton, that is
encouraging the outsourcing of US jobs.

Anyone with the minimal effort to check a URL could see that it was Bush. Check
this URL:

http://www.mcgladrey-family.us/kayne...h_permits_outs
ourcing.html

(For those with not enough time to click a link:)

Bush Permits Outsourcing

"Higher skilled jobs are going away," said Pricilla Tate, Director of the
Technology Managers Forum, a New York-based group representing IT executives at
large companies. "There are people who will not get jobs in the IT industry
again -- they just have been replaced." And the President isn't going to do a
thing about it.
ComuterWorld is running a story titled "Bush Administration Won't Impede
Offshore Outsourcing". While it's fully within the power of the President to
make it harder for companies to outsource work to offshore firms, there are no
plans to. Instead of providing a solution, Chris Israel, a deputy assistant
secretary at the U.S. Department of Commerce, said that "the answer to economic
challenges is growth and innovation."
Growth and innovation. When Detroit and Japan went toe-to-toe over auto
manufacturing, how quickly did growth and innovation help? Ten years? Twenty
years? Or how about textile manufacturing, with the United States going up
against China and other countries with poor human rights records? The truth is
that the manufacturing jobs went overseas and didn't come back. How long can
skilled workers remain unemployed?
Growth and innovation aren't standing well in the face of greed and
commoditization. Many of the IT workers in the United States created processes
and technologies that have enabled the globalization of information technology,
and they've lost their jobs as a result. They weren't rewarded for their
innovation.
The Gartner Group predicted that ten percent of all IT jobs are going offshore
in 2004. Despite the failing economy, despite all the indicators that this is a
crisis in the making, George Bush isn't doing a thing to prevent jobs going
overseas. His economic policy of tax cuts for the rich did not create jobs, and
his economic policy of tax cuts for parents did not create jobs. He's not even
attempting to set guidelines for trade agreements based on comparable workers
rights and human rights. His economic policy is a failure, and shows that he is
incapable of helping to retain the jobs we have, even as more jobs are lost."

Any evidence to the contrary? No? I wonder why not?

This stuff was going on while Bush was hungover and not showing up for
his UTA weekends with the Guard. Now it's all his fault.

States all over the Union are giving tax breaks (i.e., 10 years of
operations w/o paying taxes) to corporations to try to retain jobs in
America. And when the tax breaks wear out, the company is likely to
pick up and move somewhere else anyway.

Do you want the Labor Unions to accelerate the process?

What do you propose Bush do aboaut it?

From: (Brian)

So you respond from work that you'll respond after work? You're a genius.

None of my posts were made from work. I posted in the morning before work and
started again 12 hours later after I got off from work. You are deliberately
playing games. And you are definitely one of the stupidest internet morons I've
ever dealt with.

Go play with yourself.

Bryant
Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL
Louisville, KY
R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K,
DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A
GE SRll, Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76
(remove "nojunk" to reply)

"Brian" wrote in message
om...
ojunk (Michael Bryant) wrote in message
...
From: nobody

Msut be why Clinton signed NAFTA.

Try again. GH Bush is the President that spent his whole term
negotiating and
supporting the NAFTA treaty.

Now wait just a damned minute. You Bush haters (Libs) have been
saying that he has spent his whole term waging war against innocent
Saddamites. Now we learn that the war against terror was just a ruse
to take our attention away from what he was really doing - supporting
NAFTA?

Wrong Bush.. they're talking about King George I... who WAS instrumental in
NAFTA

From: (Brian)


Now wait just a damned minute. You Bush haters (Libs) have been
saying that he has spent his whole term waging war against innocent
Saddamites. Now we learn that the war against terror was just a ruse
to take our attention away from what he was really doing - supporting
NAFTA?

Wow, you really ARE stupid! GW Bush has fought the war against terror. GH Bush,
GW's father, was the one responsible for NAFTA. How old are you? You seem to
have the reasoning powers of a 3rd grader!

You ought to go on one of them Art Bell shows and 'splain your
conspiracy theory.

No, I'd think they'd be more entertained by hearing about an idiot, like
yourself, who seems incapable of distinguishing GW and GH Bush. They are
different people, even if they are related.

You've really proven yourself as an entertaining source of idiocy.

Keep trying.


Bryant

From: (Brian)

Wow, more stellar reasoning!

First, I've never supported illegal workers replacing US workers.

You did by omission.

By omission?? If you use that twisted reasoning then GW is clearly responsible
for US jobs going overseas by "omitting" to do anything about it.

You really are one of the most stupid conservatives I've ever encountered.
Keep up the fine work!

Bryant

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message ...
"Brian" wrote in message
om...
ojunk (Michael Bryant) wrote in message
...
From: nobody

Msut be why Clinton signed NAFTA.

Try again. GH Bush is the President that spent his whole term
negotiating and
supporting the NAFTA treaty.

Now wait just a damned minute. You Bush haters (Libs) have been
saying that he has spent his whole term waging war against innocent
Saddamites. Now we learn that the war against terror was just a ruse
to take our attention away from what he was really doing - supporting
NAFTA?

Wrong Bush.. they're talking about King George I... who WAS instrumental in
NAFTA


Ooops!

That's precisely why I "plonked" him earlier.

Bryant doesn't debate -- he insults, labels, and name-calls, then pretends
that he's debating (all the while typing aloof and condecending rhetoric).

Some folks actually buy that act -- but most others see it as the insipid,
cliche-riddled rambling of a small mind that it is. Just ignore him.

-- Stinger


"Brian" wrote in message
m...
ojunk (Michael Bryant) wrote in message
...
From: (Brian)

Wow, more stellar reasoning!

First, I've never supported illegal workers replacing US workers.

You did by omission.

By omission?? If you use that twisted reasoning then GW is clearly
responsible
for US jobs going overseas by "omitting" to do anything about it.

You really are one of the most stupid conservatives I've ever
encountered.
Keep up the fine work!

Bryant

Mike, you get way too excited, and you like to call people names.
Maybe one day we can have a rational discussion about the Feds,
Unions, and overseas work. Let me know when.

Brian

From: "Stinger"


That's precisely why I "plonked" him earlier.

Bryant doesn't debate -- he insults, labels, and name-calls, then pretends
that he's debating (all the while typing aloof and condecending rhetoric).

Some folks actually buy that act -- but most others see it as the insipid,
cliche-riddled rambling of a small mind that it is. Just ignore him.


Let's return to Rush Limbaugh, then. Why does he avoid your critique of
"condescending rhetoric"? My style is mild compared to most conservative
talk-show hosts.

Kind of makes a point, doesn't it?

Bryant
Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL
Louisville, KY
R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K,
DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A
GE SRll, Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76
(remove "nojunk" to reply)

From: (Brian)

(Michael Bryant) wrote

GW Bush has fought the war against terror. GH Bush,
GW's father, was the one responsible for NAFTA.

My mistake.


OK. But GW Bush IS the primary force behind the current push for the Western
Hemisphere free trade zone. He still puts corporate profits above preservation
of an employment base in the US.

How old are you? You seem to
have the reasoning powers of a 3rd grader!

And you, the grace and emotional maturity of a 3rd grader.



Good answer! Really. I sincerely apologize for continuing to kick you after it
was already apparent that you had fallen. I'll try to watch myself.

Have a good New Year!

Bryant






Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL
Louisville, KY
R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K,
DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A
GE SRll, Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76
(remove "nojunk" to reply)

That's right, Bryant - I am obviously just a happy,carefree kind of
guy who likes to have a little harmless fun once in awhile at no one's
expense but my own. Hence my amusingly ficticious identity. It is as
simple as that - no more, no less. Why are you so judgmental as to
misconstrue mere levity for a telling indication of my character?
Precisely, what is it that compels you to decipher hidden meanings in
a simple anonymous screen name that does not meet your puritanical
standards of acceptability, then second guess my intentions by
responding flippantly with innuendo and character assassination?
Perhaps a bit of introspective meditation would do you well.
I fail to comprehend exactly how you have gained such notoriety in
this newsgroup as a skillful master of debate. In a debate,it is
commonly known that the point where a party resorts to name calling is
the point where that person has lost the debate. You, Bryant, the
master debater that you reputedly are, do not even "resort" to name
calling; it is the brilliant centerpiece of your modus operandi. It
seems you are simply unable to post anything whatsoever that does not
include it.
Your reputation is an unearned and undeserved gift.
I will wrap this up on a positive note, for fairness' sake. You are
quite expert on the subject of shortwave radio, and you do unselfishly
offer what you know to others who ask for help. I proudly admit that I
hold you in esteem in that regard, and that I have personally
benefited from your sage advice on more than one occasion. For that,
you have my sincere thanks.

-Happy New Year and God bless you all-


UJ





ojunk (Michael Bryant) wrote in message ...
From: "Uncle Jizzie"

If anyone posting a message in this or any other newsgroup is "hiding"
their true identities by using a fictious or non-existent email address, it
is most likely because they very wisely choose not to have their inbox
flooded with unwanted spam - NOT because they are "losers".
Grow up Bryant, for chrissakes.
UJ

I do't but it. I've had this address on Usenet for over a decade. I'm not
buried in spam. It's a covenient excuse for people that don't want to stand
behind what they choose to say.

I think your choice of an anonymous screen name clearly tells a lot about what
type of person you are.

Bryant

Bryant

From: (UJ)

That's right, Bryant - I am obviously just a happy,carefree kind of
guy who likes to have a little harmless fun once in awhile at no one's
expense but my own. Hence my amusingly ficticious identity. It is as
simple as that - no more, no less. Why are you so judgmental as to
misconstrue mere levity for a telling indication of my character?
Precisely, what is it that compels you to decipher hidden meanings in
a simple anonymous screen name that does not meet your puritanical
standards of acceptability, then second guess my intentions by
responding flippantly with innuendo and character assassination?

Come on, dude. Give me a break. The screenname you were using was:
"Uncle Jizzie" .

That's just humor and I'm the one being offensive? Wow.

Perhaps a bit of introspective meditation would do you well.
I fail to comprehend exactly how you have gained such notoriety in
this newsgroup as a skillful master of debate.

Gee, I think you generally overestimate the opinion others hold of me! ;-)

In a debate,it is
commonly known that the point where a party resorts to name calling is
the point where that person has lost the debate.

Maybe in public political debates. In academic intercollegiate debate humorous
name-calling is used for entertainment value. Have you ever heard parliamentary
debate in the UK or Canada?

Please notice your inconsistency. I'm supposed to cut you room to be humorous
with your screenname, but if I use the style of rhetoric commonly employed by
conservative "entertainers," like Rush, I am destroying public debate. Dude,
I'm just having a good time. I don't think anyone in the NG is a true "moron",
though some of their opinions are a bit moronic. I make no real claim to be a
better debater than anyone on USENET. I just like to debate and to express
myself in a sarcastically humorous mode. Many people tell me that they kick out
of it, but those I argue with seldom are that gracious.

You, Bryant, the
master debater that you reputedly are, do not even "resort" to name
calling; it is the brilliant centerpiece of your modus operandi. It
seems you are simply unable to post anything whatsoever that does not
include it.
Your reputation is an unearned and undeserved gift.

But I don't really use obscenity or threats. I'm not trying to forge a
consensus, win over any conservatives, or run for office. I just dig expressing
myself the way I choose. Granted, I clearly undermine my own credibility with
my excesses. But, I have fun. And, hopefully, force others to be a bit more
consistent with their own ideas.

I will wrap this up on a positive note, for fairness' sake. You are
quite expert on the subject of shortwave radio, and you do unselfishly
offer what you know to others who ask for help. I proudly admit that I
hold you in esteem in that regard, and that I have personally
benefited from your sage advice on more than one occasion. For that,
you have my sincere thanks.

Why, thank you. You seem like a pretty genuine person. I'm truly sorry if I
offended you. I wish I could contribute more loggings, but work, poor
propagation, and incredible local RFI are all making the hobby a bit less
productive for me. I have noticed a number of very useful posts from you, too.

-Happy New Year and God bless you all-



Same to you, UJ. Have a good year!

Bryant

Michael Bryant wrote:
snip
...My style is mild compared to most conservative
talk-show hosts.

Kind of makes a point, doesn't it?


Perhaps the point would be you haven't listened to enough conservative
talk show hosts?

From: "Mark S. Holden"

Michael Bryant wrote:
snip
...My style is mild compared to most conservative
talk-show hosts.

Kind of makes a point, doesn't it?


Perhaps the point would be you haven't listened to enough conservative
talk show hosts?

Believe it or not, Mark, I'm addicted to conservative radio talk shows. I try
to catch a bit of Limbaugh's program everyday. I'm not sure we agree on
anything, but YOU need to listen more if you don't agree that Rush uses an
"in-your-face" style of rhetoric.

BTW, the replacement hosts during Rush's weeks in rehab were far less
entertaining.

I actually think that a number of conservative positions have compelling
supporting arguments, but fortunately (for me!) many of the posters in this NG
seem oblivious to the best arguments behind their beliefs.

Maybe I can goad them into a deeper effort to understand what they got going.
;-)

Happy New Year,

Bryant
Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL
Louisville, KY
R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K,
DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A
GE SRll, Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76
(remove "nojunk" to reply)

BB,

The First Rule of Politics is . . .

It's Not Who Did the Work - That Gets the Credit or the Blame.

It's Who Signs the Bill (Act of Congress) into LAW [.]

So Give that US Congress and President the Credit or the Blame.

One of Your American Freedoms = Freedom of Choice !

[ ] The President (The Man)

[ ] The US Congress (House and Senate)

[ ] "Both"

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Concerning: Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
Public Law 100-526 enacted by the 100th US Congress, 2nd Session, 1988
NOTE: In 1988 the President was R. Reagan
" The original base-closing law was designed to minimize political
interference. The statute established a bipartisan commission to make
recommendations to Congress and the Secretary of Defense on closures
and realignments. Lawmakers had to accept or reject the commission´s
report in its entirety. On December 28, 1988, the commission issued
its report, recommending closure of 86 installations, partial closure
of 5, and realignment of 54 others. The Secretary of Defense approved
its recommendation on January 5, 1989."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ility/brac.htm

Public Law 101-510 enacted by the 101th US Congress, 2nd Session, 1990
NOTE: In 1990 the President was GH Bush.
" Since the commission approach adopted by Congress was successful,
new base closure legislation was introduced which also relied on the
services of an independent commission. Congress refined the process in
1990 with another law (PL 101-510) that charged the Defense Department
with drawing up an initial list of bases for consideration by the
commission. This commission, in accordance with a statutory provision,
met in 1991, 1993, and 1995. The Defense Base Closure and Realignment
of 1990 (1990 Base Closure Act), Public Law 101-510 established the
process by which Department of Defense (DOD) installations would be
closed and/or realigned."

Please Note that there were Four (4) BRAC Events:
http://www.defenselink.mil/brac/army.htm

* BRAC 1988 was Accepted by the US Congress and Signed by President
Reagan

* BRAC 1991 was Accepted by the US Congress and Signed by President
GH Bush

* BRAC 1993 was Accepted by the US Congress and Signed by President
Clinton

* BRAC 1995 was Accepted by the US Congress and Signed by President
Clinton

Next BRAC will be 2005 ?
http://www.defenselink.mil/brac/


bwdik ~ RHF
= = = But, What Do I Know.
..
..
= = = (Brian)
= = = wrote in message . com...
(RHF) wrote in message . com...

NOTE: The "Down Sizing" (Peace Dividend) of the US Military in the
1990's was not the sole single act of the then President Clinton.
It was an ACT of Congress.

Daddy Bush got that one rolling, not Clinton. I was there.

BB - And Where Was There ?

..

From: (RHF)

The First Rule of Politics is . . .

It's Not Who Did the Work - That Gets the Credit or the Blame.

It's Who Signs the Bill (Act of Congress) into LAW [.]

So Give that US Congress and President the Credit or the Blame.



That's just silly thinking, RHF! If GH Bush did the bulk of NAFTA negotiations,
blaming NAFTA on Clinton is just downright deceptive. The Republicans were the
ones that initiated NAFTA and negotiated it. But many Americans are too blinded
by political partisanship to see that their heroes were the ones that were
responsible.

They need to grow up.

BTW, thanks for your documentation proving that military downsizing actually
began under Reagan!

Bryant

"Michael Bryant" wrote in message
...
From: (RHF)

The First Rule of Politics is . . .

It's Not Who Did the Work - That Gets the Credit or the Blame.

It's Who Signs the Bill (Act of Congress) into LAW [.]

So Give that US Congress and President the Credit or the Blame.



That's just silly thinking, RHF! If GH Bush did the bulk of NAFTA
negotiations,
blaming NAFTA on Clinton is just downright deceptive. The
Republicans were the
ones that initiated NAFTA and negotiated it. But many Americans are
too blinded
by political partisanship to see that their heroes were the ones
that were
responsible.


You seem to have somewhat moderated your earlier post above on this
same issue to which I responded--the one in which you incorrectly
claimed that Clinton had signed NAFTA and made me wonder if you knew
what you were talking about. But since you still seem bent on
incorrectly making this an exclusively Republican issue, I'll repeat
what I wrote:

"The implication that NAFTA was entirely Bush's baby is equally
incorrect. In fact, Clinton expended political capital and -actively-
campaigned for its passage in Congress throughout the early part of
his presidency, leading to the passage in November, '93--10 months
into Clinton's first term. He was not in the least a passive
participant in its Congressional approval, and, again contrary to
implication above, was the most active of the past several presidents
in supporting free trade. This is evidenced by his total support for
GATT in 1994 and the creation of the WTO."

In short, the passage of NAFTA was bipartisan. It likely would not
have happened without Bush's negotiations; it likely would not have
happened without Clinton actively campaigning for it's passage. Those
whom who criticize for not seeing it as a "Bush issue" are no more
wrong than those who are unable to see it as a "Clinton issue."

From: "T. Early" fenwick_island@yahoo.

In short, the passage of NAFTA was bipartisan. It likely would not
have happened without Bush's negotiations; it likely would not have
happened without Clinton actively campaigning for it's passage. Those
whom who criticize for not seeing it as a "Bush issue" are no more
wrong than those who are unable to see it as a "Clinton issue."


Well, here's an interesting test: Would have NAFTA been passed if Bill Clinton
had lost to GH Bush? Certainly, it had bipartisan support, as you so clearly
pointed out. Remember, Clinton kept the Bush negotiating team, so we would've
had the same treaty with either President.

Based on the points you have clarified, it seems that you agree that anyone
blaming NAFTA on Clinton simply doesn't understand the strong Republican
support for neoliberal economic policies. Even GW Bush is striving the Western
Hem Free Trade Zone, right?

I used to support the vague notion of free trade. I used to believe that
countries trading with each other were less likely to go to war. But the
evolution of neoliberal trade policies as exemplified by recent free trade
agreements seems like a race to the bottom, maximizing international corporate
profits over environmental concerns, human rights, national employment
foundations and livable wages.

In this light, I think Clinton and both Bushes are guilty of placing trade
concerns above other legitimate concerns.

Bryant

Thing of it is - there's nothing wrong with NAFTA. We just have to
compete better. It's not a fair playing field - I'll grant you that.
But I bet you that we'll get do just fine. My faith is in free trade.


On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 11:43:50 -0500, "T. Early"
wrote:


"Michael Bryant" wrote in message
...
From: (RHF)

The First Rule of Politics is . . .

It's Not Who Did the Work - That Gets the Credit or the Blame.

It's Who Signs the Bill (Act of Congress) into LAW [.]

So Give that US Congress and President the Credit or the Blame.



That's just silly thinking, RHF! If GH Bush did the bulk of NAFTA
negotiations,
blaming NAFTA on Clinton is just downright deceptive. The
Republicans were the
ones that initiated NAFTA and negotiated it. But many Americans are
too blinded
by political partisanship to see that their heroes were the ones
that were
responsible.


You seem to have somewhat moderated your earlier post above on this
same issue to which I responded--the one in which you incorrectly
claimed that Clinton had signed NAFTA and made me wonder if you knew
what you were talking about. But since you still seem bent on
incorrectly making this an exclusively Republican issue, I'll repeat
what I wrote:

"The implication that NAFTA was entirely Bush's baby is equally
incorrect. In fact, Clinton expended political capital and -actively-
campaigned for its passage in Congress throughout the early part of
his presidency, leading to the passage in November, '93--10 months
into Clinton's first term. He was not in the least a passive
participant in its Congressional approval, and, again contrary to
implication above, was the most active of the past several presidents
in supporting free trade. This is evidenced by his total support for
GATT in 1994 and the creation of the WTO."

In short, the passage of NAFTA was bipartisan. It likely would not
have happened without Bush's negotiations; it likely would not have
happened without Clinton actively campaigning for it's passage. Those
whom who criticize for not seeing it as a "Bush issue" are no more
wrong than those who are unable to see it as a "Clinton issue."

From: Ken Thomas

Thing of it is - there's nothing wrong with NAFTA. We just have to
compete better. It's not a fair playing field - I'll grant you that.
But I bet you that we'll get do just fine. My faith is in free trade.

I used to be there, Ken. But it seems that neoliberal economic "free trade" has
just been a ticket for US companies to relocate their production facilities to
other countries, with far lower wages, far fewer worker safety laws, and far
fewer environmental regulations. No matter how much we strive to be increase
our competition efficiency, companies will always save money on wages and
regulatory avoidance by moving outside the US. We permanently lose jobs in the
US and face incredible trade imbalances (a tpoic you won't hear Republicans
addressing!). Those foreign counties don't really benefit, either, since they
face environmental degradations and worker safety accidents.

We used to think that corporations were the best way to avoid state-based
warfare. Now, under Bush, we see how turning the corporations loose might just
be a path for corporations to push states into warfare for profit-based
reasons.

Fair trade, not free trade.

Bryant

Michael, you are alright(for a liberal that is ;-) ).
Too bad you haven't been able lately to enjoy the hobby as much as you
would like. I hope that situation changes favourably for you in '04.
Peace and good will, amigo.
MB (formerly UJ - hey, its a new year!)
Icom R71A
Icom R75
Sangean ATS-909
Sony ICF-2010
Yupiteru MVT-7100E
AOR AR1000XLT
AOR AR8000 (Euro)
Radio Shack Pro95
Uniden Bearcat BC895XLT



ojunk (Michael Bryant) wrote in message ...
From: (UJ)

That's right, Bryant - I am obviously just a happy,carefree kind of
guy who likes to have a little harmless fun once in awhile at no one's
expense but my own. Hence my amusingly ficticious identity. It is as
simple as that - no more, no less. Why are you so judgmental as to
misconstrue mere levity for a telling indication of my character?
Precisely, what is it that compels you to decipher hidden meanings in
a simple anonymous screen name that does not meet your puritanical
standards of acceptability, then second guess my intentions by
responding flippantly with innuendo and character assassination?

Come on, dude. Give me a break. The screenname you were using was:
"Uncle Jizzie" .

That's just humor and I'm the one being offensive? Wow.

Perhaps a bit of introspective meditation would do you well.
I fail to comprehend exactly how you have gained such notoriety in
this newsgroup as a skillful master of debate.

Gee, I think you generally overestimate the opinion others hold of me! ;-)

In a debate,it is
commonly known that the point where a party resorts to name calling is
the point where that person has lost the debate.

Maybe in public political debates. In academic intercollegiate debate humorous
name-calling is used for entertainment value. Have you ever heard parliamentary
debate in the UK or Canada?

Please notice your inconsistency. I'm supposed to cut you room to be humorous
with your screenname, but if I use the style of rhetoric commonly employed by
conservative "entertainers," like Rush, I am destroying public debate. Dude,
I'm just having a good time. I don't think anyone in the NG is a true "moron",
though some of their opinions are a bit moronic. I make no real claim to be a
better debater than anyone on USENET. I just like to debate and to express
myself in a sarcastically humorous mode. Many people tell me that they kick out
of it, but those I argue with seldom are that gracious.

You, Bryant, the
master debater that you reputedly are, do not even "resort" to name
calling; it is the brilliant centerpiece of your modus operandi. It
seems you are simply unable to post anything whatsoever that does not
include it.
Your reputation is an unearned and undeserved gift.

But I don't really use obscenity or threats. I'm not trying to forge a
consensus, win over any conservatives, or run for office. I just dig expressing
myself the way I choose. Granted, I clearly undermine my own credibility with
my excesses. But, I have fun. And, hopefully, force others to be a bit more
consistent with their own ideas.

I will wrap this up on a positive note, for fairness' sake. You are
quite expert on the subject of shortwave radio, and you do unselfishly
offer what you know to others who ask for help. I proudly admit that I
hold you in esteem in that regard, and that I have personally
benefited from your sage advice on more than one occasion. For that,
you have my sincere thanks.

Why, thank you. You seem like a pretty genuine person. I'm truly sorry if I
offended you. I wish I could contribute more loggings, but work, poor
propagation, and incredible local RFI are all making the hobby a bit less
productive for me. I have noticed a number of very useful posts from you, too.

-Happy New Year and God bless you all-



Same to you, UJ. Have a good year!

Bryant

= = = ojunk (Michael Bryant)
= = = wrote in message ...
From: (RHF)

The First Rule of Politics is . . .

It's Not Who Did the Work - That Gets the Credit or the Blame.

It's Who Signs the Bill (Act of Congress) into LAW [.]

So Give that US Congress and President the Credit or the Blame.



That's just silly thinking, RHF!

=R= It is NOT My Thinking - It Simply the Reality of Public
Perception.

Most of the Credit or Blame should got to the US Congress [.]

But it is easier for the Public (with the Help of the Media)
to 'focus' on the One Man (NOT the Many) who they can Visualize
and Single out in their minds and that MAN is "The President" [.]


If GH Bush did the bulk of NAFTA negotiations,
blaming NAFTA on Clinton is just downright deceptive.

=R= But... Implementation happened on Clinton's Watch (Presidency)


The Republicans were the ones that initiated NAFTA and negotiated it.

=R= Actually NAFTA was negotiated by the Bush Administration.
Then NAFTA was Accepted by a Republican Controlled US Congress.
Finally NAFTA was Implemented by the Clinton Administration.
TBL: The 'implementation' "The DOING" was done by President Clinton.


But many Americans are too blinded by political partisanship to
see that their heroes were the ones that were responsible.

=R= With Most People - Feeling Are Facts
And Feelings are in The HERE! & The NOW !

* If I am Feeling Good - Then Credit "The MAN" [President]

* If I am Feeling Bad - Then Blame "The MAN" [President]

FACTS AND THE ACTUAL HISTORY OF EVENTS BE DAMMED !

In The HERE & The NOW - It's How I Feel That Is Important.



They need to grow up.

=R= The Pubic simply needs to be 'educated' by the MEDIA.
Every Vote on a Major Issue (Bill) by the 'local' US Representative
and US Senators should be covered by the Local Media.
But the failure of the Local Media is to Parrots of the National
Media.
So the 'national' Media reports "The President" did this today;
and the 'local' Media reports "The President" did this today.
The same AP, UPI etc stories read and re-read by both the national and
local Media.
IMHO: A FREE PRESS's Primary Job is to "Inform" the Electorate and
the 'local' MEDIA is Failing in their JOB [.]


BTW, thanks for your documentation proving that military
downsizing actually began under Reagan!

=R= Actually BRAC started with President Kennedy; then Presidents
Johnson and Nixon did very little; and next President Carter tried
his hand at it and was blocked by Congress. Finally building on
Lessons Learned for President Carter; the Reagan Administration was
able to get BRAC going effectively. (But the dirty little secret is
that the original US Congress built-in a DELAY into the BRAC Process
so their Vote would long be forgotten and "The President" would get
the Blame.


Bryant

=R= wmcis ~ RHF

..

..