Various Topics on Mercedes-Benz

.... ..rdi..

Jeff wrote:
> bjn wrote:
> <...>
>
>> Can't believe this discussion is still taking place in this day and
>> age of
>> global commerce.
>
> Take a look at the campaign for president in Ohio. For some odd reason,
> people in Ohio don't like NAFTA. They have this weird thing about
> wanting jobs.

Very much the same in MI.

..rd.. ..Gr..

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 18:31:05 GMT, still just me
<wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 10:30:58 -0600, Gordon McGrew
><gRmEcMgOrVeEw@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>I am aware that the requirements for ratifying a treaty are more
>>rigorous than other legislation, but in the end it is just
>>legislation.
>
>Not really. If it's actually a treaty, then the Senate has to ratify
>it. See the Constitution for more details.

Are you aware that US Presidents can sign binding treaties without
consent of Congress (so-called executive agreements)? In fact about
90% of our treaties are enacted in this way. About the only time the
President seeks the formal treaty process is if he needs Congress to
p*** supporting legislation and funding.

>>If big, multi-national corporations want it bad enough,
>>it happens. How did NAFTA get p***ed? Was there a sudden groundswell
>>of popular support for making cheap Mexican labor more available?
>
>Yes, a groundswell from all the manufacturers who want cheap labor
>:-). Cousins to the folks GWB was helping out with his "rotating door"
>of illegal aliens in his immigration legislation. You know, the same
>guy who vetoed removing the special tax exemptions granted to oil
>companies because it was a "tax increase" (Which Exxon could only
>barely afford, with their meager $40b profits on top of last year's
>$40b profits).

Yeah, I know the guy. But keep in mind that Bill Clinton gave us
NAFTA. I think his wife is paying for it now.