Sandhusker
Well-known member
agman said:
I'm shocked, I truly am shocked. You didn't give me a denial or a correction. You gave me a defense.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
CAFTA
- Thread starter HAY MAKER
- Start date
Help Support Ranchers.net:
I'm shocked, I truly am shocked. You didn't give me a denial or a correction. You gave me a defense.
The Boston Tea Party was a reaction to the Tea Act of 1773 that was passed by Parliament to save the British East India Company from bankruptcy. The Tea Act essentially eliminated all taxes on tea except the three pence Townshend tax. More importantly, it offered Americans tea at a LOWER price than that of the colonial smugglers.
Some Colonial merchants made deals with the East India Company to sell the cheap tea in the colonies. Others refused the opportunity to make money and instead objected to "taxation without representation" and asserted colonial sovereignty. They were among the participants of the Boston Tea Party.
Today, we call those who refused the cheap tea and fought for their independence Patriots.
Those mechants who sold themselves out to their own interest, we refer to as Tories.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Some Colonial merchants made deals with the East India Company to sell the cheap tea in the colonies. Others refused the opportunity to make money and instead objected to "taxation without representation" and asserted colonial sovereignty. They were among the participants of the Boston Tea Party.
Today, we call those who refused the cheap tea and fought for their independence Patriots.
Those mechants who sold themselves out to their own interest, we refer to as Tories.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Isolationism is a ticket to failure.
Isolationism limits opportunity.
Without foreign trade, prior to the BSE fiasco, we would have been taking $40 per head less for our cattle.
That is what the R-CULT/OCM isolationists want.
~SH~
Isolationism limits opportunity.
Without foreign trade, prior to the BSE fiasco, we would have been taking $40 per head less for our cattle.
That is what the R-CULT/OCM isolationists want.
~SH~
Sandhusker
Well-known member
~SH~ said:Isolationism is a ticket to failure.
Isolationism limits opportunity.
Without foreign trade, prior to the BSE fiasco, we would have been taking $40 per head less for our cattle.
That is what the R-CULT/OCM isolationists want.
~SH~
This "isolationists" do not want to stop trade. I want trade. I just don't feel we have to trade our sovereignity to do it and feel that doing so is a reprehensible sin. You brought up vets in another post - do you think they died so the WTO could tell the US what laws can and can't stand?
I don't see your question to Agman yet? What are you afraid of, SH? I can see you didn't figure anything out from reading this thread. Ask him, SH. Do it.
A
Anonymous
Guest
This North American Union argument is total bullsh*t!
I'm done arguing with you about something you could not possibly be more wrong about.
Carry on with your stupidity without me, do what you do best!
I don't care how you interpreted Agman's statement, we will never be under the rule of a foreign government.
WRITE IT DOWN!
~SH~
I'm done arguing with you about something you could not possibly be more wrong about.
Carry on with your stupidity without me, do what you do best!
I don't care how you interpreted Agman's statement, we will never be under the rule of a foreign government.
WRITE IT DOWN!
~SH~
Sandhusker
Well-known member
~SH~ said:This North American Union argument is total bullsh*t!
I'm done arguing with you about something you could not possibly be more wrong about.
Carry on with your stupidity without me, do what you do best!
I don't care how you interpreted Agman's statement, we will never be under the rule of a foreign government.
WRITE IT DOWN!
~SH~
ASK HIM, SH. RIGHT HERE
This North American Union argument is total bullsh*t!
I'm done arguing with you about something you could not possibly be more wrong about.
Carry on with your stupidity without me, do what you do best!
I don't care how you interpreted Agman's statement, we will never be under the rule of a foreign government.
WRITE IT DOWN!
OSTRICH
A
Anonymous
Guest
DID THE WTO OVERRULE THE U.S. COURTS IN OPENING OR CLOSING THE CANADIAN BORDER OCM?
YES OR NO?
Another question you won't answer!
LEMMINGS!
~SH~
YES OR NO?
Another question you won't answer!
LEMMINGS!
~SH~
Sandhusker
Well-known member
~SH~ said:DID THE WTO OVERRULE THE U.S. COURTS IN OPENING OR CLOSING THE CANADIAN BORDER OCM?
YES OR NO?
Another question you won't answer!
LEMMINGS!
~SH~
Do courts rule on cases out of the blue or do you have to petition them? Canada didn't take their case to the WTO, did they?
ASK HIM, SH. ASK HIM RIGHT HERE.
A
Anonymous
Guest
The allegation is that CAFTA will trade away our sovereignty.
Provide the wording within the CAFTA agreement that supports the allegation that CAFTA will trade away our sovereignty.
Give me examples of where NAFTA traded away our sovereignty in the cattle/beef industry.
If you are so certain you are correct, why wouldn't you provide the actual wording within the CAFTA agreement or actual examples from NAFTA?
Again, you try to pull this "burden of proof falling on the accused" bullsh*t. THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU TO PROVE YOUR ALLEGATION.
Where's your proof? SOME MEXICAN HIGHWAY PROPOSAL????? LOL!
Give me a break!
Backing your opinion does not mean speculation, guessing, theory, opinion, or creating an illusion, etc. etc. IT MEANS PROVIDING SUPPORTING FACTS.
~SH~
Provide the wording within the CAFTA agreement that supports the allegation that CAFTA will trade away our sovereignty.
Give me examples of where NAFTA traded away our sovereignty in the cattle/beef industry.
If you are so certain you are correct, why wouldn't you provide the actual wording within the CAFTA agreement or actual examples from NAFTA?
Again, you try to pull this "burden of proof falling on the accused" bullsh*t. THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU TO PROVE YOUR ALLEGATION.
Where's your proof? SOME MEXICAN HIGHWAY PROPOSAL????? LOL!
Give me a break!
Backing your opinion does not mean speculation, guessing, theory, opinion, or creating an illusion, etc. etc. IT MEANS PROVIDING SUPPORTING FACTS.
~SH~
Sandhusker
Well-known member
If you are so certain you are correct, why don't you ask Agman for confirmation? You will reject anything we put to you. You always have. You trust Agman and think he's the man. Ask him right here for all to see.
Quit fonching at the bit and ask him, SH. You've asked him for information many times before, why not now? Afraid your comfy little world just might get turned upside down? Don't worry, he'll sugar coat it for you.
ASK HIM, SH
Quit fonching at the bit and ask him, SH. You've asked him for information many times before, why not now? Afraid your comfy little world just might get turned upside down? Don't worry, he'll sugar coat it for you.
ASK HIM, SH
~SH~
Please read the following article and tell me what the WTO did to Utah's law against gambling.
U.S. cannot block Internet gambling
By Jerry Spangler
Deseret Morning News
April 8, 2005
WASHINGTON — The World Trade Organization ruled Thursday that the United States cannot block other countries from offering Internet gambling to U.S. residents, even if they live in states like Utah and Hawaii where gambling is illegal.
And under terms of an international trade agreement, Utah could now find itself legally defenseless to stop Internet gaming within its borders.
"This WTO ruling opens a box of Pandoras, but it is not that surprising given the scope of the WTO's invasion into domestic spheres of policy making," said Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizens Global Trade Watch.
At issue is a legal dispute between the United States and the tiny island nation of Antigua, which replaced its sugar and banana economy with Internet gambling targeted primarily at Americans.
When the United States cracked down and Antigua casinos began fleeing to other nations with even fewer restrictions, Antigua went to the WTO claiming the Americans were in violation of a trade agreement where the United States had in 1993 signed off on cross-border supply of gambling and betting services.
And Utah's prohibition against gambling was a central part of Antigua's argument.
A WTO dispute panel ruled last November that the Antiguans were correct. On Thursday, the WTO's appellate body rejected the United States' appeal.
"Justice has been served and potential compliance issues facing various U.S. corporations and the U.S. Department of Justice will now be resolved in a manner favorable to fair and responsible international commerce," said Mark Mendel, lead counsel for Antigua.
The WTO ruling is expected to end threats of prosecution from the U.S. Justice Department, which according to the Antiguans, had intimidated U.S. companies seeking to do business with offshore gaming companies, Mendel said.
The WTO decision, in general terms, means that laws used by particular states to limit or forbid gambling are seen as a violation of "market access" principles of the WTO's General Agreement on Trade in Services.
"In trade-speak, Utah's prohibition amounts to the use of a zero-quota on the supply of Internet gambling services, and that's a violation of market access," said Peter Riggs, director of the Forum on Democracy and Trade.
Wallach said the ruling has far-reaching ramifications for all states by imposing WTO rules on gambling. For example, it would prohibit states from having exclusive arrangements with Indian tribes for casinos, and it would eliminate the monopolies many states have on state lotteries to support education.
If there is a silver lining to the WTO ruling, and Wallach says it is a fleeting one, it is that a clerical error by attorneys for Antigua failed to spell out Utah's law in the legal paperwork. So the WTO refused to rule directly on the Utah law, even though it left open the possibility that Utah's prohibition could be wrapped into the larger WTO ruling.
"This is the place where federalism and the WTO go head-on in a record collision," she said.
The bottom line of the ruling, Wallach said, is that the United States lost and must now change its law prohibiting Internet gambling or face trade sanctions.
That could have implications down the road should foreign casinos, racetracks or other gaming operations seek to set up shop in the United States, even in states where gaming is not currently allowed.
The WTO ruled that the United States is seen as having made a commitment on gambling, Riggs said. Another part of the GATS agreement indicates the United States also made commitments to a "commercial presence."
"It's that commercial presence category which would allow foreign gambling companies to argue that they have a right to establish casinos," Riggs said.
Please read the following article and tell me what the WTO did to Utah's law against gambling.
U.S. cannot block Internet gambling
By Jerry Spangler
Deseret Morning News
April 8, 2005
WASHINGTON — The World Trade Organization ruled Thursday that the United States cannot block other countries from offering Internet gambling to U.S. residents, even if they live in states like Utah and Hawaii where gambling is illegal.
And under terms of an international trade agreement, Utah could now find itself legally defenseless to stop Internet gaming within its borders.
"This WTO ruling opens a box of Pandoras, but it is not that surprising given the scope of the WTO's invasion into domestic spheres of policy making," said Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizens Global Trade Watch.
At issue is a legal dispute between the United States and the tiny island nation of Antigua, which replaced its sugar and banana economy with Internet gambling targeted primarily at Americans.
When the United States cracked down and Antigua casinos began fleeing to other nations with even fewer restrictions, Antigua went to the WTO claiming the Americans were in violation of a trade agreement where the United States had in 1993 signed off on cross-border supply of gambling and betting services.
And Utah's prohibition against gambling was a central part of Antigua's argument.
A WTO dispute panel ruled last November that the Antiguans were correct. On Thursday, the WTO's appellate body rejected the United States' appeal.
"Justice has been served and potential compliance issues facing various U.S. corporations and the U.S. Department of Justice will now be resolved in a manner favorable to fair and responsible international commerce," said Mark Mendel, lead counsel for Antigua.
The WTO ruling is expected to end threats of prosecution from the U.S. Justice Department, which according to the Antiguans, had intimidated U.S. companies seeking to do business with offshore gaming companies, Mendel said.
The WTO decision, in general terms, means that laws used by particular states to limit or forbid gambling are seen as a violation of "market access" principles of the WTO's General Agreement on Trade in Services.
"In trade-speak, Utah's prohibition amounts to the use of a zero-quota on the supply of Internet gambling services, and that's a violation of market access," said Peter Riggs, director of the Forum on Democracy and Trade.
Wallach said the ruling has far-reaching ramifications for all states by imposing WTO rules on gambling. For example, it would prohibit states from having exclusive arrangements with Indian tribes for casinos, and it would eliminate the monopolies many states have on state lotteries to support education.
If there is a silver lining to the WTO ruling, and Wallach says it is a fleeting one, it is that a clerical error by attorneys for Antigua failed to spell out Utah's law in the legal paperwork. So the WTO refused to rule directly on the Utah law, even though it left open the possibility that Utah's prohibition could be wrapped into the larger WTO ruling.
"This is the place where federalism and the WTO go head-on in a record collision," she said.
The bottom line of the ruling, Wallach said, is that the United States lost and must now change its law prohibiting Internet gambling or face trade sanctions.
That could have implications down the road should foreign casinos, racetracks or other gaming operations seek to set up shop in the United States, even in states where gaming is not currently allowed.
The WTO ruled that the United States is seen as having made a commitment on gambling, Riggs said. Another part of the GATS agreement indicates the United States also made commitments to a "commercial presence."
"It's that commercial presence category which would allow foreign gambling companies to argue that they have a right to establish casinos," Riggs said.
~SH~ wrote:
DID THE WTO OVERRULE THE U.S. COURTS IN OPENING OR CLOSING THE CANADIAN BORDER OCM?
YES OR NO?
Another question you won't answer!
LEMMINGS!
~SH~
Do courts rule on cases out of the blue or do you have to petition them? Canada didn't take their case to the WTO, did they?
ASK HIM, SH. ASK HIM RIGHT HERE.
Good response, Sandhusker.
The above article from the Deseret News shows that the WTO used its power to overrule a Utah law that prohibited internet gambling in Utah.
The Preamble to CAFTA says in part:
The Government of the Republic of Costa Rica, the Government of the Dominican Republic, the Government of the Republic of El Salvador, the Government of the Republic of Guatemala, the Government of the Republic of Honduras, the Government of the Republic of Nicaragua, and the Government of the United States of America, resolved to:
BUILD on their respective rights and obligations under the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization and other multilateral and bilateral instruments of cooperation;
CONTRIBUTE to hemispheric integration and provide an impetus toward establishing the Free Trade Area of the Americas;
The Preamble to CAFTA says in part:
The Government of the Republic of Costa Rica, the Government of the Dominican Republic, the Government of the Republic of El Salvador, the Government of the Republic of Guatemala, the Government of the Republic of Honduras, the Government of the Republic of Nicaragua, and the Government of the United States of America, resolved to:
BUILD on their respective rights and obligations under the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization and other multilateral and bilateral instruments of cooperation;
CONTRIBUTE to hemispheric integration and provide an impetus toward establishing the Free Trade Area of the Americas;
A
Anonymous
Guest
ocm,
Even though you were too much of a coward to answer my questions, like most blamers are, I'll be your huckleberry!
Think ya really got a live one huh?????? LOL!
WOW, YOU REALLY PULLED OUT THE BIG GUNS DIDN'T YOU?????
"OR FACE TRADE SANCTIONS".
You just bolded the words that defeated your argument.
Congratulations you have just admitted that states have a choice. Just like I said.
WTO told the U.S. to ban the steel foothold trap or face the loss of the EU market. We told them to pack sand because we had a choice.
Now why don't you find some courage and provide me the wording within the NAFTA agreement or CAFTA-DR agreement that gives up our sovereignty, as you are claiming, instead of being such a coward.
~SH~
Even though you were too much of a coward to answer my questions, like most blamers are, I'll be your huckleberry!
Think ya really got a live one huh?????? LOL!
bolded quote: "The bottom line of the ruling, Wallach said, is that the United States lost and must now change its law prohibiting Internet gambling or face trade sanctions."
WOW, YOU REALLY PULLED OUT THE BIG GUNS DIDN'T YOU?????
"OR FACE TRADE SANCTIONS".
You just bolded the words that defeated your argument.
Congratulations you have just admitted that states have a choice. Just like I said.
WTO told the U.S. to ban the steel foothold trap or face the loss of the EU market. We told them to pack sand because we had a choice.
Now why don't you find some courage and provide me the wording within the NAFTA agreement or CAFTA-DR agreement that gives up our sovereignty, as you are claiming, instead of being such a coward.
~SH~
Sandhusker
Well-known member
How about finding some courage and ask Agman right here. ASK HIM, SH!
Even though you were too much of a coward to answer my questions, like most blamers are, I'll be your huckleberry!
ad hominem ad hominem ad infinitum
A
Anonymous
Guest
ad divertion, ad "red herring", ad redirection, ad nauseum!
~SH~
~SH~
Mike
Well-known member
~SH~ said:ad divertion, ad "red herring", ad redirection, ad nauseum!
~SH~
ad argumentum
Sandhusker
Well-known member
~SH~ said:ad divertion, ad "red herring", ad redirection, ad nauseum!
~SH~
ad ostritchum, ad chickenscheistum, ad blindersum
