• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Let's tree SH again

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
You ignored this previously. Care to answer now?

The WTO is not a foreign government, but is a foreign ruling body. Do you agree or not?

Randy is saying, and I agree, that the WTO can overrule laws enacted by elected officials in the US. Do you agree or not?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandman: "The WTO is not a foreign government, but is a foreign ruling body. Do you agree or not?"

It could be considered both.


Sandman: "Randy is saying, and I agree, that the WTO can overrule laws enacted by elected officials in the US. Do you agree or not?"

I disagree!

Randy says a lot of things and you agree with a lot things even when you you can't support your contention.


How can you tree me AGAIN when you haven't even got me near a tree a first time?

You have quite an imagination Sandman!


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
SH, "It could be considered both."

It is not a government but that doesn't matter for the rope you've already put your neck in.


Quote:
Sandman: "Randy is saying, and I agree, that the WTO can overrule laws enacted by elected officials in the US. Do you agree or not?"


SH, "I disagree! Randy says a lot of things and you agree with a lot things even when you you can't support your contention. How can you tree me AGAIN when you haven't even got me near a tree a first time? You have quite an imagination Sandman! "

I'm sure that you'll never take my word for it but you think Agman is the second coming, so why not ask him? How about it Agman. Can the WTO overrule US laws?
 

whiteface

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
138
Reaction score
0
How many trees are there even in South Dakota to try and hang SH on? Do you even get outside away from a computer SH, for Sandhusker to try and herd you toward a forest??? Probably more gopher holes he could try and drop you into if you haven't been out exterminating lately. Have a good day you two. Thanks for reading from Canada.
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
Whatchudoing over here Whitey. Hows things in the gopher capital of Canada. Don't they have the only gopher museum in the world at Torrington Alberta? :)
 

whiteface

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
138
Reaction score
0
Just hanging out for awhile, Randy. Yeah, that gopher museum is pretty neat, and sure isn't what probably most people think it would be. Amazing assortment of people over the years from all over the world have been impressed.
Going to have an impressive storm tonight. I am so afraid of thunder and lightning, I can barely breathe during these blasted things. I'll be hiding for the rest of the night. See you later. Thanks for reading from Canada.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2005 6:45 pm Post subject:

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


Quote:
Sandman: "Randy is saying, and I agree, that the WTO can overrule laws enacted by elected officials in the US. Do you agree or not?"

SH, "I disagree! Randy says a lot of things and you agree with a lot things even when you you can't support your contention. How can you tree me AGAIN when you haven't even got me near a tree a first time? You have quite an imagination Sandman!

Agman, "Will we give up some rights, yes."

How's the view up there, Woody? You're going to have to change your handle to "tree hugger"! :lol: Of course, Agman has to sugar coat the fact that these trade agreements cede power the constitution gives to courts and the net effect is foreigners actually have power to overturn legislation of duly elected US citizens. How do you like them apples?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker,

Give me one real life example of where we have given up our sovereignty to NAFTA.

ocm, spews out venom about a common currency, and open immigration, and all kinds of liberal "FEAR MONGERING" and you blindly follow because that's the same bullsh*t you want to believe. Neither of you can site one example to back that position or site wording from the trade agreements to back your position. NOT ONE EXAMPLE!

GIVE ME EXAMPLES!

If you can't, YOU GOT NOTHING, "AGAIN"!



~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Here's one just from the other day. This is an example of laws that were written by US legislative bodies to address the safety of all on our highways. NAFTA says we can't do that and see what happened? Now, who has the last word on what can and can't be driven on US highways? Is it the US? If it is not the US, then we have traded away sovereignity.

I remember when this first came out and everybody laughed at the notion. I never followed up on it because I thought there was no way the US would allow foreigners to trump our safety laws.

Before you post and call this story BS, fearmongering, etc... , remember you have previously stated many times that the burden of proof lies with the accuser. You have three choices; prove it incorrect, admit it could be true (forcing you to turn down your rhetoric), or ignore it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAFTA Panel Rules For Mexico In Truck Dispute - February 6, 2001 (OA)

By John Crawley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An international arbitration panel ruled unanimously Tuesday the United States cannot continue its policy of broadly prohibiting Mexican trucks from its highways for safety reasons, a U.S. trade official said.

The decision by the five-member panel, which said decisions have to be made on a case-by-case basis, is included in a report to be released Wednesday.

The official would not detail the findings beyond a broad explanation.

The report mirrors a preliminary finding by the panel that undercut attempts by the Clinton administration in past years to block trucking provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

The Clinton administration had asserted that Mexican trucks did not meet U.S. safety standards. Safety concerns included faulty brakes, tires and lights. Others have complained some Mexican trucks are too heavy and too old.

The trade official told reporters the Bush administration plans to comply with the decision, but did not specify what steps would be taken.

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) officials said the administration would consult with Congress, state governments and Mexican authorities about compliance options.

"We are not discussing options," the trade official said.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
U.S. Congress Failed at Tax Break Repeal, WTO Says (Update2)
July 23 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Congress failed in its attempt to repeal an export tax break and bring its laws in line with global trade rules, the World Trade Organization ruled.

The WTO backed a European Union complaint that the U.S. gives unfair tax breaks to companies, reviving the possibility that the EU may re-impose $4 billion in sanctions against American goods, people familiar with the decision said yesterday.

The Geneva-based WTO said the U.S. is failing to comply with a January 2002 ruling that outlawed tax breaks to exporters, said the people, who declined to be identified. The WTO found that the U.S. is still in violation because companies such as Microsoft Corp. and Boeing Co. continue to get breaks even after Congress passed new tax legislation in October, according to the people.

The EU argued that the tax package -- the biggest rewrite of U.S. corporate tax legislation since 1986 -- contains transition periods that extend the illegal breaks through at least 2006.

``Congress is just going to shrug this off and say you've got to be kidding me,'' said Scott McCandless, manager for Washington National Tax Services at Pricewaterhouse Coopers. ``I am sure Congress will be aggravated, but they're not going to do anything.''

Yesterday's confidential ruling, set to be published Aug. 12, threatens to escalate tensions between the world's two biggest economies. The $750 billion trans-Atlantic trade relationship is already strained because of dueling WTO complaints over aircraft subsidies and disagreements about gene-engineered seeds and hormone-treated beef.

Tax Law

Congress voted in October to replace the $50 billion export tax break ruled illegal by the WTO with $145 billion in tax cuts for manufacturers and companies with overseas operations. The vote was part of a two-year effort to repeal the benefit and avoid further EU sanctions.

The EU duties, on imports including wood, paper, jewelry and clothing, started at 5 percent in March 2004 and reached 14 percent in December.

The changes initially satisfied the EU, which removed the tariffs at the beginning of this year. A month later, trade representatives in Europe asked WTO arbitrators to examine the tax rewrite to make sure U.S. companies were no longer illegally benefiting, zeroing in on the transition period written into the new law.

U.S. Position

The U.S. has said the transition period is consistent with practice from previous WTO cases and is necessary to provide a consistent tax load to U.S. companies.

Boeing and General Electric Co. headed a list of 15 companies that claimed $6.2 billion from the original export tax break between 1997 and 2002, according to a study in Tax Notes magazine in 2003. Other top beneficiaries included Honeywell International Inc., Motorola Inc. and Cisco Systems Inc.

The EU's latest WTO victory may force the U.S. to rework the tax package that gives breaks to thousands of companies including General Electric, Exxon Mobil Corp. and Citigroup Inc.

European Commission spokeswoman Claude Veron-Reville said in December that the EU may re-impose a new round of the sanctions to the value of ``around 60 percent'' of the previous ones should the WTO find that the U.S. law still doesn't comply with its rules. She wouldn't discuss yesterday's decision, saying only that it is a ``supplementary step in the compliance panel.''

Richard Mills, a spokesman for the U.S. trade representative's office in Washington, declined to comment.

Eight-Year Spat

The EU's challenge prolonged an eight-year-old dispute. The WTO first judged the U.S. tax breaks illegal after the EU filed a complaint in 1997. American lawmakers overhauled the law in 2000, and again last year after the WTO agreed with a second EU complaint that the changes were inadequate and then authorized the bloc to impose tariffs.

General Electric, which runs its world operations from Fairfield, Connecticut, may save more than $8 billion over the next decade from the changes by avoiding U.S. taxes on the foreign profits of its financing businesses, according to an analysis by Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee after Congress approved the new law.



To contact the reporter on this story:
Warren Giles in Geneva [email protected]
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
OH WHAT A BUNCH OF CRAP SANDHUSKER!!!!!

THERE IS MEN THAT HAVE FOUGHT AND DIED FOR OUR FREEDOM AND YOU "FEAR MONGERERS" THINK WE ARE JUST GOING TO GIVE THAT FREEDOM AWAY IN A DAMN TRADE AGREEMENT??????

HOW STUPID ARE YOU, REALLY????????????

WTO can propose anything they want but the U.S.A. will chose what we want to support.

HOW MUCH MORE PROOF DO YOU NEED THAT THE U.S. IS NOT UNDER SOME FOREIGN RULE THAN YOUR VERY OWN ACTIONS AGAINST CANADIAN PRODUCERS REGARDING NAFTA????????

THE EU THROUGH THE WTO TOLD THE U.S. TO BAN THE STEEL FOOTHOLD TRAP OR WE WOULD LOSE OUR EU FUR MARKET. WE TOLD THEM TO PACK SAND!!!! MEN DIED FOR OUR RIGHT TO TELL THEM TO PACK SAND!

THE VERY ACTIONS YOU SUPPORTED AGAINST CANADA TOTALLY CONTRADICTS YOUR "FEAR MONGERING" ARGUMENTS REGARDING CAFTA NOW!!!!!

IF YOU CANNOT SEE THAT SANDHUSKER, YOU TRULY ARE A LOST CAUSE.

READING YOUR CRAP MAKES ME ABSOLUTELY ILL!

I have read a lot of your rhetoric over the last year or so but nothing has ever upset me worse than this "world government fear mongering feces".

You must think the U.S. is nothing more than a bunch of spineless cowards that would give away our freedom to some foreign goverment.

Entering into a free trade agreement means that we may gain in some areas and lose in others but we have gained in more areas than we have lost in the beef/cattle industry and the facts support that.

Vigalantes are assisting the border patrol in gaurding against illegal immigrants and you think we are going to throw all that out the window for some "NORTH AMERICAN UNION" happy horsesh*t??????

You're insane!

David Koresh alive and well in Cody, NE!


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
I expected the exact reaction from you. Kind of unpleasant, isn't it? Turn your world upside down? Why don't you ask Agman? Put the question to him here so we can all see it. Do it, SH. Ask Agman if the WTO can overturn US law.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
LOOK AT YOUR OWN DAMN ACTIONS SANDMAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

YOUR CHOSEN ORGANIZATION UNJUSTIFIABLY STOPPED CANADIAN IMPORTS SO HOW THE HELL CAN YOU POSSIBLY BELIEVE THAT WE WILL BE GOVERNED BY SOME NORTH AMERICAN UNION????????

HOW CAN YOU BE SO BLIND AS NOT TO SEE THAT R-CULT'S ACTIONS, THAT YOU SUPPORT, CONTRADICTS YOUR ARGUMENT HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!


The WTO may very well tell us what we can and can't do but whether or not we adhere to their stipulations is determined by whether or not we enter into an agreement that would allow that. Bottom line is we decide our own fate.

THE U.S. HAS A SEAT AT THE UNITED NATIONS.

THE UNITED NATIONS VOTED AGAINST GOING TO WAR WITH IRAQ!

DID WE GO TO WAR WITH IRAQ???????????????

USE YOUR HEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


This "NORTH AMERICAN UNION" CRAP IS NOTHING MORE THE TYPICAL LIBERAL "FEAR MONGERING". PLAIN AND SIMPLE! THE SKY IS ALWAYS FALLING WITH YOU.


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
SH,"The WTO may very well tell us what we can and can't do but whether or not we adhere to their stipulations is determined by whether or not we enter into the agreement."

We have already entered into any agreement by the virtue of signing on to the WTO.

Once again, start another thread here by asking Agman. Let us all see your question and his answer. Or perhaps you're afraid of what you'll learn? Do it, SH.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I don't care how you interpreted what Agman said, this country will never be under any foreign rule.

WRITE IT DOWN!!!!!!!!!!!

Why do you keep skirting the fact that R-CULT's actions contradicted your argument????

YOU WILLINGLY CLIMBED UP ANOTHER TREE AND SET THE DAMN THING ON FIRE !!!!


This "North American Union" argument is so far fetched and so ludicrous that I am totally done with it, PERIOD!

Carry on without me.

I'm not going to waste any more time on something so completely insane.

If you want to continue to run around claiming the sky is falling, I'm not going to stop you. The very actions you supported contradicted your argument and you can't even begin to address that.


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Ask him yourself, SH. Don't use our interpretations. Pose the question here so we all can see your question and his response. Ask him if the US has not granted the WTO authority to overrule our own laws. Are you afraid of his answer? Deep down, do you already know his answer? ASK HIM, SH.
 

Latest posts

Top