Sandhusker said:
Kato said:
If it's just a proposal, then it's one that the interests in your country don't hesitate to grab onto and use to try and stop everything from cattle, softwood lumber, hogs, or wheat whenever it suits them. We've lost count of how many times the Wheat Board has been challenged and cleared of wrongdoing, but that doesn't stop U.S. interest groups from going at it again and again and again.
NAFTA and it's rules are just fine, and very legal when it's the U.S. on the attack, but if anyone else, like Canada tries to challenge it's misuse under those same rules then NAFTA becomes just an unconstitutional proposal
Typical American trade policy. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: If you're on top, then it's a good deal. If someone else looks like they might get ahead then they must be cheating. You can use the rules to your advantage when it suits you, but no one else is allowed to.
Pathetic.
:roll:
I'll never support holding Canada or Mexico to any NAFTA provisions. As far as I'm concerned, and what the Constitution spells out, it's not a binding or enforceable agreement under US law. Therefore,
none of the parties are beholding to it.
The troll is squealing to be fed!!
Sandhusker, I promise to use all little words so as not to try to appear superior. Are you still with me?
As was pointed out by someone else lately, it would be so helpful of you to use the right words to express your thoughts - in the context (or setting) of your above quote, I believe you may have meant to say "beholden" rather than "beholding". Call me picky, but it really does change the meaning of your statement.
"Beholden" means to be committed or obliged to participate, while "beholding" means to only look at or observe something. Ya, I know, very simple and weak words that I am using, but hey, quite in line with our student's capabilities.
Forgive me; I know it must be hard to have someone else express your own thoughts more concisely than you are able to yourself.
Another case in point is your confused use of the words "have" and "of" - for example, " . . . they could
of stopped . . ." rather than the correct "they could
have stopped . . ." Not a life and death matter by any means, but some do appreciate grammatical accuracy, or more simply, talking and writing the right way.
That being said, we could go a step further and try to improve your understanding of some basic economic concepts. Yes, I know that I am really stepping out now. This is going to require some effort, but try to stay with me. After all, someday this lesson may come in handy if you ever happen to find yourself behind the banker's desk with more than a broom or mop in your hands.
When a country, "U" for example, likes to export product unhindered into country "C", but does not want to allow country "C" to freely export product back into country "U", it is called isolationism.The story of protectionism and isolationism is this - "Protectionism is the practice of imposing duties on the goods imported from another country, "C", in order to protect the domestic industry in country "U". Isolationism is 1) - "a government policy based on the belief that national interests are best served by avoiding economic and political alliances with other countries", or 2) – "electronic ambient music that is generally produced without beats, creating a soothing ambience with unusual sounds" (Encarta dictionary [with a few editorial enhancements] online, cited so you don't get a not in your nickers)
Now when trying to decide which of the 2 definitions of "isolationism" are most applicable in this case, we can quite easily see that your stance on beef trade has some "unusual sounds", but definitely does NOT create a "soothing ambience", so we are unhappily left with the first definition offered by Encarta.
Which happens to describe you and your rcalf buddies perfectly. Unfortunately for you, your country also likes our cheap, plentiful and easily accessible oil so you NEED TRADE, don't you!
And don't try to tell us that you are concerned about the safety issue when you have been statistically proven to have fed 2600 head of BSE ridden cattle (if I may borrow oldtimer's words yet again) to the American consumer including your school kids through the school lunch program.
Well S-sandy, there is much more that could be added to this lesson but if you actually manage to understand what we have covered today, you will have come a long way baby!
