Brad S
Well-known member
An interesting little aside to the great depression: protectionism was a primary cause.
WTO declares US LAW "Not Compliant" "Illegal&
- Thread starter Mike
- Start date
Sandhusker
Well-known member
Being labeled a "protectionist" by the trade-at-all-costs crowd is pure BS! I'm all for trade, I just don't think you have to sell our soul for it. I don't think ANYBODY other than our elected officials should make decisions on our laws. I don't think trade should automatically trump safety, health, environment, etc... everything should be weighed against the other. That is NOT the case with this WTO horsecrap.
Sandhusker said:
This decision by the WTO has nothing to do with " safety, health, environment", but has everything to do with unfair trade practices and protectionism by the US. Trying to hide behind such issues is a joke, as is SH.
packerland
Active member
Sandhusker said:
There's where we differ. You see it as selling our soul. I see it as doing only as much as is necessary to gain access to the world's markets. We can't do things unilaterally and expect our trading partners to simply acquiesce. It doesn't work that way (at least not if they can make an impact on us.) Mind you, a trade embargo with Burundi won't matter a whit to us; a trade embargo with China sure as hell would.
If GATT had worked we wouldn'tve gone any further than that. It didn't. Thus, the US along with the rest of the world decided we needed an oversight body with some teeth. Vis a vis the Mexican truck issue, we don't have to comply. We merely have to pay the trade penalties when we DON'T comply. This isn't much different than Mexico slapping duties on all our products going south in retaliation. The only difference is that the WTO acts as a referee to call bullshit in the case of the EU on Bananas or us on Byrd.
Sandhusker
Well-known member
Packerland, "There's where we differ. You see it as selling our soul. I see it as doing only as much as is necessary to gain access to the world's markets."
I'll agree with you there. I think we've given up too much for this new god named "trade". Take a look, Packerland, we've lost common sense here. The Mexican truck deal is a prime example, and there are dozens just like it. The laws the WTO ruled against as inhibitive to trade clearly were drafted as public safety and environmental protection laws with no other agendas. Absolutley positively no doubt about it. Yet, under the virtual unlimited definitions of trade barriers, least restrictive to trade, etc... afforded to the WTO, they qualify as trade laws and thus we have to change them or pay. Now come on, does this make any sense? Really, does it?
I can see forming a trade agreement with other nations where there are actual penalties for non-compliance. But when the definitions of trade are unrealisticly liberal and when trade automatically trumps safety, environment protection, cultural differences, etc.... things are simply out of control and the cinch needs tightened.
I'll agree with you there. I think we've given up too much for this new god named "trade". Take a look, Packerland, we've lost common sense here. The Mexican truck deal is a prime example, and there are dozens just like it. The laws the WTO ruled against as inhibitive to trade clearly were drafted as public safety and environmental protection laws with no other agendas. Absolutley positively no doubt about it. Yet, under the virtual unlimited definitions of trade barriers, least restrictive to trade, etc... afforded to the WTO, they qualify as trade laws and thus we have to change them or pay. Now come on, does this make any sense? Really, does it?
I can see forming a trade agreement with other nations where there are actual penalties for non-compliance. But when the definitions of trade are unrealisticly liberal and when trade automatically trumps safety, environment protection, cultural differences, etc.... things are simply out of control and the cinch needs tightened.
In testimony before the Ways and Means Committee, Gingrich made some revealing admissions while pretending to have reservations about the WTO:
"I am just saying that we need to be honest about the fact that we are transferring from the United States at a practical level significant authority to a new organization. This is a transformational moment. I would feel better if the people who favor this would just be honest about the scale of change.
"I agree ... this is very close to Maastrict [the European Union treaty by which the EU member nations have surrendered considerable sovereignty], and twenty years from now we will look back on this as a very important defining moment. This is not just another trade agreement. This is adopting something which twice, once in the 1940s and once in the 1950s, the U.S. Congress rejected. I am not even saying we should reject it; I, in fact, lean toward it. But I think we have to be very careful, because it is a very big transfer of power."
—Newt Gingrich, House Ways and Means Committee hearings during June 1994.
"I am just saying that we need to be honest about the fact that we are transferring from the United States at a practical level significant authority to a new organization. This is a transformational moment. I would feel better if the people who favor this would just be honest about the scale of change.
"I agree ... this is very close to Maastrict [the European Union treaty by which the EU member nations have surrendered considerable sovereignty], and twenty years from now we will look back on this as a very important defining moment. This is not just another trade agreement. This is adopting something which twice, once in the 1940s and once in the 1950s, the U.S. Congress rejected. I am not even saying we should reject it; I, in fact, lean toward it. But I think we have to be very careful, because it is a very big transfer of power."
—Newt Gingrich, House Ways and Means Committee hearings during June 1994.
A
Anonymous
Guest
BINGO!
We have a choice!
Sandman will never understand what a $1.3 "BILLION" dollar trade surplus means to the U.S. cattlemen. To him and other R-CULTers, it's all about the affect of Canadian imports.
OCM quotes Mexican producers to make a case against NAFTA when the Mexican producer's loss was our gain. In contrast, they had no problem shoving the knife into the Canadian producer's back so the Canadian producer's loss would be our gain. I have never seen such a bunch of hypocrites in my life.
These guys cannot understand where our markets would be if we had normalized trade. They can't understand that if the Canadian border closure was prolonged Canada would eventually assume that same portion of our export market making it a wash. They have this pipe dream that Canadian beef would somehow disappear off the world market. Instead of the U.S. adding value to Canadian feeder cattle and selling that beef in the high dollar Japanese market, these isolationists would prefer that Canada simply bypasses us, ships directly to Japan, and adds the value themselves.
Reminds me of Saddam claiming victory after the gulf war.
Ignorant R-CULTers will never understand the true economic impact of trade because they simply cannot see past the back of a Canadian potload of feeder cattle.
How the heck would you know anyone's motive when you can't even be honest with your own?
~SH~
Sandhusker
Well-known member
Quote:
Packerland: "Vis a vis the Mexican truck issue, we don't have to comply. We merely have to pay the trade penalties when we DON'T comply."
SH, "BINGO! We have a choice!"
And what a fine choice it is, change sovereign law or pay! Wonderful! I can't decide between the two, they're both so desireable!
SH, "OCM quotes Mexican producers to make a case against NAFTA when the Mexican producer's loss was our gain. In contrast, they had no problem shoving the knife into the Canadian producer's back so the Canadian producer's loss would be our gain. I have never seen such a bunch of hypocrites in my life."
What was our ill-gotten gain with the Mexican trucks? A little safety for our families driving on the same roads and a little less pollution? Shame on us! How dare we try to protect ourselves and the air we breathe! Mexican access to our markets is much more important than that!
SH, "These guys cannot understand where our markets would be if we had normalized trade."
I'll stop you right there and ignore the rest of your drivel. "IF" we had normalized trade? Hellllooooo, "normalized trade" isn't even on the horizon.
Quote:
Sandman: "The laws the WTO ruled against as inhibitive to trade clearly were drafted as public safety and environmental protection laws with no other agendas. Absolutley positively no doubt about it."
SH, "How the heck would you know anyone's motive when you can't even be honest with your own?"
Now what the heck do you think their motive was? :roll: Have you any clue whatsoever? The faintest idea? :? Take a wild guess, SH.
What is the glory in dummying up and acting like a fool?
Packerland: "Vis a vis the Mexican truck issue, we don't have to comply. We merely have to pay the trade penalties when we DON'T comply."
SH, "BINGO! We have a choice!"
And what a fine choice it is, change sovereign law or pay! Wonderful! I can't decide between the two, they're both so desireable!
SH, "OCM quotes Mexican producers to make a case against NAFTA when the Mexican producer's loss was our gain. In contrast, they had no problem shoving the knife into the Canadian producer's back so the Canadian producer's loss would be our gain. I have never seen such a bunch of hypocrites in my life."
What was our ill-gotten gain with the Mexican trucks? A little safety for our families driving on the same roads and a little less pollution? Shame on us! How dare we try to protect ourselves and the air we breathe! Mexican access to our markets is much more important than that!
SH, "These guys cannot understand where our markets would be if we had normalized trade."
I'll stop you right there and ignore the rest of your drivel. "IF" we had normalized trade? Hellllooooo, "normalized trade" isn't even on the horizon.
Quote:
Sandman: "The laws the WTO ruled against as inhibitive to trade clearly were drafted as public safety and environmental protection laws with no other agendas. Absolutley positively no doubt about it."
SH, "How the heck would you know anyone's motive when you can't even be honest with your own?"
Now what the heck do you think their motive was? :roll: Have you any clue whatsoever? The faintest idea? :? Take a wild guess, SH.
What is the glory in dummying up and acting like a fool?
A
Anonymous
Guest
Nice diversion Sandman!
Why not addess the hypocrisy of OCM showing concern for Mexican producers who felt that we benefitted at their expense due to NAFTA and not show that same concern for the Canadian producers we benefitted from by closing the Canadian border?
You diverted that one with R-CULT valor!
Hits too close to your hypocritical heart doesn't it?
Along those same lines, how does that apply to R-CULT's argument that you cannot trade with countries that have no money. How could we benefit from Mexican trade if that was true?
You R-CULTers are too blind to see your own hypocrisy!
Why not address the trade surplus in cattle and beef trade prior to the closing of the Canadian border?
Can't handle the truth again?
Dance Sandman, dance!
~SH~
Why not addess the hypocrisy of OCM showing concern for Mexican producers who felt that we benefitted at their expense due to NAFTA and not show that same concern for the Canadian producers we benefitted from by closing the Canadian border?
You diverted that one with R-CULT valor!
Hits too close to your hypocritical heart doesn't it?
Along those same lines, how does that apply to R-CULT's argument that you cannot trade with countries that have no money. How could we benefit from Mexican trade if that was true?
You R-CULTers are too blind to see your own hypocrisy!
Why not address the trade surplus in cattle and beef trade prior to the closing of the Canadian border?
Can't handle the truth again?
Dance Sandman, dance!
~SH~
Sandhusker
Well-known member
Give it up, ocm. SH does't want to know the facts. His world is much more comfortable for him than the real world.
A
Anonymous
Guest
BWAHAHAHA!
Listen to Sandman talk about "FACTS" is truly funny!
Opinions are not facts! That's why you guys keep losing in court!
If this was about facts you and ocm would bring proof of how NAFTA created a "North American Union" and you would bring the actual wording within the CAFTA agreement that would prove your "North American Union" allegation.
You don't! You can't!
You create the "ILLUSION" instead and that becomes "FACT" in your conspiring, blaming minds.
Same O slippery diversion tactics that I have come to expect from your camp. The Democrats have made it into an art form.
If you can't back your position with facts, CREATE THE ILLUSION THAT YOU CAN!
~SH~
You continue your practice of misquoting.
In debate and in logic the fallacy you have committed here is called the straw man fallacy. Misrepresent the position of your opponent and then argue against that misrepresentation. This is not the first instance that you have used this method.
Since a reference has been made to Limbaugh, let me quote him. "Words mean things." You have been quite careless with the exact meanings of words and phrases Sandhusker and I have used. I have rarely seen that kind of flaw in Limbaugh.
A
Anonymous
Guest
OCM uses a common diversion tactic called the "red herring". When you can't contradict what has been presented, you divert attention to what you think you can argue.
Worse yet, rather than taking a position yourself, you present someone else's position and have me debate that.
Worse still, you try to lead your opponent around into your comfort zone then refuse to answer questions relating to your chosen topic.
That's what many would call a "phony".
~SH~
Worse yet, rather than taking a position yourself, you present someone else's position and have me debate that.
Worse still, you try to lead your opponent around into your comfort zone then refuse to answer questions relating to your chosen topic.
That's what many would call a "phony".
~SH~