Hayden Panettiere says VOTE MCCAIN!

[savageminstrel]

OK...

Clinton Dispenses NAFTA Pact to Skeptical AFL-CIO

NAFTA Engulfs Clinton Team: Defeat Would Be 'Catastrophic'

Remarks on Naming William M. Daley as NAFTA Task Force Chairman and an Exchange With Reporters

Here is a list of news articles from 1993 about Bill Clinton and his support of NAFTA

Ummmmm, these are all dated AFTER he became president.. it proves nothing... there is no question that he supported it after he got into office... in fact all you have done is make my point. Before he got elected, he was against it... after he became president, he signed it........WTF????

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Ok,

1992 then...

1992

Bill Clinton, then Democratic candidate for the US Presidency, stated in a speech delivered on October 4, 1992, that he would support NAFTA only if a supplemental agreement was reached on labor

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

I'm sorry, but you are wrong.

[savageminstrel]

Ok,

1992 then...

1992

Which never happened, he signed it anyway.... you seem to pick and pick and pick.. this started with you basically calling Obama a socialist, now you want to go off on a tangent trying to prove me wrong about something that has nothing to do with my original statement. Doesn't matter whether or not you think I am wrong, it is a NON issue.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

First Debate 1992 (the part about NAFTA)

CLINTON: I'd like to respond to that. You know, Mr. Bush was very grateful when I was among the Democrats who said he ought to have the authority to negotiate an agreement with Mexico. Neither I nor anybody else, as far as I know, agreed to give him our proxy to say that whatever he did was fine for the workers of this country and for the interests of this country. I am the one who's in the middle on this. Mr. Perot says it's a bad deal. Mr. Bush says it's a hunky-dory deal. I say on balance it does more good than harm if -- if we can get some protection for the environment so that the Mexicans have to follow their own environmental standards, their own labor law standards and if we have a genuine commitment to re-educate and retrain the American workers who lose their jobs and reinvest in this economy.

I have a realistic approach to trade. I want more trade. And I know there are some good things in that agreement. But it can sure be made better. Let me just point out: Just today in The Los Angeles Times, Clyde Prestowitz, who was one of President Reagan's leading trade advisers, and a life-long conservative Republican, endorsed my candidacy because he knows that I'll have a free and fair trade policy, a hard-headed realistic policy, and not get caught up in rubber-stamping everything the Bush Administration did. If I wanted to do that, why would I run for President, Jim? Anybody else can run the middle class down and run the economy in a ditch. I want to change it. We've got ----

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Which never happened, he signed it anyway.... you seem to pick and pick and pick.. this started with you basically calling Obama a socialist, now you want to go off on a tangent trying to prove me wrong about something that has nothing to do with my original statement. Doesn't matter whether or not you think I am wrong, it is a NON issue.

I'm not the one that brought NAFTA up, nor am I the one that said they new more about this issue than anyone else because they have voted longer.

You said Clinton was against NAFTA before he was voted into office. You were wrong. Public record proves that.

[savageminstrel]

I'm not the one that brought NAFTA up, nor am I the one that said they new more about this issue than anyone else because they have voted longer.

You said Clinton was against NAFTA before he was voted into office. You were wrong. Public record proves that.

The speech he gave at our union hall, and many others at the time, in which he stated that he would veto it, it also a matter of public record, and only goes to prove that if he did indeed give other speeches in support of it he was saying what people wanted to hear... which proves my ORIGINAL point... and that YOU are wrong... where does it state in the debate quote you posted that he supported NAFTA.. I cant seem to find it.

And you my friend are also wrong about something else, I NEVER said I knew more than others about this issue, please don't put words into my mouth. That is a misquote and possibly an outright falsehood. I said I have voted longer than most of you have been alive and would like to think that I am somewhat educated on the issue... that's it. I said NOTHING about knowing more than anyone else, read it again. (assuming that you actually read it the first time)

I then tried to state my opinion, which last time I checked I have the right to do without being called a liar about something I heard Clinton say with my own ears...and is, in fact, on record.

I am going to ignore you now, since you seem to like to argue only to hear yourself, and misquote and misrepresent what others say.

[asphyxian_doll]

I'm not the one that brought NAFTA up, nor am I the one that said they new more about this issue than anyone else because they have voted longer.

You said Clinton was against NAFTA before he was voted into office. You were wrong. Public record proves that.

Lets play tic for tac shall we?

...

hahaha,

[phee]

There is a thread for this already http://www.detroitgothic.net/index.php?showtopic=24290

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

*sigh*

the paragraphs I qouted above, from the 1992 Presidential debate.. they are about NAFTA... If you can't see his support for NAFTA in a paragraph that is him debating for NAFTA, then you can stay in your own little world.

[asphyxian_doll]

*sigh*

the paragraphs I q(uo)ted above, from the 1992 Presidential debate.. they are about NAFTA... If you can't see his support for NAFTA in a paragraph that is him debating for NAFTA, then you can stay in your own little world.

Speak for yourself about "own" little worlds....

and your in the wrong thread.

<<foot in mouth?!>>

oo google so informative.

[asphyxian_doll]

Gaf....

O_o

If you want to be a catalyst or even make a valid point, patronizing

isn't going to do it.

And being wrong isn't so bad....so get used to it.

[asphyxian_doll]

What the fuck ARE you babbling about?

I am really leaning towards Nader...who BY THE WAY...is 2 years OLDER than McCain!...SO I would really appreciate it if you were to stop your incessant whining about this & that about why you disagree with our personal views...CALLING NAMES IS AGAINST THE RULES HERE...I have seen you calling peoples sexist & ageist..these words are as grass in your hands...you purport sadly formulated assumptions to be immutable fact; by YOUR WORD...NO..STOP IT GAF...IT IS ASININE BEHAVIOR FOR SOMEONE AS INTELLIGENT AS YOU....FURTHERMORE..YOU ARE NOT MADE TO JUDGE ME.

I resent that.

Its misplaced intelligence,

And if someone who is intelligent only uses his knowledge to prove others wrong in a patronizing antagonistic manner(or at least TRIES to prove them wrong)

That only serves as a thorn in my side....

and I'm sure others would agree...

No one is made to judge anyone,....judging is just a projection of self anyway.

Way to go rev

[savageminstrel]

What the fuck ARE you babbling about?

I am really leaning towards Nader...who BY THE WAY...is 2 years OLDER than McCain!...SO I would really appreciate it if you were to stop your incessant whining about this & that about why you disagree with our personal views...CALLING NAMES IS AGAINST THE RULES HERE...I have seen you calling peoples sexist & ageist..these words are as grass in your hands...you purport sadly formulated assumptions to be immutable fact; by YOUR WORD...NO..STOP IT GAF...IT IS ASININE BEHAVIOR FOR SOMEONE AS INTELLIGENT AS YOU....FURTHERMORE..YOU ARE NOT MADE TO JUDGE ME.

I see Gaf has made an impression with others here as well.

*sigh*

the paragraphs I qouted above, from the 1992 Presidential debate.. they are about NAFTA... If you can't see his support for NAFTA in a paragraph that is him debating for NAFTA, then you can stay in your own little world.

*sigh*

If you get that out of some vague references to a presidents' ability to negotiate trade agreements with Mexico, then you have quite an imagination and should stay in your own little bubble. Read whatever you like into what people say... but it still makes you wrong. If that's the best you can do in finding support for your claim that he supported NAFTA before the elections then you are indeed in your own little world yourself, and the truth has nothing to do with reality in there.

I am done debating this issue with you. If you can't have a intellectual discussion with someone without resorting to insults, misquotes and outright lies about what someone has said.. then you should just drop it.

*back to ignoring you*

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

That was part of his response to Perot about NAFTA. Read the whole debate transcipt.

There is a whole page of links to Clinton speachs about NAFTA and his support of it.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Speak for yourself about "own" little worlds....

and your in the wrong thread.

<<foot in mouth?!>>

oo google so informative.

Yes it is. Google finds link after link that support my side of this debate.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Which never happened, he signed it anyway.... you seem to pick and pick and pick.. this started with you basically calling Obama a socialist, now you want to go off on a tangent trying to prove me wrong about something that has nothing to do with my original statement. Doesn't matter whether or not you think I am wrong, it is a NON issue.

and you missed the point of that link. Clinton said he supported NAFTA as long as it was adjusted. Which is what I claimed he said. Thats what this whole debate is about.

Could you point to my name calling? My outright lies? One of my misqoutes?

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

I resent that.

Its misplaced intelligence,

And if someone who is intelligent only uses his knowledge to prove others wrong in a patronizing antagonistic manner(or at least TRIES to prove them wrong)

That only serves as a thorn in my side....

and I'm sure others would agree...

No one is made to judge anyone,....judging is just a projection of self anyway.

Way to go rev

You need to study human psychology. Humans judge everything, right before we label it. The first part of your post is a judgment on me.

[asphyxian_doll]

You need to study human psychology. Humans judge everything, right before we label it. The first part of your post is a judgment on me.

Goes both ways,

STFU.

Your logic only supports your view.

I've only shown you the same amount of respect you show others,

and as for judgment, your also full of crap.

again.

STFU

There is judgment and discernment....

I pointed out the truth.

Alright now, if you have anything else to say, I'm going to disregard it seeing as It will only be a waste of my time, and give you something else to blather on about.

kthxbai

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

You do know that Judge and Discern are synonyms?

I'll STFU right after I feel like it.

[asphyxian_doll]

You do know that Judge and Discern are synonyms?

I'll STFU right after I feel like it.

I know your full of shit.

And yes I know their synonyms, and are also used as verbs with or without use of an object in the sentence.

[asphyxian_doll]

As for the McCain post....

No such entry....

mmm

anywhere else i can find this blog/live journal?

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

What McCain post are you talking about?

[savageminstrel]

and you missed the point of that link. Clinton said he supported NAFTA as long as it was adjusted. Which is what I claimed he said. Thats what this whole debate is about.

Could you point to my name calling? My outright lies? One of my misqoutes?

You missed the whole point yourself, my friend.

In my ORIGINAL statement I said that Clinton promised, at a speech at my union hall to which I was a direct witness, that he would veto NAFTA... then turned around and signed it once he got into office. You then proceeded to tell me I was wrong, practically calling me a liar and ignoring what I had said about his speech in front of me and about 2500 other witnesses, which is a matter of public record.... going off on a stupid unrelated tangent in your own little bubble about how he supported NAFTA with adjustments... which had absolutely NOTHING to do with my ORIGINAL post. If he did say that, then it only further illustrates my point about how he said what he thought people wanted to hear in order to get votes.

Your "debate" basically consists of inferring that I am either lying about what he said, or that I was mistaken... in either case, you are wrong. You weren't there, so you don't know anything about what he said at our union meeting. Whether or not he ever said anything about his support of the bill with adjustments was TOTALLY IRRELEVANT... who give's a rat's ass? He said what he said at our union hall, that was it....end of debate. THAT was the example I used illustrating how they all say one thing to get your vote, and then do the opposite once they get into office.

Misquote and possible outright lie ? Your statement that I said I knew more than anyone else about this issue, remember? I NEVER said that, and for you to claim that I did shows your ignorance or outright unwillingness to read the factual truth about what I actually said, inferring that I said something else. Or has your selective memory lost that little bit of information as well?

As I said before you seem like to argue just to hear yourself talk, and have no problem insulting the intelligence of others here because you don't agree with that they say. You misquote, and misrepresent peoples words, including mine, and you need to stop it. In your attempts to make yourself look smarter than anyone else, you only make yourself look petty.

*back to ignoring you now*

[Goth Brooks]

In my ORIGINAL statement I said that Clinton promised, at a speech at my union hall to which I was a direct witness, that he would veto NAFTA... then turned around and signed it once he got into office. You then proceeded to tell me I was wrong, practically calling me a liar and ignoring what I had said about his speech in front of me and about 2500 other witnesses, which is a matter of public record..

You state it is a matter of public record, but have yet to post any proof of such. Gaf, on the other hand, has backed up his claims with proof. Public record, by the way.

Until you back up your claims with proof, I will call you a liar.

Happy?