🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jul 7, 6:20 am, brad herschel <bradhersc...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dumb ass troll.

On Jul 7, 6:29 am, "S'mee" <stevenkei...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 7, 6:20 am, brad herschel <bradhersc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dumb ass troll.

Talking to yourself?

"brad herschel" <bradherschel@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:d7ea7127-d1dc-482b-890a-583cf7659a12@e5g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.borderinvasionpics.com/
>
> Lying government says border cannot be secured. A hail of gunfire
> would end the
> invasion.

"A hail of gunfire"...
Aimed at who, Brewer of McCain?  Don't forget who opened the door for 
illegal, cheap labor and who will fork the bill to clean up another 
republican mess, yep, American taxpayers, not wealthy Reagan Arizonan's.
Aim higher. Barack's right.  Another repub mess we're to clean up. 



__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5258 (20100707) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

On 07 Jul 2010, "Prehistoric GOP" <Gro�f�hrer@shrub.net> posted some
news:i12067$c5k$1@news.albasani.net: 

> 
> "brad herschel" <bradherschel@gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:d7ea7127-d1dc-482b-890a-583cf7659a12@e5g2000yqn.googlegroups.com..
> . 
>> http://www.borderinvasionpics.com/
>>
>> Lying government says border cannot be secured. A hail of gunfire
>> would end the
>> invasion.
> 
> "A hail of gunfire"...
> Aimed at who, Brewer of McCain?  Don't forget who opened the door for 
> illegal, cheap labor 

Yeah, democraps who refuse to enforce immigration laws and a democrap
president who signed NAFTA. 

http://www.historycentral.com/Documents/Clinton/SigningNaFTA.html

Office of the Press Secretary 
______________________________________________________________ 
For Immediate Release September 14, 1993 




REMARKS BY PRESIDENT CLINTON, 
PRESIDENT BUSH, PRESIDENT CARTER, PRESIDENT FORD, 
AND VICE PRESIDENT GORE 
IN SIGNING OF NAFTA SIDE AGREEMENTS 


The East Room 



10:39 A.M. EDT 



VICE PRESIDENT GORE: Ladies and gentlemen, please be 
seated. We'd like to welcome all of you. President and Mrs. Ford, 
President and Mrs. Carter, President Bush, Mr. President, to the First 
Lady, to the Ambassador of Mexico, Mr. Montano, Ambassador Keegan of 
Canada, Ambassador Kantor. To the distinguished leaders of Congress 
here -- the Speaker of the House Tom Foley -- I got you all a little 
out of order, I apologize -- and to the Majority Leader, Senator 
Mitchell; to the Republican Leader, Senator Dole; the Minority Leader 
of the House Bob Michel; to all of the distinguished members of the 
House and Senate who are here. To the other members of our Cabinet -- 
of President Clinton's Cabinet who are here --Secretary Christopher, 
Secretary Bentsen, Secretary Espy, Secretary Reich, Secretary Riley, 
Secretary Browner, Secretary Babbitt, Attorney General Reno, OMB 
Director Panetta. And to all of the distinguished guests who are 
present. We deeply appreciate the demonstration of support for a 
treaty of such importance to the United States of America. 


If you're anything like me and my family, you're still 
kind of rubbing your eyes a little bit after yesterday's event, where 
the Prime Minister of Israel and the Chairman of the PLO were on the 
White House lawn. But that event has something in common with the 
event here this morning; something that was thought to be impossible, 
but good for our country and good for the world was made possible by a 
long series of commitments by presidents in both parties. 


There are some issues that transcend ideology. That is, 
the view is so uniform that it unites people in both parties. This 
means our country can pursue a bipartisan policy with continuity over 
the decades. That's how we won the Cold War. That's how we have 
promoted peace and reconciliation in the Middle East. And that's how 
the United States of America has promoted freer trade and bigger 
markets for our products and those of other nations throughout the 
world. NAFTA is such an issue. 


The presence of three former presidents, two Republicans 
and one Democrat, to join President Clinton here today on this stage, 
is evidence of our country's ability to support what is in our 
nation's best interest over the long term without respect to 
partisanship. 


Arthur Vandenberg, the Senator most identified with 
bipartisanship during and after World War II once wrote: 
"Bipartisanship does not involve the remotest surrender of free debate 
in determining our position. On the contrary, frank cooperation and 
free debate are indispensable to ultimate unity." 


We will, indeed, have much room for free debate during 
this controversy. That it is in our nation's best interest to ratify 
and pass this treaty cannot be left to doubt. The person who is 
leading the fight and who has marshaled support in both parties is the 
person it is my pleasure to introduce now. The President of the 
United States, Bill Clinton. (Applause.) 


THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Mr. Vice President, 
President Bush, President Carter, President Ford, ladies and 
gentlemen. I would like to acknowledge just a couple of other people 
who are in the audience because I think they deserve to be seen by 
America since you'll be seeing a lot more of them: my good friend, 
Bill Daley, from Chicago; and former Congressman Bill Frenzel from 
Minnesota, who have agreed to lead this fight for our administration 
on a bipartisan basis. Would you please stand and be recognized. 
(Applause.) 


It's an honor for me today to be joined by my 
predecessor, President Bush, who took the major steps in negotiating 
this North American Free Trade Agreement; President Jimmy Carter, 
whose vision of hemispherical development gives great energy to our 
efforts and has been a consistent theme of his for many, many years 
now; and President Ford who has argued as fiercely for expanded trade 
and for this agreement as any American citizen and whose counsel I 
continue to value. 


These men, differing in party and outlook, join us today 
because we all recognize the important stakes for our nation in this 
issue. Yesterday we saw the sight of an old world dying, a new one 
being born in hope and a spirit of peace. Peoples who for a decade 
were caught in the cycle of war and frustration chose hope over fear 
and took a great risk to make the future better. 


Today we turn to face the challenge of our own 
hemisphere, our own country, our own economic fortunes. In a few 
moments, I will sign three agreements that will complete our 
negotiations with Mexico and Canada to create a North American Free 
Trade Agreement. In the coming months I will submit this pack to 
Congress for approval. It will be a hard fight, and I expect to be 
there with all of you every step of the way. (Applause.) 


We will make our case as hard and as well as we can. 
And, though the fight will be difficult, I deeply believe we will win. 
And I'd like to tell you why. First of all, because NAFTA means jobs. 
American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe 
that, I wouldn't support this agreement. 


As President, it is my duty to speak frankly to the 
American people about the world in which we now live. Fifty years at 
the end of World War II, an unchallenged America was protected by the 
oceans and by our technological superiority; and, very frankly, by the 
economic devastation of the people who could otherwise have been our 
competitors. We chose, then, to try to help rebuild our former 
enemies and to create a world of free trade supported by institutions 
which would facilitate it. 


As a result of that effort, global trade grew from $200 
billion in 1950 to $800 billion in 1980. As a result, jobs were 
created and opportunity thrived all across the world. But make no 
mistake about it: Our decision at the end of World War II to create a 
system of global, expanded, freer trade and the supporting 
institutions played a major role in creating the prosperity of the 
American middle class. 


Ours is now an era in which commerce is global and in 
which money, management, technology are highly mobile. For the last 
20 years in all the wealthy countries of the world, because of changes 
in the global environment, because of the growth of technology, 
because of increasing competition, the middle class that was created 
and enlarged by the wise policies of expanding trade at the end of 
World War II has been under severe stress. Most Americans 
are working harder for less. They are vulnerable to the fear tactics 
and the adverseness to change that is behind much of the opposition to 
NAFTA. 


But I want to say to my fellow Americans, when you live 
in a time of change the only way to recover your security and to 
broaden your horizons is to adapt to the change, to embrace, to move 
forward. Nothing we do -- nothing we do in this great capital can 
change the fact that factories or information can flash across the 
world; that people can move money around in the blink of an eye. 
Nothing can change the fact that technology can be adopted once 
created by people all across the world, and then rapidly adapted in 
new and different ways by people who have a little different take on 
the way the technology works. 


For two decades, the winds of global competition have 
made these things clear to any American with eyes to see. The only 
way we can recover the fortunes of the middle class in this country so 
that people who work harder and smarter can at least prosper more, the 
only way we can pass on the American Dream of the last 40 years to our 
children and their children for the next 40 is to adapt to the changes 
which are occurring. 


In a fundamental sense, this debate about NAFTA is a 
debate about whether we will embrace these changes and create the jobs 
of tomorrow, or try to resist these changes, hoping we can preserve 
the economic structures of yesterday. 


I tell you, my fellow Americans, that if we learn 
anything from the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the fall of the 
governments in Eastern Europe, even a totally controlled society 
cannot resist the winds of change that economics and technology and 
information flow have imposed in this world of ours. That is not an 
option. Our only realistic option is to embrace these changes and 
create the jobs of tomorrow. (Applause.) 


I believe that NAFTA will create 200,000 American jobs in 
the first two years of its effect. I believe if you look at the 
trends -- and President Bush and I were talking about it this morning 
-- starting about the time he was elected president, over one-third of 
our economic growth, and in some years over one-half of our net new 
jobs came directly from exports. And on average, those export-related 
jobs paid much higher than jobs that had no connection to exports. 


I believe that NAFTA will create a million jobs in the 
first five years of its impact. And I believe that that is many more 
jobs than will be lost, as inevitably some will be as always happens 
when you open up the mix to a new range of competition. 


NAFTA will generate these jobs by fostering an export 
boom to Mexico; by tearing down tariff walls which have been lowered 
quite a bit by the present administration of President Salinas, but 
are still higher than Americans. 


Already Mexican consumers buy more per capita from the 
United States than other consumers in other nations. Most Americans 
don't know this, but the average Mexican citizen -- even though wages 
are much lower in Mexico, the average Mexican citizen is now spending 
$450 per year per person to buy American goods. That is more than the 
average Japanese, the average German, or the average Canadian buys; 
more than the average German, Swiss and Italian citizens put together. 


So when people say that this trade agreement is just 
about how to move jobs to Mexico so nobody can make a living, how do 
they explain the fact that Mexicans keep buying more products made in 
America every year? Go out and tell the American people that. 
Mexican citizens with lower incomes spend more money -- real dollars, 
not percentage of their income -- more money on American products than 
Germans, Japanese, Canadians. That is a fact. And there will be 
more if they have more money to spend. That is what expanding trade 
is all about. 


In 1987, Mexico exported $5.7 billion more of products to 
the United States than they purchased from us. We had a trade 
deficit. Because of the free market, tariff-lowering policies of the 
Salinas government in Mexico, and because our people are becoming more 
export-oriented, that $5.7-billion trade deficit has been turned into 
a $5.4-billion trade surplus for the United States. It has created 
hundreds of thousands of jobs. 


Even when you subtract the jobs that have moved into the 
Maquilladora areas, America is a net job winner in what has happened 
in trade in the last six years. When Mexico boosts its consumption of 
petroleum products in Louisiana, where we're going tomorrow to talk 
about NAFTA, as it did by about 200 percent in that period, Louisiana 
refinery workers gained job security. When Mexico purchased 
industrial machinery and computer equipment made in Illinois, that 
means more jobs. And guess what? In this same period, Mexico 
increased those purchases out of Illinois by 300 percent. 


Forty-eight out of the 50 states have boosted exports to 
Mexico since 1987. That's one reason why 41 of our nation's 50 
governors, some of them who are here today -- and I thank them for 
their presence -- support this trade pack. I can tell you, if you're 
a governor, people won't leave you in office unless they think you get 
up every day trying to create more jobs. They think that's what your 
jobs is if you're a governor. And the people who have the job of 
creating jobs for their state and working with their business 
community, working with their labor community, 41 out of the 50 have 
already embraced the NAFTA pact. 


Many Americans are still worried that this agreement will 
move jobs south of the border because they've seen jobs move south of 
the border and because they know that there are still great 
differences in the wage rates. There have been 19 serious economic 
studies of NAFTA by liberals and conservatives alike; 18 of them have 
concluded that there will be no job loss. 


Businesses do not choose to locate based solely on wages. 
If they did, Haiti and Bangladesh would have the largest number of 
manufacturing jobs in the world. Businesses do choose to locate based 
on the skills and productivity of the work force, the attitude of the 
government, the roads and railroads to deliver products, the 
availability of a market close enough to make the transportation costs 
meaningful, the communications networks necessary to support the 
enterprise. That is our strength, and it will continue to be our 
strength. As it becomes Mexico's strength and they generate more 
jobs, they will have higher incomes and they will buy more American 
products. 


We can win this. This is not a time for defeatism. It 
is a time to look at an opportunity that is enormous. 


Moreover, there are specific provisions in this agreement 
that remove some of the current incentives for people to move their 
jobs just across our border. For example, today Mexican law requires 
United States automakers who want to sell cars to Mexicans to build 
them in Mexico. This year we will export only 1,000 cars to Mexico. 


Under NAFTA, the Big Three automakers expect to ship 
60,000 cars to Mexico in the first year alone, and that is one reason 
why one of the automakers recently announced moving 1,000 jobs from 
Mexico back to Michigan. 


In a few moments, I will sign side agreements to NAFTA 
that will make it harder than it is today for businesses to relocate 
solely because of very low wages or lax environmental rules. These 
side agreements will make a difference. The environmental agreement 
will, for the first time ever, apply trade sanctions against any of 
the countries that fails to enforce its own environmental laws. I 
might say to those who say that's giving up of our sovereignty, for 
people who have been asking us to ask that of Mexico, how do we have 
the right to ask that of Mexico if we don't demand it of ourselves? 
It's nothing but fair. 


This is the first time that there have ever been trade 
sanctions in the environmental law area. This ground-breaking 
agreement is one of the reasons why major environmental groups, 
ranging from the Audubon Society to the Natural Resources Defense 
Council, are supporting NAFTA. 


The second agreement ensures the Mexico enforces its laws 
in areas that include worker health and safety, child labor and the 
minimum wage. And I might say, this is the first time in the history 
of world trade agreements when any nation has ever been willing to tie 
its minimum wage to the growth in its own economy. 


What does that mean? It means that there will be an even 
more rapid closing of the gap between our two wage rates. And as the 
benefits of economic growth are spread in Mexico to working people, 
what will happen? They'll have more disposable income to buy more 
American products and there will be less illegal immigration because 
more Mexicans will be able to support their children by staying home. 
This is a very important thing. (Applause.) 


The third agreement answers one of the primary attacks on 
NAFTA that I heard for a year, which is, well, you can say all this, 
but something might happen that you can't foresee. Well, that's a 
good thing; otherwise we never would have had yesterday. (Laughter 
and applause.) I mean, I plead guilty to that. Something might 
happen that Carla Hills didn't foresee, or George Bush didn't foresee, 
or Mickey Kantor, or Bill Clinton didn't foresee. That's true. 


Now, the third agreement protects our industries against 
unforseen surges in exports from either one of our trading partners. 
And the flip side is also true. Economic change, as I said before, 
has often been cruel to the middle class, but we have to make change 
their friend. NAFTA will help to do that. 


This imposes also a new obligation on our government -- 
and I'm glad to see so many members of Congress from both parties here 
today. We do have some obligations here. We have to make sure that 
our workers are the best prepared, the best trained in the world. 


Without regard to NAFTA, we know now that the average 18- 
year-old American will change jobs eight times in a lifetime. The 
Secretary of Labor has told us, without regard to NAFTA, that over the 
last 10 years, for the first time, when people lose their jobs most of 
them do not go back to their old job, they go back to a different job; 
so that we no longer need an unemployment system, we need a 
reemployment system. And we have to create that. 


And that's our job. We have to tell American workers who 
will be dislocated because of this agreement or because of things that 
will happen regardless of this agreement, that we are going to have a 
reemployment program for training in America, and we intend to do 
that. 

Together, the efforts of two administrations now have 
created a trade agreement that moves beyond the traditional notions of 
free trade, seeking to ensure trade that pulls everybody up instead of 
dragging some down while others go up. We have put the environment at 
the center of this in future agreements. We have sought to avoid a 
debilitating contest for business where countries seek to lure them 
only by slashing wages or despoiling the environment. 


This agreement will create jobs, thanks to trade with our 
neighbors. That's reason enough to support it. But I must close with 
a couple of other points. NAFTA is essential to our long-term ability 
to compete with Asia and Europe. Across the globe our competitors are 
consolidating, creating huge trading blocks. This pact will create a 
free trade zone stretching from the Arctic to the tropics, the largest 
in the world -- a $6.5 billion market, with 370 million people. It 
will help our businesses to be both more efficient and to better 
compete with our rivals in other parts of the world. 




-- 
"teabagger" - a word coined by homosexuals describing the act of taking
a male phallus in the mouth. 

Liberals and Democrats, those who defend the actions of homosexuals and
seek to elevate them to favored status. 

Republicans, those who disagree with the above.