Recessions much more likely under, or due to, Republican presidents.
gravero...@yahoo.com
yes, they are, according to the article. richard nixon caused the
ones in the 70's, including the one that befell jimmy carter. herbert
gw bush caused one with desert storm. gwbush, hgw bush's son, has
led us to the precipice of the one we are facing now. how do you
republicans like that, now that your "leaders" have been exposed as
charlatans?
john mccain, whose favourite song is 'blowing in the wind' would
surely lead us to another one after we crash into this one at the end
of the reign of terror of gwbush.
republicans = big money politics, favourtism, and cronyism. democrats
= fiscal responsibility, as well as looking out for the interests of
the little man.
need i say more?
Lars Eighner
<3289773b-dbad-4dd1...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>, the
lovely and talented gravero...@yahoo.com broadcast on alt.politics:
> need i say more?
Well, you could explain how Obama's plan to throw open the treasury to
churches could possibly help.
Obama is just one of the names for Bush's third term.
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> use...@larseighner.com
The best way to support the troops right now
is to take them out of hazard's way. -- U.S. Army Lt. Gen. William Odem (Ret.)
Jim
>
[....]
>
>
> democrats = fiscal responsibility, as well as looking out
> for the interests of the little man.
yes, thank you for NAFT.
John Agosta
"Lars Eighner" <use...@larseighner.com> wrote in message
news:slrng74fa8...@debranded.larseighner.com...
> In our last episode,
> <3289773b-dbad-4dd1...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>, the
> lovely and talented gravero...@yahoo.com broadcast on alt.politics:
>
>> need i say more?
>
> Well, you could explain how Obama's plan to throw open the treasury to
> churches could possibly help.
Talk about grasping at straws.....
John Agosta
"Jim" <jim...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:487252E3...@bellsouth.net...
I assume you mean "NAFTA"
Some facts:
NAFTA was initially pursued by politicians in the United States and Canada
supportive of free trade, led by Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney,
U.S. President George H. W. Bush, and the Mexican President Carlos Salinas
de Gortari. The three countries signed NAFTA in December 1992, subject to
ratification by the legislatures of the three countries. There was
considerable opposition in all three countries. In the United States, NAFTA
was able to secure passage after Bill Clinton made its passage a major
legislative priority in 1993. Since the agreement had been signed by Bush
under his fast-track prerogative, Clinton did not alter the original
agreement, but complemented it with the aforementioned NAAEC and NAALC.
After intense political debate and the negotiation of these side agreements,
the U.S. House of Representatives passed NAFTA on November 17, 1993, by
234-200 vote (132 Republicans and 102 Democrats voting in favor; 43
Republicans, 156 Democrats, and 1 independent against),[6] and the U.S.
Senate passed it on the last day of its 1993 session, November 20, 1993, by
61-38 vote (34 Republicans and 27 Democrats voting in favor; 10 Republicans
and 28 Democrats against, with 1 Democrat opponent not voting -- Sen. Byron
Dorgan (D-ND), an ardent foe of NAFTA, missed the vote because of an illness
in his family).[7]
Thanks.
Jim
> Jim wrote:
> > graverobber_69 wrote:
> >>
> > [....]
> >>
> >> democrats = fiscal responsibility, as well as looking out
> >> for the interests of the little man.
> >
> > yes, thank you for NAFT.
>
[....]
>
> In the United States, NAFTA was
> able to secure passage after Bill Clinton made its passage a
> major legislative priority in 1993.
>
[....]
>
> Thanks.
yea, thanks.
astr...@yahoo.com
Nice information. I was against NAFTA because I didn't see it
benefiting our country as much as it did others. That
American jobs would take a hit. Ultimately I don't think Bill took
enough into consideration some of the ill effects it may have caused.