Um. Wasn't NAFTA negotiated and all but finalized by George H. W. Bush and his administration? When did NAFTA suddenly become a Democrat thing, New or otherwise?
Their back catalogue will reward you. Or punish you. It's a matter of perspective.
Amateurs talk Butthole Surfers; professionals talk FUCKEMOS. Ironically, the first time I ever saw FUCKEMOS live was at Emo's, SXSW 2001. I suppose they reconciled their differences.
Clinton finalized NAFTA because Bush left office before finishing the job. But 99% of the work on NAFTA was done by Bush and his administration (and was actually originally the idea of no one other than Reagan). Look it up.
Continuing that train of thought, I have still been unable to come up with a single foreign or economic policy difference between Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton.
Well by then they had a shiny new gift for Hollywood in the form of changes to copyright law, removing profitable IPs from the public domain.
Unless you want to contend that Bush was paying back all the support he got from those folks. (which would be a giveaway that you are a visitor from an alternate timeline)
Same could be said about his efforts to gut the welfare state, militarize policing, expand incarceration, and recommit to imperial visions of American foreign policy. ClintonтАЩs similarity to Reagan-Bush is a reason to reject Clinton, not defend him
Except that's not at all what's happening here. I have no love for Clinton and I'm not trying to defend him, I'm simply pointing out that these things that Clinton shares with Reagan-Bush are... things he shares with Reagan-Bush. Clinton signed NAFTA, Bush designed NAFTA, Reagan envisioned NAFTA. It's a pretty basic fact, but the people here seem completely unable or unwilling to wrap their heads around it.
Ideas tend to be like that. However, NAFTA defined the Clinton admin, maybe even more than
Lewinsky, for those of us alive then. Its his ass that signed it, memorialized it, and made it a reality, so of course its going to be associated with Democrats.
And in the process, he made it into Democratic dogma, where originally it was Republican. One reason I decided Clinton was really an R, and the former parties had all but fused.
I'm sorry. What? So it became Democrat dogma and stopped being Republican dogma? Are you saying that Republicans stopped supporting NAFTA the moment it became a Democrat thing? That's literally false. In the House it got more Republican votes than Democrat votes. Republicans stopped supporting NAFTA only when Trump showed up 20-something years later, and not even all Republicans but only a minority of them.
Ist sentence: No, it wasn't. Didn't pass till '94.
2nd sentence: Wasn't sudden, and it "became a Democrat thing" when the Copyright portion was amended to benefit companies who just happen to be big Dem donors (https://www.copyright.gov/history/mls/ML-497.pdf). Quite literally stealing back properties that had gone into the public domain.
I'm sure the happy smiles of the movie studios was payment enough for Clinton, et. al.
Are you projecting? Does NAFTA just *seem* like it belongs on the Republican side of the ledger, to fit neatly with all your preconceptions?
Nope, you're lying. NAFTA was signed in 1992 (the president was Bush). It was ratified in 1993. No part of its "passing" took place in 1994. It went into effect in 1994, but no work has been done on it in 1994, because all work ended in 1993. Did I already mention that you're lying? You're lying.
"it "became a Democrat thing" when the Copyright portion was amended to benefit companies who just happen to be big Dem donors"
Aaaand you're lying again. The copyright portion was part of the text of the agreement since 1992, meaning that it was added by Bush and his people. Hollywood are big Dem donors? No, you're lying. They're apparently big Republican donors. This was an "amendment"? No, you're lying. It was part of the original text of the agreement. The only "amendments" (side agreements) added by Clinton were labor and environment cooperation agreements. None have anything to do with copyright. You're lying.
"Are you projecting? Does NAFTA just *seem* like it belongs on the Republican side of the ledger, to fit neatly with all your preconceptions?"
How does NAFTA belong on the Republican side? The Republicans since Trump are against free trade. So why would it belong on the Republican side? Except, you know, for the small issue of NAFTA being Reagan's initiative that was executed by Bush. You seem to be the one who's projecting, by hilariously claiming that Clinton added copyright to NAFTA because Hollywood *seems* to belong as Democrat donors. When in fact it was Bush who added copyright, in 1992. It's almost as if it's so easy to tell the truth, but you still idiotically insist on lying. You are without a doubt the stupidest person I ever ran into on Taibbi's comment section, and the competition is stiff.
The debate with Perot was in October 1992. Bush signed NAFTA in December 1992. It's a little sad that you can't grasp that December comes *after* October. My 6-year old nephew can do that.
So you admit that Bush, the main designer and advocate of NAFTA, was in favor of NAFTA? Great, that's exactly the opposite of what the other geniuses in this thread are saying. Now go tell them that.
That would be AOC
please. she's fully steeped into the "New Democrat", NAFTA culture now.
Um. Wasn't NAFTA negotiated and all but finalized by George H. W. Bush and his administration? When did NAFTA suddenly become a Democrat thing, New or otherwise?
When Clinton passed it in 1994
LOL. One quick rebuttal sentence like a sharp knife to the posterтАЩs credibility
Perfectly correct that the Republicans supported it, though. Got more R than D votes in the House: https://www.citizen.org/article/final-house-vote-on-nafta/
This is what happens when you donтАЩt have a Labor Party
IтАЩm not sure why youтАЩre aiming this at me. I was commenting on the posterтАЩs point about who and when NAFTA was passed
And Bush signed it in 1992. There was no "passing" done in 1994 because NAFTA already went into effect on 1.1.1994. My god, you people are dumb.
Clinton did Nafta. Bill.
Geez...I seem to remember Al Gore debating Ross Perot on NAFTA...but shoot that doesn't fit my reality...life is so hard...welp...
NAFTA, those scumbags who support sex with young guys? Vermin!
Oh wait, I think I am thinking of NAMBLA. VietNAMBLA, the boy booty battle...
VietNAMBLA by FUCKEMOS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8jMyZqBEag
Austin, TX was cool as recently as the 1990s. It's sad what it's become since.
Thanks. Never heard of that band before.
Their back catalogue will reward you. Or punish you. It's a matter of perspective.
Amateurs talk Butthole Surfers; professionals talk FUCKEMOS. Ironically, the first time I ever saw FUCKEMOS live was at Emo's, SXSW 2001. I suppose they reconciled their differences.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPy8wDGTTgo
Clinton finalized NAFTA because Bush left office before finishing the job. But 99% of the work on NAFTA was done by Bush and his administration (and was actually originally the idea of no one other than Reagan). Look it up.
Well this is all news to me.
Based on their policies, until today I though George H Bush and Bill Clinton were actually the same person.
Good one! I thought theyтАЩve all been the same person- since the Cold War ended- until Trump showed up.
Continuing that train of thought, I have still been unable to come up with a single foreign or economic policy difference between Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton.
CLinton's the one with the unusual humidor.
You're right Bush negotiated it.
But, Clinton could have vetoed it. Instead, he went all in to get it passed, including letting Al Gore debate Ross Perot on Larry King.
Well by then they had a shiny new gift for Hollywood in the form of changes to copyright law, removing profitable IPs from the public domain.
Unless you want to contend that Bush was paying back all the support he got from those folks. (which would be a giveaway that you are a visitor from an alternate timeline)
What does any of that gibberish have to do with my point?
Did you attach to the wrong post, son?
Same could be said about his efforts to gut the welfare state, militarize policing, expand incarceration, and recommit to imperial visions of American foreign policy. ClintonтАЩs similarity to Reagan-Bush is a reason to reject Clinton, not defend him
Except that's not at all what's happening here. I have no love for Clinton and I'm not trying to defend him, I'm simply pointing out that these things that Clinton shares with Reagan-Bush are... things he shares with Reagan-Bush. Clinton signed NAFTA, Bush designed NAFTA, Reagan envisioned NAFTA. It's a pretty basic fact, but the people here seem completely unable or unwilling to wrap their heads around it.
Ideas tend to be like that. However, NAFTA defined the Clinton admin, maybe even more than
Lewinsky, for those of us alive then. Its his ass that signed it, memorialized it, and made it a reality, so of course its going to be associated with Democrats.
And in the process, he made it into Democratic dogma, where originally it was Republican. One reason I decided Clinton was really an R, and the former parties had all but fused.
I'm sorry. What? So it became Democrat dogma and stopped being Republican dogma? Are you saying that Republicans stopped supporting NAFTA the moment it became a Democrat thing? That's literally false. In the House it got more Republican votes than Democrat votes. Republicans stopped supporting NAFTA only when Trump showed up 20-something years later, and not even all Republicans but only a minority of them.
Ist sentence: No, it wasn't. Didn't pass till '94.
2nd sentence: Wasn't sudden, and it "became a Democrat thing" when the Copyright portion was amended to benefit companies who just happen to be big Dem donors (https://www.copyright.gov/history/mls/ML-497.pdf). Quite literally stealing back properties that had gone into the public domain.
I'm sure the happy smiles of the movie studios was payment enough for Clinton, et. al.
Are you projecting? Does NAFTA just *seem* like it belongs on the Republican side of the ledger, to fit neatly with all your preconceptions?
"No, it wasn't. Didn't pass till '94."
Nope, you're lying. NAFTA was signed in 1992 (the president was Bush). It was ratified in 1993. No part of its "passing" took place in 1994. It went into effect in 1994, but no work has been done on it in 1994, because all work ended in 1993. Did I already mention that you're lying? You're lying.
"it "became a Democrat thing" when the Copyright portion was amended to benefit companies who just happen to be big Dem donors"
Aaaand you're lying again. The copyright portion was part of the text of the agreement since 1992, meaning that it was added by Bush and his people. Hollywood are big Dem donors? No, you're lying. They're apparently big Republican donors. This was an "amendment"? No, you're lying. It was part of the original text of the agreement. The only "amendments" (side agreements) added by Clinton were labor and environment cooperation agreements. None have anything to do with copyright. You're lying.
"Are you projecting? Does NAFTA just *seem* like it belongs on the Republican side of the ledger, to fit neatly with all your preconceptions?"
How does NAFTA belong on the Republican side? The Republicans since Trump are against free trade. So why would it belong on the Republican side? Except, you know, for the small issue of NAFTA being Reagan's initiative that was executed by Bush. You seem to be the one who's projecting, by hilariously claiming that Clinton added copyright to NAFTA because Hollywood *seems* to belong as Democrat donors. When in fact it was Bush who added copyright, in 1992. It's almost as if it's so easy to tell the truth, but you still idiotically insist on lying. You are without a doubt the stupidest person I ever ran into on Taibbi's comment section, and the competition is stiff.
The debate with Perot was in October 1992. Bush signed NAFTA in December 1992. It's a little sad that you can't grasp that December comes *after* October. My 6-year old nephew can do that.
So you admit that Bush, the main designer and advocate of NAFTA, was in favor of NAFTA? Great, that's exactly the opposite of what the other geniuses in this thread are saying. Now go tell them that.
What were the R party votes in Congress on NAFTA?
Did the Republicans continued to support NAFTA between 1992 and until Trump got elected in 2016?
Did the Republican party before Trump embrace neoliberalism and globalism?