Palin's speach

[RIJIMMY]

OK -
you asked Bryan and I like you. This will get preachy, but its my swan song.
Everyone needs to make a list of things that are important to them. Many of the social issues are very low on my list. I dont feel strongly either way on abortion.
I dont care too much about the religious crap unless as you state, it becomes THE purpose of policy.
I value MOST of all, the american spirit. The drive to succeed, courage in the face of adversity, no BS, no focus on race, but on people.
She is a mother, a VERY hard job, she worked in tough jobs. Unlike Obama and Biden, she worked for a living, she could fail, lose her home, not provide food for her family. Obama's work has been about obtaining grants and public funding and like Biden, a career politician. I dont like the career politician thing. So thats point 1.
Point 2 - I really, really like woman leaders. The best people I have ever worked for were strong woman, she reminds me a lot of them.
Point 3 - International - I can see her (much like Obamans supporters see him) on the Internatinal stage and delivering a SOLID representation of America. She is not George Bush.
Point 4 - Balls, there is no doubt to me she has them.
Point 5 - again, my unfair comparison between her and Obama , If I was hiring someone, I lead a project management team, who would I hire if I interview Palin and Obama? Who to me is someone I can talk to and they would listen? Obama reminds me of the bad bosses I had, where the have the answer before you ask the questions and think they know more than you. I dont get that from her.
Point 6 - I think her inexperience is a good thing (much like Obamas supporters) and I think can lead. She has the poise and delivery of a leader.

For the record, I am far from right wing - I am for gay marriage, for the legalization of weed, for the separation of church and state.

So, as an independant, that why she appeals to me. Leadership presence, ballsy woman, family woman, non-career politician.

Have fun tearing me apart.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

OK -
you asked Bryan and I like you. This will get preachy, but its my swan song.
Everyone needs to make a list of things that are important to them. Many of the social issues are very low on my list. I dont feel strongly either way on abortion.
I dont care too much about the religious crap unless as you state, it becomes THE purpose of policy.
I value MOST of all, the american spirit. The drive to succeed, courage in the face of adversity, no BS, no focus on race, but on people.
She is a mother, a VERY hard job, she worked in tough jobs. Unlike Obama and Biden, she worked for a living, she could fail, lose her home, not provide food for her family. Obama's work has been about obtaining grants and public funding and like Biden, a career politician. I dont like the career politician thing. So thats point 1.
Point 2 - I really, really like woman leaders. The best people I have ever worked for were strong woman, she reminds me a lot of them.
Point 3 - International - I can see her (much like Obamans supporters see him) on the Internatinal stage and delivering a SOLID representation of America. She is not George Bush.
Point 4 - Balls, there is no doubt to me she has them.
Point 5 - again, my unfair comparison between her and Obama , If I was hiring someone, I lead a project management team, who would I hire if I interview Palin and Obama? Who to me is someone I can talk to and they would listen? Obama reminds me of the bad bosses I had, where the have the answer before you ask the questions and think they know more than you. I dont get that from her.
Point 6 - I think her inexperience is a good thing (much like Obamas supporters) and I think can lead. She has the poise and delivery of a leader.

For the record, I am far from right wing - I am for gay marriage, for the legalization of weed, for the separation of church and state.

So, as an independant, that why she appeals to me. Leadership presence, ballsy woman, family woman, non-career politician.

Have fun tearing me apart.

BTW - interesting on the environemnt side where most of you are for killing the seals, the plovers and the dogfish

[likwid]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

BTW - interesting on the environemnt side where most of you are for killing the seals, the plovers and the dogfish

It only matters when it affects them.

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

She is a mother, a VERY hard job, she worked in tough jobs. Unlike Obama and Biden, she worked for a living, she could fail, lose her home, not provide food for her family.

Didn't Biden loose his wife and daughter at a very young age? Hasn't he commuted home via train every day from Washington to raise his kids?

Did you know Biden is one of the poorest Senators currently holding a seat?

And you think his is a cake job? That's insulting to the Senator and family values as a whole.

Point 3 - International - I can see her (much like Obamans supporters see him) on the Internatinal stage and delivering a SOLID representation of America. She is not George Bush.

I see a Bush style "America's the best and FU if you think different" approach to foreign relations that hasn't worked the last 8 years.

This is one thing I think the Dems understand much better than the GOP.

As Fareed Zakaria writes in his new book (from memory here)... America has succeeded in globalizing the world, but has yet to globalize itsself.

Or something like that.

The point being, that in the last decade we've seen an incredible rise among other nations. We are still the global leader, but there are so many other strong nations we can't lead with a stick (alone) any longer. This goes straight up the neocon's ass, but it's reality, and Iraq is proof in the putting. China is more proof and Georgia even more.

The world has changed (read as "not changing") and our approach must change for the USA to have the necessary influence. We're not going to become irrevelant overnight, but it's already starting to happen.

I look at the Republican platform and I see more of the same. Complete denial that the way forward is the way of the past.

-spence

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by spence

Didn't Biden loose his wife and daughter at a very young age? Hasn't he commuted home via train every day from Washington to raise his kids?

Did you know Biden is one of the poorest Senators currently holding a seat?

And you think his is a cake job? That's insulting to the Senator and family values as a whole.

-spence

Spence, I'm suprised you would actually use the word "poor" to describe Biden. I bet lot's of minimum wage earners trying to support families wouldn't mind making close to $200K a year. Oh, and he has most of his travel paid for, including his commute, among the other freebies and perks for being a Senator.

And while being a Senator is no "cake job", it is a little easier when you miss 30% of the votes. And think about the time he saves by not having to come up with speeches on his own. He just takes what others have written and take scredit for it. That gives him plenty of time to rush home on the train to spend time with his adult children and 5 grandchildren.

[spence]

Originally Posted by fishbones

Spence, I'm suprised you would actually use the word "poor" to describe Biden. I bet lot's of minimum wage earners trying to support families wouldn't mind making close to $200K a year. Oh, and he has most of his travel paid for, including his commute, among the other freebies and perks for being a Senator.

And while being a Senator is no "cake job", it is a little easier when you miss 30% of the votes. And think about the time he saves by not having to come up with speeches on his own. He just takes what others have written and take scredit for it. That gives him plenty of time to rush home on the train to spend time with his adult children and 5 grandchildren.

Big difference between "poor" and "poorest". The point being that he's made out to be the "elite" when in fact compared to his peers he's quite modest in means and has never been super rich. 200K might seem like a lot to you and me, but it's not a ton of money for a sales professional, and we're talking about someone trusted with helping to lead the Legislative branch of our government of 300 million people.

And the 30% figure is a red herring. By this measure alone John McCain stands at 64% votes missed! When you look at "votes cast" Joe Biden is higher than many Senators who have missed less than 10%.

-spence

[TheSpecialist]

Bill Clinton made it's legislative passage a priority in 1993

Bill Clinton was president when NAFTA was passed by the legislature.

The plan was drafted by BUsh, and never altered by Clinton before being passed.


North American Free Trade Agreement
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"NAFTA" redirects here. For other uses of the acronym, see Nafta (disambiguation).
The North American Free Trade Agreement
Tratado de Libre Comercio de América del Norte
Accord de libre-échange nord-américain


Secretariats Mexico City, Ottawa and Washington, D.C.
Official languages English, French and Spanish
Membership Canada
Mexico
United States
Establishment
- Formation 1 January 1994
Area
- Total 21,783,850 km² (1st)
8,410,792 sq mi
- Water (%) 7.4
Population
- 2008 estimate 445,335,091 (3rd)
- Density 20.4/km² (195th)
52.9/sq mi
GDP (PPP) 2007 (IMF) estimate
- Total $15,857 billion (1st)
- Per capita $35,491 (14th)
GDP (nominal) 2007 (IMF) estimate
- Total $15,723 billion (2nd)
- Per capita $35,564 (18th)
Website
http://www.nafta-sec-alena.org
The North American Free Trade Agreement (Spanish: Tratado de Libre Comercio de América del Norte [TLCAN], French: Accord de libre-échange nord-américain [ALENA]) is a trilateral trade bloc in North America created by the governments of the United States, Canada, and Mexico. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has two supplements, the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC) and The North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC). The agreements came into effect on January 1, 1994. In terms of combined purchasing power parity GDP of its members, as of 2007 the trade bloc is the largest in the world and second largest by nominal GDP comparison.
Contents [hide]
1 North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation
2 North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation
3 Further integration
4 History of the implementation
5 Effects
5.1 Trade
5.2 Industry
5.3 Environment
5.4 Agriculture
5.5 Mobility of persons
6 Criticism and controversies
6.1 Canadian disputes
6.1.1 Canadian government challenged on change in Income trust taxation
6.2 U.S. deindustrialization
6.3 Impact on Mexican farmers
6.4 Chapter 11
6.5 Chapter 19
6.6 Chapter 20
6.7 Chapter 14
7 Public opinion
8 Travel and migration
8.1 United States and Canada
8.2 The United States and Mexico
9 See also
10 References
11 External links
[edit]North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation
The North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC) was a response to environmentalists' concerns that the United States would lower its standards if the three countries did not achieve consistent environmental regulation. The NAAEC only obligates parties to enforce their own environmental laws. The NAAEC, in an endeavour to be more than a set of environmental regulations, established the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation, a mechanism for addressing trade and environmental issues, the North American Development Bank (NADBank) for assisting and financing investments in pollution reduction, and the Border Environmental Cooperation Commission (BECC). The NADBank and the BECC have provided economic benefits to Mexico by financing 36 projects, mostly in the water sector.[1]
[edit]North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation
The North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC) supplements NAFTA and endeavors to create a foundation for cooperation among the three countries for the resolution of labor problems, as well as to promote greater cooperation among trade unions and social organizations in order to fight for improved labor conditions.
[edit]Further integration

While different groups advocate for a further integration into a North American Community, sensitive issues have hindered that process. The three countries have pursued different trade policies with non-members (for example, Mexico has signed FTAs with more than 40 countries in 12 agreements), making the possibility of creating a customs union difficult to accomplish. Former President Vicente Fox of Mexico had promoted the idea of enhancing NAFTA (into what he labeled "NAFTA-Plus", or possibly a North American Community), but after the September 11, 2001 attacks, priorities in the United States changed. The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America was signed, instead, as a separate and unrelated agreement.
Given the scope of the agreement, which includes very sensitive issues in trade talks such as agriculture liberalization and environment regulation, few countries have shown interest in joining NAFTA. Instead, some countries, like Chile, preferred to negotiate three separate bilateral agreements with the three current NAFTA members, with different restrictions to liberalization of their industries and the regulation of environment protection. Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago also showed a similar interest.[2][3][4]
In an interview with Larry King on October 8, 2007, Fox described any plans for a North American single currency as a "long term, very long term" proposal. He also spoke of he and U.S. President George W. Bush's support for the Free Trade Area of the Americas as a "first step" toward "a new vision" for the Americas, "like we are trying to do with NAFTA", but then said that Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez had decided to "destroy the idea".[5]
[edit]History of the implementation



President Bill Clinton signing NAFTA into law, November 1993
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]
[edit]Effects

[spence]

Sounds like bi-partisan legislation to me. While I wouldn't say I'm a NAFTA supporter I have met with business leaders who attribute NAFTA for helping them be successful in the USA.

-spence

[BigBo]

NAFTA may help business leaders to become successful (ie; higher profit margins = more money in their pockets), but is causing me and many of my co-workers to loose their jobs. Our company is moving much of the production to Mexico. All these manufacturing jobs that are lost to other countries are jobs that we will NEVER get back in this country.
F%ck NAFTA and F%ck anyone who supports it. Simply put, I'm out of a job soon because of it.

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by spence

Big difference between "poor" and "poorest". The point being that he's made out to be the "elite" when in fact compared to his peers he's quite modest in means and has never been super rich. 200K might seem like a lot to you and me, but it's not a ton of money for a sales professional, and we're talking about someone trusted with helping to lead the Legislative branch of our government of 300 million people.

And the 30% figure is a red herring. By this measure alone John McCain stands at 64% votes missed! When you look at "votes cast" Joe Biden is higher than many Senators who have missed less than 10%.

-spence

Spence, I appreciate your argument, but maybe saying that Biden has "one of the lowest income levels among his peers" would have been a better choice of words. "poorest" is different than "poor", but it's a derivation af the same word and using it to decribe Biden is a little over the top. Not many people are going to feel sorry for a guy making around $200K and who has many more "freebies" and "perks" handed to him than them. Remember that he writes off a lot of things that most people can't. Oh, and don't forget the income derived from his book. I'm sure he got something for that.

And he has a lot more time off than the salepeople you mentioned. Remember, the Senate is not in session all year and he gets paid whether he is there or not. Salespeople who make the big bucks are usually on commission and work long hours with only a few weeks of vacation a year. They only get paid for the sales they make. Don't diminish how hard it is to support a family when you income is directly tied to you being successful in making sales. If they don't sell, they don't get paid.

As for the voting in the Senate, I counted him as having missed the 5th most votes, behind McCain (#1), Obama (#3) and Clinton (#4). I would think that preparing to run for President and campaigning might explain why those 3 may have missed some of their votes. And I actually looked up "votes cast" and Biden only has more than 3 other Senators with less than 10% missed. Unless you want to count Craig Thomas who died last year.

And to your earlier point about him taking the train home to Delaware each day for his family. That is admirable, but he's not the only person to make great sacrifices for his family. A lot of people have suffered through terrible personal tragedies and have had to go on living. Kudos to Biden for doing what should be expected of him, because there are other people out there who wouldn't have done what he did.

[spence]

Originally Posted by fishbones

Spence, I appreciate your argument, but maybe saying that Biden has "one of the lowest income levels among his peers" would have been a better choice of words. "poorest" is different than "poor", but it's a derivation af the same word and using it to decribe Biden is a little over the top.

I think most people would get the context. To say the usage is improper is bordering on pedantic isn't it?

And regarding his family. I'm not saying he's a super hero, but that the man has some fiber.

-spence

[Joe]

I think using "pedantic," is somewhat pedantic. I gotta go, my tee shirt machine is pre-heated now.

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by spence

I think most people would get the context. To say the usage is improper is bordering on pedantic isn't it?

And regarding his family. I'm not saying he's a super hero, but that the man has some fiber.

-spence

Pedantic, shmedantic. $200K + is a lot of money no matter how you slice it. He's rich. He may not be Ted Kennedy rich, but he will not be standing in line at the soup kitchen when he retires. And he's a lot better off than the guy unloading freight from trucks or the woman who cleans houses for a living.

I agree about taking care of his family. Unfortunately, some people wouldn't have done what he did. That just speaks to where we've gone as a society.

I know you like him and are playing devil's advocate, but you have to at least agree that he is a lot more privleged than most people. And although he has a tough job, he works a lot less than most of us who work for a living.

I will admit that he's a sharp dresser. And his hair is beyond reproach. Could that be the real reason you like him? Maybe there is an unspoken bond there?