NationStates Jolt Archive

This was reported on CNN this morning by Candy Crowley.

As you all know, Senator Obama has recently been making hay over NAFTA, hammering Senator Clinton for her presumed support of it during her husband's administration. NAFTA is an agreement that is widely seen in Ohio as having cost us jobs (and it probably has).

Several days ago, however, elements of the Obama campaign allegedly met with Canadian representatives and assured them in private that an Obama Administration would continue to support NAFTA (the Canadians have apparently found NAFTA to be a profitable agreement). The Obama camp reassured the Canadians that his current anti-NAFTA talk was merely political posturing.

When this story initially leaked in the Canadian press, both Obama and the Canadian government denied it strongly. This morning, however, a memo from that very meeting surfaced on the Canadian side of the border which directly contradicts those denials.

I think regardless of whether you are pro-NAFTA or anti-NAFTA, the Obama camp's apparent duplicity should probably disturb you somewhat.

Gaaaaahhh lies from a politicain *gasp*!

If given the opportunity, I'll probably pie him. *nod*

And just how does this make him any different from the rest of humanity?

1) Couldn't this have gone in one of your half dozen other "Oh Noes, Obama!" threads? Especially considering your last one was about NAFTA as well?

2) You don't believe in links, or you don't know how to do them? You copy and past the URL and then put 'url' and '/url' between brackets [] on either end of it. Then we can click that link and read the story. It's not that we don't trust you as a source, it's just...I don't know how to finish that sentence...

This was reported on CNN this morning by Candy Crowley.

As you all know, Senator Obama has recently been making hay over NAFTA, hammering Senator Clinton for her presumed support of it during her husband's administration. NAFTA is an agreement that is widely seen in Ohio as having cost us jobs (and it probably has).

Several days ago, however, elements of the Obama campaign allegedly met with Canadian representatives and assured them in private that an Obama Administration would continue to support NAFTA (the Canadians have apparently found NAFTA to be a profitable agreement). The Obama camp reassured the Canadians that his current anti-NAFTA talk was merely political posturing.

When this story initially leaked in the Canadian press, both Obama and the Canadian government denied it strongly. This morning, however, a memo from that very meeting surfaced on the Canadian side of the border which directly contradicts those denials.

I think regardless of whether you are pro-NAFTA or anti-NAFTA, the Obama camp's apparent duplicity should probably disturb you somewhat.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/03/obama.nafta.ap/index.html

And just how does this make him any different from the rest of humanity?

Come on, you know not everyone is worthy of the attentions of the pie-ninja...

If given the opportunity, I'll probably pie him. *nod*

To be completely honest, Im tired of hearing about Clinton this and Obama that... They how can either of them be a medium to unite the country when the Democrats cant even settle on a single canidate.... Look at the Republicans... Sure they have run us into the ground economically but atleast they have there ducks in a row....

I think regardless of whether you are pro-NAFTA or anti-NAFTA, the Obama camp's apparent duplicity should probably disturb you somewhat.

We have Hillary, who wants to start WWIII.

We have McCain, who wants to start GWBIII.

And we have Obama, a politician who lies.

Come on, you know not everyone is worthy of the attentions of the pie-ninja...

No, but eventually he would run out of worthy targets.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/03/obama.nafta.ap/index.html

This was reported on CNN this morning by Candy Crowley.

As you all know, Senator Obama has recently been making hay over NAFTA, hammering Senator Clinton for her presumed support of it during her husband's administration. NAFTA is an agreement that is widely seen in Ohio as having cost us jobs (and it probably has).

Several days ago, however, elements of the Obama campaign allegedly met with Canadian representatives and assured them in private that an Obama Administration would continue to support NAFTA (the Canadians have apparently found NAFTA to be a profitable agreement). The Obama camp reassured the Canadians that his current anti-NAFTA talk was merely political posturing.

When this story initially leaked in the Canadian press, both Obama and the Canadian government denied it strongly. This morning, however, a memo from that very meeting surfaced on the Canadian side of the border which directly contradicts those denials.

I think regardless of whether you are pro-NAFTA or anti-NAFTA, the Obama camp's apparent duplicity should probably disturb you somewhat.


You mean kind of like how Clinton was pro-Nafta until it become politically unprofitable.

Prove it. Let me see the memo.


Im not going to just buy into some rhetoric from the likes of Cinton News Network or you, you troll.


Sorry for the harsh response, but Ive gotten sick of you. Reasoning with you doesnt work. And if this statement of yours is true, oh well. I dont care. Better a liar than a power hungry liar.

See what happens when you cry wolf all the time? People begin to think youre full of shit.

"This thing about 'it's more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans,' that's this guy's language," Goolsbee said of DeMora. "He's not quoting me.

"I certainly did not use that phrase in any way," Goolsbee said.

The meeting was first reported last week by Canadian television network CTV, which cited unnamed sources as saying that Goolsbee assured the Canadians that Obama's tough talk on the North American Free Trade Agreement is just campaign rhetoric not to be taken seriously. The Obama campaign and the Canadian embassy denied there was any inconsistency between what the candidate was saying publicly and what advisers were saying privately.

NAFTA is widely opposed in economically depressed Ohio, which holds its presidential primary Tuesday and is a key battleground between Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton. Both candidates said in a debate in Cleveland last week that they would renegotiate the trade agreement between the United States, Canada and Mexico, which is the largest trading partnership in the world, and threaten to pull out if it doesn't include more protections for workers and the environment.



Besides, that good enough for me. Frankly, you take Clinton at her word, why cant you take Obama at his? Because he doesnt have a vagina?

Since you made me look it up, we get to go with the story I found. And consider me underwhelmed (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/WireStory?id=4375665&page=1).

The memo is the first documentation to emerge publicly out of the meeting between the adviser, Austan Goolsbee, and officials with the Canadian consulate in Chicago, but Goolsbee said it misinterprets what he told them. The memo was written by Joseph DeMora, who works for the consulate and attended the meeting.

"Noting anxiety among many U.S. domestic audiences about the U.S. economic outlook, Goolsbee candidly acknowledged the protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign," the memo said. "He cautioned that this messaging should not be taken out of context and should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans."

Goolsbee disputed the characterization from the conservative government official.

"This thing about 'it's more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans,' that's this guy's language," Goolsbee said of DeMora. "He's not quoting me.

"I certainly did not use that phrase in any way," he said.
...
He said he responded that Obama is not a protectionist, but that the Illinois senator tries to strike a balance between the economic struggles of working Americans and recognizing that free trade is good for the economy.

"That's a pretty ham-handed description of what I answered," Goolsbee said of memo's description of "political positioning." "A: In no possible way was that a reference to NAFTA. And B: In no possible way was I inferring that he was going to introduce any policies that you should ignore and he had no intention of enacting. Those are both completely crazy."

...
Obama spokesman Bill Burton said Goolsbee's visit was not as an emissary from the campaign, but as a professor from the University of Chicago. He was not authorized to share any messages from the campaign, Burton said.

Burton, who was on the call while Goolsbee described his visit to the AP, said, "It all boils down to a clumsy, inaccurate portrayal of the conversation."

Asked if he agreed with Burton's summary, Goolsbee said he did.

You know, someone, not me 'cause I'm a lazy bastard and don't care, ought compile a list of Clinton's lies and post one a day, for the next two decades.

Since you made me look it up, we get to go with the story I found. And consider me underwhelmed (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/WireStory?id=4375665&page=1).

No, you dont understand, Obama's last name is Obama, not Clinton, and he is not a woman, therefore when he lies he is teh ebil and should be assumed guilty immediatly. When Clinton lies and gets caught its just teh ebil pro Obama media slandering a poor girl for having ambition.

You know, someone, not me 'cause I'm a lazy bastard and don't care, ought compile a list of Clinton's lies and post one a day, for the next two decades.

Thereby doubling the size of the internet in one fell swoop.

No, you dont understand, Obama's last name is Obama, not Clinton, and he is not a woman, therefore when he lies he is teh ebil and should be assumed guilty immediatly. When Clinton lies and gets caught its just teh ebil pro Obama media slandering a poor girl for having ambition.

Right now it's not even that, it's a he said/she said from a guy who wasn't authorized to deliver messages in the first place. DeMora's account is third hand, it's a disputed characterization of what someone else said who wasn't even delivering messages for Obama. This isn't a smoking gun, it's a drawing of what someone thinks the gun might look like.

Right now it's not even that, it's a he said/she said from a guy who wasn't authorized to deliver messages in the first place. DeMora's account is third hand, it's a disputed characterization of what someone else said who wasn't even delivering messages for Obama. This isn't a smoking gun, it's a drawing of what someone thinks the gun might look like.


I was refering mostly to the OP when I made my statement, because as far as I can tell, since she hasnt ever said waht she likes about Clinton, the only reason she likes her is because they both have the same anatomy or because her last name is Clinton...

But otherwise yeah I agree with you.

No, you dont understand, Obama's last name is Obama, not Clinton, and he is not a woman, therefore when he lies he is teh ebil and should be assumed guilty immediatly. When Clinton lies and gets caught its just teh ebil pro Obama media slandering a poor girl for having ambition.
lol. No it's because Obama has a penis and Clinton has to use a detachable one. Just a basic case of Penis envy, and they pity her for that.

I was refering mostly to the OP when I made my statement, because as far as I can tell, since she hasnt ever said waht she likes about Clinton, the only reason she likes her is because they both have the same anatomy or because her last name is Clinton...

But otherwise yeah I agree with you.

I don't want to get into guessing at her motives. My only real criticism is that she can focus these rants into fewer threads (she does realize that a few enough Ohio/Texas voters read this that anything here will have little effect on the outcome of tomorrow's primary...yes?) and could include a source without having to be prompted. It's going to be a long long general election and we don't need to blow our thread wad this early. We are not too far away from most of our election threads having "Why don't you guys STFU!!!" hijacks in them by frustrated people outside our border who are tired of hearing about it. And they'll have a point.

This was reported on CNN this morning by Candy Crowley.

As you all know, Senator Obama has recently been making hay over NAFTA, hammering Senator Clinton for her presumed support of it during her husband's administration. NAFTA is an agreement that is widely seen in Ohio as having cost us jobs (and it probably has).

Several days ago, however, elements of the Obama campaign allegedly met with Canadian representatives and assured them in private that an Obama Administration would continue to support NAFTA (the Canadians have apparently found NAFTA to be a profitable agreement). The Obama camp reassured the Canadians that his current anti-NAFTA talk was merely political posturing.

When this story initially leaked in the Canadian press, both Obama and the Canadian government denied it strongly. This morning, however, a memo from that very meeting surfaced on the Canadian side of the border which directly contradicts those denials.

I think regardless of whether you are pro-NAFTA or anti-NAFTA, the Obama camp's apparent duplicity should probably disturb you somewhat.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/03/obama.nafta.ap/index.html

And this proves duplicity....how, exactly?

The story said that certain statements had been made. The memo says the same thing. Goolsbee has consistently denied the inferences made by the author of the memo.

So, unless you've got something from Goolsbee actually making these statements, what you have here is a Canadian official who may or may not have misinterpreted his statements.

interesting... and NO OTHER candidates? ;)

Ok, well...


Huckster wants to create a theocracy where freedom of religion means freedom to be Christian


Ron Paul wants to neuter the federal government so that the states have the power to oppress, allowing southern states to teach foolishness like creationism and that the earth is 6000 years old.

And 90% of all third party candidates are loons tend to be loons, which is just an unfortunate result of the binary system. Talent goes where the potential is.

We have Hillary, who wants to start WWIII.

We have McCain, who wants to start GWBIII.

And we have Obama, a politician who lies.

interesting... and NO OTHER candidates? ;)

Have any of you bothered to consider that maybe Obama did in fact contact the Canadian government in a sort of 'don't worry about it, nudge nudge wink wink' fashion, with the intention to lie to US about it? I mean...telling folks in Ohio that you fuckers want out of the agreement that YOU essentially reap all the benefit from is bound to stick in our craw a bit, and hey, you never know, maybe cause us to actively support some other candidate? So Obama does a little soothing of our ruffled feathers in order to mask the fact that he, like any other USian candidate is going to be a royal pain in our ass?

Yes. And thats possible. But I see no reason to think otherwise as the Canadian government is also backing him up.

I also bothered to think "Whats worse, supporting NAFTA, or supporting give the president unlimited power to wage war...?", which made it easy to choose to continue supporting Obama.


Nice try. Play again.

Have any of you bothered to consider that maybe Obama did in fact contact the Canadian government in a sort of 'don't worry about it, nudge nudge wink wink' fashion, with the intention to lie to US about it? I mean...telling folks in Ohio that you fuckers want out of the agreement that YOU essentially reap all the benefit from is bound to stick in our craw a bit, and hey, you never know, maybe cause us to actively support some other candidate? So Obama does a little soothing of our ruffled feathers in order to mask the fact that he, like any other USian candidate is going to be a royal pain in our ass?

1) Couldn't this have gone in one of your half dozen other "Oh Noes, Obama!" threads? Especially considering your last one was about NAFTA as well?

2) You don't believe in links, or you don't know how to do them? You copy and past the URL and then put 'url' and '/url' between brackets [] on either end of it. Then we can click that link and read the story. It's not that we don't trust you as a source, it's just...I don't know how to finish that sentence...

I do. It's not the we don't trust you as a source, it's that we don't trust you as a source. Why? Because there's no evidence but a game of telephone between a couple of guys who weren't even representing Obama and were talking independent of the campaign. Come back when you've dug up something that is actually relevant, a problem, or even interesting.

How's that, CToaN?

Have any of you bothered to consider that maybe Obama did in fact contact the Canadian government in a sort of 'don't worry about it, nudge nudge wink wink' fashion, with the intention to lie to US about it? I mean...telling folks in Ohio that you fuckers want out of the agreement that YOU essentially reap all the benefit from is bound to stick in our craw a bit, and hey, you never know, maybe cause us to actively support some other candidate? So Obama does a little soothing of our ruffled feathers in order to mask the fact that he, like any other USian candidate is going to be a royal pain in our ass?

It's certainly possible. But I see no reason to convict on completely non-existent evidence.

And, while I don't know much about the effect of NAFTA on various countries, I do know that it has caused many people in the US to lose jobs. Of course, what free-market proponents often don't seem to realize is that this is exactly what is going to happen with a truly free market. Labor is a commodity in such a market, and companies will choose the cheapest labor.

In the end, I see no problem with including labor conditions (of the sort used in CAFTA) in trade agreements. Add those to NAFTA, and Obama and Clinton will probably both support it. And I doubt those additions will really affect Canada much (I'm assuming labor requirements in Canada are fairly similar or maybe even better than those in the US).

Have any of you bothered to consider that maybe Obama did in fact contact the Canadian government in a sort of 'don't worry about it, nudge nudge wink wink' fashion, with the intention to lie to US about it? I mean...telling folks in Ohio that you fuckers want out of the agreement that YOU essentially reap all the benefit from is bound to stick in our craw a bit, and hey, you never know, maybe cause us to actively support some other candidate? So Obama does a little soothing of our ruffled feathers in order to mask the fact that he, like any other USian candidate is going to be a royal pain in our ass?

Even the spokespeople say that it's not their intention to interfere with our election, so I don't know that the question of who the Canadians are going to support is even a Canadian question. I think it would be premature for Obama to be sending people to other countries to sooth things out when he's not even his party's nominee yet. Besides, the guy was there on a Canadian invite, not as an emissary. It's not that I rule out the possibility, it's just that the information at hand is unconvincing.

Yes. And thats possible. But I see no reason to think otherwise as the Canadian government is also backing him up. Uh no. The 'official' word is that no one contacted anyone. But all the Canadian papers/newsources are saying, yeah, yeah it happened, it's been confirmed unofficially, and we all know what went down. It would be intolerably unCanadian to give official word and meddle officially in US politics. That is a far cry from it never having happened.


Nice try. Play again.
Awww, how delightfully patronising.

Awww, how delightfully patronising.



Ill stop making patronising comments when you stop posting dumb shit like:

So Obama does a little soothing of our ruffled feathers in order to mask the fact that he, like any other USian candidate is going to be a royal pain in our ass?


You have no evidence to convict on that isnt purely circumstantial, its currently a game of he said/he misinterperted, and thats that. I also like your subtle implication at the end that teh ebil "USian" is out to get Canada. Because its not like Canada hasnt benefited immensly from NAFTA, an argreement that royally screwed over the American working class.

This story is incredibly weak, and I think less of CNN for making something of it the day before the election.

This story is incredibly weak, and I think less of CNN for making something of it the day before the election.
They pretty much had to. It is news, even if it's feeble news. And of course now they have to defend themselves (the amorphous 'media' as single entity) against accusations of being 'soft' on Obama. If they didn't run the story that'd be more fuel to that fire. It is a story, but if they report all the facts in all their anemia then it can be taken as what it is. They can't squash the story just because there's an election tomorrow. Whether or not you buy Sal's interpretation (I certainly do not) it's news and immediately relevant for people to consider when they can act on that information.

Like I said, I don't agree with Sal's assessment, but I certainly wouldn't agree with burying the story because the timing is (in)convenient (depending on who you support).

Since you made me look it up, we get to go with the story I found. And consider me underwhelmed (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/WireStory?id=4375665&page=1).

Dude here is the part that gets me.

They talk in the article about exactly what Obama said about Nafta in the debate.

From the article, "'I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced,' Obama said in the debate last week."

Then in the memo it says, "On NAFTA, Goolsbee suggested that Obama is less about fundamentally changing the agreement and more in favour of strengthening/clarifying language on labour mobility and environment and trying to establish these as more `core' principles of the agreement."

So according to your source, Goolsbee who wasn't there on behalf of the Obama camp anyway, said exactly what Obama said in the debate.

It's not underwhelming. It's out and out dishonest to suggest this memo is evidence of anything underhanded by the Obama campaign. This is six degrees of seperation from evidence that he did anything underhanded. A - there was no Obama representative in this meeting. The comment that it's political posturing is commentary by someone in the Canadian government, not an Obama representative. And the comments about Obama directly support what he openly stated in debate.

In further news, Obama is from Hawaii.

Ill stop making patronising comments when you stop posting dumb shit like: No, you'll stop when you stop being a patronising twat. Sometime around the eulogy I imagine.




You have no evidence to convict on that isnt purely circumstantial,

This isn't a trial junior. It's politics, where innuendo is king.

its currently a game of he said/he misinterperted, and thats that. I also like your subtle implication at the end that teh ebil "USian" is out to get Canada. Nothing subtle about it. No matter the candidate, your future president will be a pain in our ass.


Because its not like Canada hasnt benefited immensly from NAFTA, an argreement that royally screwed over the American working class.
That's funny. The US ensured it got the lions share of the benefit from NAFTA, and is now crying about how its working class got screwed. You know...crying about how NAFTA works exactly how it was designed to. Booohoo. I have little sympathy for the nation that essentially engineered the agreement to begin with. Perhaps you'll get smarter people to draw up the next transnational agreement, hmmm?

Dude here is the part that gets me.

They talk in the article about exactly what Obama said about Nafta in the debate.

From the article, "'I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced,' Obama said in the debate last week."

Then in the memo it says, "On NAFTA, Goolsbee suggested that Obama is less about fundamentally changing the agreement and more in favour of strengthening/clarifying language on labour mobility and environment and trying to establish these as more `core' principles of the agreement."

So according to your source, Goolsbee who wasn't there on behalf of the Obama camp anyway, said exactly what Obama said in the debate.

It's not underwhelming. It's out and out dishonest to suggest this memo is evidence of anything underhanded by the Obama campaign. This is six degrees of seperation from evidence that he did anything underhanded. A - there was no Obama representative in this meeting. The comment that it's political posturing is commentary by someone in the Canadian government, not an Obama representative. And the comments about Obama directly support what he openly stated in debate.

In further news, Obama is from Hawaii.

Apparently, it's done its job as late polls have now broke for Clinton (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/oh/ohio_democratic_primary-263.html).

Apparently she's also closing the gap in Texas (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/tx/texas_democratic_primary-312.html#charts)

I think we're in for a long haul. This will get worse before it gets better.

Apparently, it's done its job as late polls have now broke for Clinton (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/oh/ohio_democratic_primary-263.html).

Apparently she's also closing the gap in Texas (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/tx/texas_democratic_primary-312.html#charts)

I think we're in for a long haul. This will get worse before it gets better.

Yes, exactly. This is supremely dirty politics. This memo demonstrates the opposite of what is being claimed, but no one reads past the first couple of sentences, which is why the first ten responses acted like it was true.

It's really sad. It appears she really is willing to pull down the cathedral around her.

I also think it's funny that so many yanks would have no trouble believing in UFOs, but when it comes to believing that politicans LIE...*gasp*....

I also think it's funny that so many yanks would have no trouble believing in UFOs, but when it comes to believing that politicans LIE...*gasp*....

Overstating things a touch, aren't you?

I also think it's funny that so many yanks would have no trouble believing in UFOs, but when it comes to believing that politicans LIE...*gasp*....

Uh-huh. Because the same people who are disputing this believe in UFO's. Wow, that's almost an argument. You could go back to "it's true, because it has to be." That one wasn't credible either, but at least it wasn't as ridiculous as this.

Politicians lie. I'll go further. Obama lies. This isn't one of those cases. No one showed anything in regards to anything coming out the Obama camp inconsistent with his speeches. By fact, the memo says that the person who was there and had some relationship with Obama actually said the exact same thing as Obama said in the speeches. This is evidence of a consistent position.

Overstating things a touch, aren't you?

Hyperbole is best suited to the political sphere, no?

Hyperbole is best suited to the political sphere, no?

It's tiring more than anything else.

It's tiring more than anything else.

Meh, I'll admit right now that I don't actually care if he did or didn't. I just think it's funny that Canadian officals were nodding their heads yes while saying 'oh no, no no'. We got the message.

Meh, I'll admit right now that I don't actually care if he did or didn't. I just think it's funny that Canadian officals were nodding their heads yes while saying 'oh no, no no'. We got the message.

I'm really tired of all this stuff around NAFTA. Both candidates are misstating the positions of the other candidate and basically half the country is acting like one or the other is speaking gospel. This whole thing is a really bad idea and they should put the breaks on this before we end with a bridge-burning primary season that last into August.

I also think it's funny that so many yanks would have no trouble believing in UFOs, but when it comes to believing that politicans LIE...*gasp*....

thats not the part of the story that is unbelievable (or unlikely perhaps).

the unbelievable part is that mr obama was so worried about canadian feelings that he would send a guy over to the consulate to tell them that he was lying to the american public.

how ruffled are canadian feathers over all this anti-nafta talk?

thats not the part of the story that is unbelievable (or unlikely perhaps).

the unbelievable part is that mr obama was so worried about canadian feelings that he would send a guy over to the consulate to tell them that he was lying to the american public. Agreed. It doesn't fit, frankly, with the status quo of complete or almost complete yank political indifference to Canada.

how ruffled are canadian feathers over all this anti-nafta talk?
Meh. More amused that we got mentioned:D

I also think it's funny that so many yanks would have no trouble believing in UFOs, but when it comes to believing that politicans LIE...*gasp*....

Ah yes. Because not taking it on faith that a given lie has been told equates to not believing that politicians ever lie.

That, and all US citizens believe in UFOs.

Ah yes. Because not taking it on faith that a given lie has been told equates to not believing that politicians ever lie. It's like poking a hornet's nest it is...y'all take it so seriously :P

That, and all US citizens believe in UFOs.

And are fat. And own guns.

Meh. More amused that we got mentioned:D

Did you? I've always gotten the impression that most of the anti-NAFTA sentiment was about Mexico. :p

Did you? I've always gotten the impression that most of the anti-NAFTA sentiment was about Mexico. :p

No, I mean in the context of this whole 'did he or didn't he' debacle. Like, look ma, we're on Merkin TV!

And are fat. And own guns.

and the guns are also fat.

No, I mean in the context of this whole 'did he or didn't he' debacle. Like, look ma, we're on Merkin TV!

LOLz

Obama just came back from a meeting with Osama Bin Laden where he assured the terrorist leader that he wasn't going to actually go after him, but that it was just a ploy to get votes.

http://www.givemeafuckingbreak.com

And just how does this make him any different from the rest of humanity?

Um.... *shrug*

You mean kind of like how Clinton was pro-Nafta until it become politically unprofitable.

Prove it. Let me see the memo.


Im not going to just buy into some rhetoric from the likes of Cinton News Network or you, you troll.


Sorry for the harsh response, but Ive gotten sick of you. Reasoning with you doesnt work. And if this statement of yours is true, oh well. I dont care. Better a liar than a power hungry liar.

See what happens when you cry wolf all the time? People begin to think youre full of shit.

Here's the final scoop. Obama rep says it's not true. Canadian consulate says it was "discussed." So this is a memo about a discussion the consulate supposedly had with the Obama rep. It's not a memo from the rep to the consulate. It's this person's recollection of the conversation. I'm not saying that they are wrong or lying, just that this should be put in context.

It's like poking a hornet's nest it is...y'all take it so seriously :P



And are fat. And own guns.

Well that part is true.

1) Couldn't this have gone in one of your half dozen other "Oh Noes, Obama!" threads? Especially considering your last one was about NAFTA as well?

2) You don't believe in links, or you don't know how to do them? You copy and past the URL and then put 'url' and '/url' between brackets [] on either end of it. Then we can click that link and read the story. It's not that we don't trust you as a source, it's just...I don't know how to finish that sentence...

1. Yes it could have. It also could have gone in the Obama, Obama, Obama thread.

2. I believe KAt already warned this poster about the "posting style." Mad some comment about not just repeating the same rhetoric or it would be considered trolling. It's a mod decision of course, but this is just more of the same crap from this poster.

Obama just came back from a meeting with Osama Bin Laden where he assured the terrorist leader that he wasn't going to actually go after him, but that it was just a ploy to get votes.

http://www.givemeafuckingbreak.com

There you go.

Proof that Obama really is the 666th clone of Saddam Hussein sent to destroy the world.

There you go.

Proof that Obama really is the 666th clone of Saddam Hussein sent to destroy the world.

What happened to the other six hundred and sixty five?

What happened to the other six hundred and sixty five?

They're in hiding because they get made fun of too much.

What happened to the other six hundred and sixty five?

The US government got most of the clones in Desert Storm. We knew we missed some, and that they were WMD's, which is why we went back to Iraq. But some of them were already out in the world. Like Obama, teh ebil Muslim threat to the Democratic Party.

*nodnod*

No, you'll stop when you stop being a patronising twat. Sometime around the eulogy I imagine.


Nice ad hominin.

This isn't a trial junior. It's politics, where innuendo is king.

Junior? Notice who is the one resorting to personal attacks?

Nothing subtle about it. No matter the candidate, your future president will be a pain in our ass.

Im sorry you feel that way. Deal with it.

That's funny. The US ensured it got the lions share of the benefit from NAFTA, and is now crying about how its working class got screwed. You know...crying about how NAFTA works exactly how it was designed to. Booohoo. I have little sympathy for the nation that essentially engineered the agreement to begin with. Perhaps you'll get smarter people to draw up the next transnational agreement, hmmm?

The agreement was designed to screw the working man and benefit the rich. I never denyed that. What I am saying is now people in the US want to get rid of it when they saw what it actually would do. And last I checked, the goal of our elections was to elect someone who would look out for our intrests, not Canada's. And to be perfectly honost, Im mostly upset that he felt the need to soothly pat Canada and tell them "Dont worry its all postering". I think it would have been better if he said "Hey, we're out, because NAFTA is royally fucking us. Dont like it? Too damn bad. Elect someone to fix it for you. I was elected to help out the American people."

I also think it's funny that so many yanks would have no trouble believing in UFOs, but when it comes to believing that politicans LIE...*gasp*....

Who said those of us in this discussion believe in UFOs? Who also said that politicians dont lie? No one said anything like either of thos things. Im sure Obama lies on a weekly basis to get elected. So does Hillary. So does McCain. So does any politician in the history of democracy. I just think in this isolated incident I dont believe he is lying, because I dont see any evidence to show he was lying.

Hyperbole is best suited to the political sphere, no?

Only to those lacking an arguement.

Im willing to continue this discussion if you stop acting like a child. Ill stop condescending when you can talk like a grown up.

You mean kind of like how Clinton was pro-Nafta until it become politically unprofitable.

Prove it. Let me see the memo.


Im not going to just buy into some rhetoric from the likes of Cinton News Network or you, you troll.


Sorry for the harsh response, but Ive gotten sick of you. Reasoning with you doesnt work. And if this statement of yours is true, oh well. I dont care. Better a liar than a power hungry liar.

See what happens when you cry wolf all the time? People begin to think youre full of shit.

And who the hell cares what you think? I'm not the one mindlessly marching in the line of a cult of personality. How about you check the link I provided (which came from CNN)? Or if that's not enough, then get your own ass in gear and research it in more detail.

And who the hell cares what you think? I'm not the one mindlessly marching in the line of a cult of personality. How about you check the link I provided (which came from CNN)? Or if that's not enough, then get your own ass in gear and research it in more detail.

Face it, both of them are telling huge porkies about NAFTA - neither would change it much, even if there was the political will to do so, they're just playing on voter anger to win a point over the other.

This whole NAFTA issue is a magnifying glass on the political game, twisting tiny nuances to create some kind of scandal where none exists - it's playing the blame game and both sides are wrong to do it in principle, right to do it for politics.

Face it, both of them are telling huge porkies about NAFTA - neither would change it much, even if there was the political will to do so, they're just playing on voter anger to win a point over the other.

This whole NAFTA issue is a magnifying glass on the political game, twisting tiny nuances to create some kind of scandal where none exists - it's playing the blame game and both sides are wrong to do it in principle, right to do it for politics.

That much is true. Clinton has said she thought NAFTA was bad at the time. I have no reason to disbelieve that statement at this point, but I also don't believe she'll just unilaterally yank us out of the agreement. But this event leads one to question the honesty in the Obama camp over the subject.

And who the hell cares what you think? I'm not the one mindlessly marching in the line of a cult of personality. How about you check the link I provided (which came from CNN)? Or if that's not enough, then get your own ass in gear and research it in more detail.

If you don't care what people think, do not post on a public forum.

The story has been addressed in detail. If you can't be bothered to read your own thread don't complain to others about it.

If you don't care what people think, do not post on a public forum.

The story has been addressed in detail. If you can't be bothered to read your own thread don't complain to others about it.


I am not sure I would call this "detail", but the whole rant was brought on by Knights of Liberty.

That much is true. Clinton has said she thought NAFTA was bad at the time. I have no reason to disbelieve that statement at this point, but I also don't believe she'll just unilaterally yank us out of the agreement.

Who does?

The only really interesting aspect to this is that, for the first time, Senator Obama has made, for want of a better word, a boo-boo.

It was tactically wrong for him to continue with the attack over NAFTA. I truly think that, along with the traction in terms of 'giving Senator Obama a free ride' - and I'd like the note that whatever the truth of the situation, it's always the claims that actually matter in this - there's signs that waverers are becoming a little fed-up with Senator Obama.

There was an interesting article a while ago on signs that Senator Obama was beginning to act a little smug, the note-taking, the lack of actually looking at Senator Clinton during debates, the faint air of conceit in his speeches, and that he should really watch out for this.

I think this election is on a knife-edge and I really think Senator Obama has everything to lose now, he's had the momentum that can be checked, any criticism will actually stick and the tide of opinion may begin to feel that he's simply not ready right now.

Tomorrow will be very interesting, it's a lot of speculation right now and who can tell where the voter will tick the box, I'm not convinced the voters themselves are entirely sure but I think that's different to what it was a week ago.

We have Hillary, who wants to start WWIII.

We have McCain, who wants to start GWBIII.

And we have Obama, a politician who lies.

But they all, as politicians, by definition, lie.

So clearly Obama is #1!

I am not sure I would call this "detail", but the whole rant was brought on by Knights of Liberty.

CtoaN means, I think, your original thread, for which the title was changed - it's somewhere on page 3.

I am not sure I would call this "detail", but the whole rant was brought on by Knights of Liberty.
CtoaN means, I think, your original thread, for which the title was changed - it's somewhere on page 3.
Actually in this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13497485&postcount=13)
And further-

Dude here is the part that gets me.

They talk in the article about exactly what Obama said about Nafta in the debate.

From the article, "'I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced,' Obama said in the debate last week."

Then in the memo it says, "On NAFTA, Goolsbee suggested that Obama is less about fundamentally changing the agreement and more in favour of strengthening/clarifying language on labour mobility and environment and trying to establish these as more `core' principles of the agreement."

So according to your source, Goolsbee who wasn't there on behalf of the Obama camp anyway, said exactly what Obama said in the debate.

It's not underwhelming. It's out and out dishonest to suggest this memo is evidence of anything underhanded by the Obama campaign. This is six degrees of seperation from evidence that he did anything underhanded. A - there was no Obama representative in this meeting. The comment that it's political posturing is commentary by someone in the Canadian government, not an Obama representative. And the comments about Obama directly support what he openly stated in debate.

In further news, Obama is from Hawaii.

And who the hell cares what you think? I'm not the one mindlessly marching in the line of a cult of personality. How about you check the link I provided (which came from CNN)? Or if that's not enough, then get your own ass in gear and research it in more detail.

I further addressed your "arguement" later in detail, so again, read your own thread.

And I do actually believe you are the one marching off with the cult of personality, considering you havent ever listed any reasons for supporting Hillary, you or CH for that matter, where as I have listed ample reasons to support Obama, and would be willing to do so again.


Now go back under your bridge.

I further addressed your "arguement" later in detail, so again, read your own thread.

And I do actually believe you are the one marching off with the cult of personality, considering you havent ever listed any reasons for supporting Hillary, you or CH for that matter, where as I have listed ample reasons to support Obama, and would be willing to do so again.


Now go back under your bridge.

You're insinuating that =I= am a troll? Pardon me, but you're the one spewing angst all over my threads and not vice versa. Kindly do not take that tone in my threads again.

BTW, Associated Press also picked up on it:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080303/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_nafta;_ylt=Argoh1Ajo93M1v238iWF6gGyFz4D

I think the real story here is how the Canadians have been manipulating U.S. elections for years. The Canadians have been the true puppet master behind the U.S. government since Ronald Reagan.

You're insinuating that =I= am a troll? Pardon me, but you're the one spewing angst all over my threads and not vice versa. Kindly do not take that tone in my threads again.

BTW, Associated Press also picked up on it:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080303/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_nafta;_ylt=Argoh1Ajo93M1v238iWF6gGyFz4D



Actually, I used to post thoughtful, reasoned responses to your threads.

As your candidate began to get her preverbial teeth kicked in and began to get more and more desperate, so did you, until you started posting things like this (which, as was already addressed is not that big a deal, as it doesnt conflict his stance on NAFTA at all) and stopped listening to other points and just parroted the same rhetoric over and over again, so I stopped giving you thought out posts, because it was a waste of effort. I also dont need to post a new anti-Obama thread every week, just to spout the same defeated arguements over and over again.

And, Ill take what ever tone I like in your threads.


Now, get back under your bridge, and bring Hillary Clinton with you.

Free trade= for the benefit of the working class, deregulation= for the benefit of the working class, tax breaks for the rich= for the benefit of the working class, outsourcing of employment and production= for the benefit of the working class.

Some people will believe anything if you add a nice ring at the end.

Actually in this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13497485&postcount=13)
And further-

Exactly, so why is he pulling the gambit of attacking Senator Clinton over this, it was a large mistake in my opinion.

Exactly, so why is he pulling the gambit of attacking Senator Clinton over this, it was a large mistake in my opinion.

He's stepped off his game a little bit, to be sure. A large degree of his teflon nature has come from him diffusing weakness' ahead of time, giving the press no where to go. A large part of why he doesn't get flack over the Revko thing is because he stated way early on that dealing with him was a huge mistake. There's no where to go for them.

Most of his response is kind of in keeping with that, as Jocabia said, the meat of the meeting just echoes what Obama already said, and the only thing in dispute is whatshisnames' characterization of the meeting itself.

I think tacking the Clinton campaign hasn't gone well for him and I think that he recognizes it. He backed off blaming Clinton for the photo incident and even warned his staff that win or lose they should run a campaign that they can be proud of. There might be a bit of that frustration that he was talking about then.

Though I have to say that I haven't seen too much of him lashing out at Clinton for it and more of what he excels at. But he doesn't do well when he does direct challenges like that.

Here's the FactCheck (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/the_facts_about_nafta-gate.html) on the event. (note that they don't take a side on "what happened at the meeting" saying that there is no verbatim account or recording. Quoted is the last bit-
Monday, March 3: The Canadian embassy in Washington says it "deeply regrets" the affair, and that "there was no intention to convey, in any way" that Obama was being inconsistent about NAFTA:

Statement by the Canadian Embassy: The Canadian Embassy and our Consulates General regularly contact those involved in all of the Presidential campaigns and, periodically, report on these contacts to interested officials. In the recent report produced by the Consulate General in Chicago, there was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA. We deeply regret any inference that may have been drawn to that effect.

The people of the United States are in the process of choosing a new President and are fortunate to have strong and impressive candidates from both political parties. Canada will not interfere in this electoral process. We look forward, however, to working with the choice of the American people in further building an unparalleled relationship with a close friend and partner

Umm, to recap:

1. Obama - who actually was AGAINST the war in Iraq - the sole reason American economy is shit.
2. Clinton - who voted FOR the war in Iraq, then said that she'd vote against it, and compiled a bill giving more money to Halliburton. Flip-flopper Kerry style, please we don't need another John Kerry.
3. McCain - who we his statesments "folks there will be tough times ahead" and of course there's the 100 years in Iraq line, promises to start WWIII.

I'm gonna go with Obama on this one. We need to get out of Iraq, ASAP and start fixing our own economy and our education system. You don't set fires in other nations when your own kitchen is burning.

<snip argument>

And, Ill take what ever tone I like in your threads.


Now, get back under your bridge, and bring Hillary Clinton with you.

No, you won't. You won't take a hectoring or patronising tone, as you did with the OP and with Neesika in this thread and have done to others elsewhere, because if you continue to do so I'll count it as flamebait and act accordingly.

You're plainly a person with plenty of debating ability; you don't need to carry on like this. So stop.

And who the hell cares what you think? I'm not the one mindlessly marching in the line of a cult of personality.

Are you sure about that?

How about you check the link I provided (which came from CNN)? Or if that's not enough, then get your own ass in gear and research it in more detail.

Your link provides no evidence whatsoever of dishonesty.

The mailers on Clinton's stance on NAFTA do appear to be intentionally misleading, so you can look there for complaints about such things. But actually reading the articles on this, it becomes clear that this is not what you (or the Clinton campaign) are making it out to be.

That much is true. Clinton has said she thought NAFTA was bad at the time. I have no reason to disbelieve that statement at this point, but I also don't believe she'll just unilaterally yank us out of the agreement. But this event leads one to question the honesty in the Obama camp over the subject.

That's not what she said at the time. She didn't think it was a bad idea until recently. Many people have pointed this out to you and you keep ignoring it. Knights aside, others have done more damage to your argument than he. So if you want to continue your spat then do so. Please don't ignore the rest of us in the process.

1996: Hillary said “I think NAFTA is proving its worth.”

1997: Hillary went to Mexico and proclaimed “NAFTA is working, working for you and working for the American people… We must accelerate the pace of these efforts, to reach more people and more communities.”

1998: Hillary went before the World Economic Forum and lauded multinational corporations for mounting “a very effective business effort in the U.S. on behalf of Nafta.”

http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2008/02/25/tdbquotes-of-hillary-clinton-praising-nafta/

That site admits a pro-obama slant, but the quotes are real. See, I even admit the bias in my links.

More quotes from David Sorota as HuffPo



Barack Obama is today criticizing Hillary Clinton on her efforts to pretend she never supported NAFTA. Just as a follow-up to my post on Friday, I want to remind folks who claim Hillary Clinton never praised NAFTA that, in fact, she did praise NAFTA - repeatedly.

* Email
* Print
* Comment

Buzz up!on Yahoo!

According to NBC's Meet the Press, in 2004, Clinton said, "I think, on balance, NAFTA has been good for New York and America."

In her memoir, Clinton trumpeted her husband's "successes on the budget, the Brady bill and NAFTA."

And in 1998, Bloomberg News reports that she praised corporations for mounting "a very effective business effort in the U.S. on behalf of NAFTA." Another direct quote.

I went over two of these three quotes - and some more - in my recent syndicated column, which you can read here. And, as predicted, this issue has now become the central focus in the Ohio primary - the primary that could decide the Democratic nomination.

However you feel about NAFTA - and if you are a typical American, polls show you likely do not like it - Clinton now trying to lie and say she never really supported NAFTA is an absolute insult. It further suggests that on really important economic issues, she's more than happy to lie about provable facts when it suits her political needs.

UPDATE: Here's another direct quote from Hillary Clinton on NAFTA. The Associated Press reported on 3/6/96 that she said, "NAFTA is proving its worth" and later praising NAFTA as "a free and fair trade agreement."


Please see here (http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=749)

I'll even give you this one that is more favorable to your position, but still has important info regarding mine. (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_mailings_false.html)

*snip*

You use the word 'recently' but show no cite except one from less than 10 years ago - you're playing the same game. Also, there's a difference between 'support with certain reservations' and 'complete support'.

With the one from 2004, you're doing the same thing that you complain about in terms of Senator Obama, you're taking things out of context:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/more_nafta_nonsense.html

The simple fact remains that both have the same views, that NAFTA is overall a good thing but needs some changes.

The issue here is that, knowing this, having been called on using the "boon" word, Senator Obama sent out an email designed to prey on the fears of Ohio, specifically about NAFTA and unemployment, and using the same dodgy claim.

What is the point of attacking Senator Clinton for 'supporting NAFTA', which he does as well? What is the point of insinuating she supports it outright when this is clearly not the case.

This would be fine if he was running on a platform of 'this is politics people' but he's not, he's running on change and hope for better.

Senator Obama did wrong here, you can dress it up any way you want but the fact remains - he did wrong tactically.

Simply saying Senator Clinton did wrong as well doesn't cut it, if he's running on the same tactics then he can't say he's a different sort of politician. We all know Senator Clinton uses far more underhand tactics but, as she says, this is politics, get used to it because you're going to recieve worse and if you can't handle it you're not ready.

Look, I'm not really for or against either here, I'm more interested in the tactics and politics at play, but it's not fair for the weight of numbers to make statements that are simply not true and think they can get away with it, yourself included.

Here's the FactCheck (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/the_facts_about_nafta-gate.html) on the event. (note that they don't take a side on "what happened at the meeting" saying that there is no verbatim account or recording. Quoted is the last bit-

Fact Check FTW

"Take care, you dunghill cocks!"

*goes about knocking people off soapboxes*

*snip*

The agreement was designed to screw the working man and benefit the rich. I never denyed that. What I am saying is now people in the US want to get rid of it when they saw what it actually would do. And last I checked, the goal of our elections was to elect someone who would look out for our intrests, not Canada's. And to be perfectly honost, I'm mostly upset that he felt the need to soothly pat Canada and tell them "Dont worry its all postering". I think it would have been better if he said "Hey, we're out, because NAFTA is royally fucking us. Dont like it? Too damn bad. Elect someone to fix it for you. I was elected to help out the American people."

*snip*

Postering? Posturing. Got it.

Regardless, ahem:
The Canadians involved have said, and it's been posted many times in this thread, that Obama did NO SUCH THING.

What do you need to able to see this?

You use the word 'recently' but show no cite except one from less than 10 years ago - you're playing the same game. Also, there's a difference between 'support with certain reservations' and 'complete support'.

With the one from 2004, you're doing the same thing that you complain about in terms of Senator Obama, you're taking things out of context:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/more_nafta_nonsense.html

The simple fact remains that both have the same views, that NAFTA is overall a good thing but needs some changes.

The issue here is that, knowing this, having been called on using the "boon" word, Senator Obama sent out an email designed to prey on the fears of Ohio, specifically about NAFTA and unemployment, and using the same dodgy claim.

What is the point of attacking Senator Clinton for 'supporting NAFTA', which he does as well? What is the point of insinuating she supports it outright when this is clearly not the case.

This would be fine if he was running on a platform of 'this is politics people' but he's not, he's running on change and hope for better.

Senator Obama did wrong here, you can dress it up any way you want but the fact remains - he did wrong tactically.

Simply saying Senator Clinton did wrong as well doesn't cut it, if he's running on the same tactics then he can't say he's a different sort of politician. We all know Senator Clinton uses far more underhand tactics but, as she says, this is politics, get used to it because you're going to recieve worse and if you can't handle it you're not ready.

Look, I'm not really for or against either here, I'm more interested in the tactics and politics at play, but it's not fair for the weight of numbers to make statements that are simply not true and think they can get away with it, yourself included.

As far as recently goes we'll consider her 35 years of experience as a guide. NAFTA was put into play in 1993 and she supported it at least until 2004. What context could change the quote "on balance, Nafta has been good for America and NY." Sure, she may thing there are things that need to be changed, just as Barack does. This doesn't mean she rejects NAFTA as she seems to want everyone to believe. I agree, they are both being dishonest here.