Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
OK now you are changing your tune. You said before that CAFTA wasn't really a free trade agreement. You said you could be pro-free trade but against this agreement. Now you are acknowledging it is a free trade agreement, but that you don't like the treaty for other reasons. Nothing to do with free trade. And I am glad you have acknowledged that.
|
I still don't understand what you mean by "free trade." Just lowering or eliminating tariffs? If so, that's fine, but most other people mean other things, too.
So I'm not sure what I have acknowledged.
Quote:
|
CAFTA is a standard free trade agreement the only problems that the Democrats have is that it doesn't include enough labor provisions and environmental provisions.
|
You seem to have misunderstood the Financial Times piece entirely. Try reading it again.
Quote:
|
The ironic thing about this is that these free trade agreements used to never include this stuff. Over the years more and more of these riders have been attached to appease liberals. If you are really pro-free trade then you would endorse this bill without any riders. If you won't support the bill that is because you place these riders in higher prefernce to the bill.
|
I'm sorry, but that's horseshit. Liberals and conservatives are equally capable of understanding that there are barriers to trade apart from tariffs. You don't understand that, apparently, but everyone else does.
Quote:
|
If you are for free trade, and think reducing tariff barriers is good, you would endorse this bill. Otherwise you think reducing tariff barriers is only good if you put in labor and environmental standards. That is fine but don't try and claim to be a free trader.
|
You still don't know what the treaty actually says, do you?
