cumplidor 0 #1 August 30, 2007 Anyone heard about W opening the border just a bit more to allow un-inspected, non-US licensed Mexican trucks and their drivers operate in the US? Still believe he is trying to protect us, or implement the North American Union? http://www.nbcsandiego.com/politics/14003768/detail.html?rss=dgo&psp=news Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #2 August 30, 2007 The authority was given as part of NAFTA which passed with bi-partisan support in 1994 led by President William Jefferson Clinton. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cumplidor 0 #4 August 30, 2007 I will agree that NAFTA laid the groundwork, but the Clinton Administration isn't pushing this today. (not to say he wouldn't have if he had been able, he is no different then the rest of them) Each one of the candidates presented to us as a 'front-runners' are all shills who vote for and do whatever the money that got them into office dictates them to do. It is our job to remain vigilant and united against those who wish to exploit us. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #5 August 30, 2007 QuoteCDIF Apparently you missed the part about bi-partisan support in your effort to get in a zinger. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #6 August 30, 2007 QuoteI will agree that NAFTA laid the groundwork, but the Clinton Administration isn't pushing this today. There isn't a Clinton Admin. today. Quote(not to say he wouldn't have if he had been able, he is no different then the rest of them) Each one of the candidates presented to us as a 'front-runners' are all shills who vote for and do whatever the money that got them into office dictates them to do. It is our job to remain vigilant and united against those who wish to exploit us. NAFTA was supported by Ford, Carter, Reagan and Bush41. The original stated purpose was to reduce the costs of Mexican products associated with shipping by allowing Mexican trucks to deliver directly to US Companies warehouses rather than to transfer them to US trucking companies 25 miles inside our borders. As I recall, most supported NAFTA at the time. Why do you feel this is exploitation? If you really want to get pissed about something, how about the highway from Mexico to Canada? http://www.iatp.org/tradeobservatory/headlines.cfm?refID=88259 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #7 August 30, 2007 QuoteIf you really want to get pissed about something, how about the highway from Mexico to Canada? I've read some things about this proposed highway. It's supposed to run basically right up the I-35. Supposedly, Mexican ports would offload freight and have the items trucked up through the American Heartland to Canada. Well, we already have at least one (like you've mentioned - they wanna put a highway where we've already got a highway. We can't do that!). But here's an example of how to do it. Start in Circle, Alaska and take Highway 6 (Steese Highway) 150 miles to Fairbanks. Then take the Alaska Higway (Highway 2) 400 miles to Northway, AK. Then you'll go through Canada along Yukon 1 through Whitehorse to Teslin, Yukon (about 400 miles.) Then you go through British Columbia for a couple hundred miles on the BC-97 for about 700 miles to Highway 29 for about 90 miles, then back on the 97 for another 450 miles or so until it turns into Highway 1 (the TransCanada Highway) and follow it 190 miles toward Vancouver until you hit the 15, go south 20 miles and you are at White Rock From there you enter the US. Take the I-5 south 100 miles to Seattle. We're at about 2500 miles now from Circle and already been in the US, Canada, and US again. Go south on the I-5 through Portland, Sacramento, Los Angeles and San Diego (about 1300 miles) and you'll be at San Ysidro - entrance to Mexico. You've done about 3500-400 miles now. There are other ways to do it - you can enter through Laredo, Texas (puts right on the I-35 and will run you right up the, well, the "planned" highway route that already exists through to St. Paul, Mn and beyond). Or you can enter through Juarez and get put right on the I-25, which will take you up through Albuquerque and Denver and end at the I-90 in Wyoming, where you can make a left turn to the I-15 to continue North to Canada and straight to Calgary or a right turn to the I-29 which you can ride up to Canada and straight to Winnipeg! Or you can enter through Nogales (I've done that before) and head up I-19 to the 10, where a right turn will lead you to I-25, or a left turn will get you to I-15 or I-5. From any of these entries, you can get to Mexico City, Chiapas, Guatemala - hell, follow it right down to PANAMA! (I'd suggest a pleasant stay in Costa Rica along the way). By the way, there is plenty of opposition to this planned highway - especially from individual states like South Dakota , Montana , Idaho and even Ohio. Note that these are the states that the planned superhighway WON'T go through. See, South Dakota would prefer that the I-29 be used so IT can have the Highway. Ohio? Hey - a great state if you want to send stuff through to Toronto along the I-75 (which Indiana wouldn't like - use the I-69!) The key objections are coming from states that want a piece of the action. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #8 August 30, 2007 >Apparently you missed the part about bi-partisan support in your effort to get in a zinger. CDIF! CDIF! (that's two for ya; should cover you for the next few days) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #9 August 30, 2007 QuoteThe authority was given as part of NAFTA which passed with bi-partisan support in 1994 led by President William Jefferson Clinton. Clinton didn't exactly "lead" it. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #10 August 30, 2007 There's a lot of mad folks in small towns here in West Texas, who do not want all that truck traffic going through our towns. The trucks would enter from Mexico through Presidio, Texas and on up to Midland-Odessa, Dallas - Ft. Worth and points North (La Entrada Al Pacifico Hwy.). What gets me is, U.S. trucks are not allowed into Mexico. U.S. trailers are dropped by U.S. truckers and picked-up by Mexican trucks for delivery to warehouses, etc. in Mexico. I've seen many trucks out of Mexico and from what I've seen, they don't look very 'safe'. Those trucks, 'will' have to go through inspection stations here in the U.S. Here in this part of Texas, folks are pretty un-happy about all this. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #11 August 30, 2007 QuoteHere in this part of Texas, folks are pretty un-happy about all this. How are the local governments? I'd suspect that they are quite pleased, what with the increase in tax revenues, etc., that would be pending. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #12 August 30, 2007 The local governments, really, don't like it either. They don't see where their towns will benefit from it. Just a lot more truck traffic rumbling through their towns. The ones who 'see' benefit, are the larger cities North of here, where the large (acres) warehouses are and all the goods coming to this country from China, mostly. This is mostly ranch country and tourist trade and that's the way they want to keep it. edit to add: There's been a lot of pressure from a certain Senator from this area for this highway from Mexico through the U.S. Also, the Teamsters are at this time, trying to get an injunction to stop the flow of trucks from Mexico. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #13 August 31, 2007 Quote Anyone heard about W opening the border just a bit more to allow un-inspected, non-US licensed Mexican trucks and their drivers operate in the US? Still believe he is trying to protect us, or implement the North American Union? http://www.nbcsandiego.com/politics/14003768/detail.html?rss=dgo&psp=news Hauling drugs and illegals. I feel safer already.mh ."The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterblaster72 0 #14 August 31, 2007 QuoteI will agree that NAFTA laid the groundwork, but the Clinton Administration isn't pushing this today. (not to say he wouldn't have if he had been able, he is no different then the rest of them) Each one of the candidates presented to us as a 'front-runners' are all shills who vote for and do whatever the money that got them into office dictates them to do. It is our job to remain vigilant and united against those who wish to exploit us. This bears repeating. Great post. Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #15 August 31, 2007 QuoteQuoteI will agree that NAFTA laid the groundwork, but the Clinton Administration isn't pushing this today. (not to say he wouldn't have if he had been able, he is no different then the rest of them) Each one of the candidates presented to us as a 'front-runners' are all shills who vote for and do whatever the money that got them into office dictates them to do. It is our job to remain vigilant and united against those who wish to exploit us. This bears repeating. Great post. What makes it so great is... it's the truth! What we are hearing here in West Texas, from our local governments is, 'big business', with the support of certain congressmen and senator are pushing for a highway to allow Mexican trucks to haul goods from China for distribution to all points in the U.S. Big business doesn't care that these trucks don't have emission controls, little or no brakes, may contain more dope, will cause more strain on our highways and will take jobs from U.S. truck drivers. All these years, Mexican truckers dropped their trailers for U.S. truckers to pick-up and haul to destinations here in the U.S. We do the same going into Mexico. With this new agreement, many U.S. truck drivers will be out of a job. To me, this whole situation has all the ear-marks of bought-off politicians and big business controlling things. All these trucks will be traveling through small towns who don't want these trucks tearing-up their roads, polluting our air and also the noise. Hopefully, the lawsuits being brought to Washington by the Teamsters, Sierra Club and others will stop it. I know for a fact, some of the larger cities to the North of here, along the proposed highway want this because a certain congressman has been pushing it for years. An alternative would be the existing railroad. It would be cheaper to make the necessary repairs to it than the money being poured into the highways. U.S. truckers would still have their jobs and the railroads could handle the over-flow. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,611 #16 August 31, 2007 Quotehttp://www.iatp.org/tradeobservatory/headlines.cfm?refID=88259 Dude, 7000 posts and you still haven't figured out the difference between the underline button and the URL button? Really?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #17 August 31, 2007 Quote I will agree that NAFTA laid the groundwork, but the Clinton Administration isn't pushing this today. (not to say he wouldn't have if he had been able, he is no different then the rest of them) Each one of the candidates presented to us as a 'front-runners' are all shills who vote for and do whatever the money that got them into office dictates them to do. It is our job to remain vigilant and united against those who wish to exploit us. Nice diversion. You were called out for falsely blaming GWB for something that was authorized years ago -- as if he just decided last week to open the border -- and turned it into lovely feel-good grassroots commentary we can all get behind. Hell, you've even got folks saying "great post" and "bears repeating". Hats off to you. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #18 August 31, 2007 QuoteQuotehttp://www.iatp.org/tradeobservatory/headlines.cfm?refID=88259 Dude, 7000 posts and you still haven't figured out the difference between the underline button and the URL button? Really? Dude, after 4700 posts you still can't address the issue and instead choose to attack the poster? Whats next? You going to become the spelling and grammer police? You do realize that would be an elected position, right? Good luck with that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,611 #19 August 31, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuotehttp://www.iatp.org/tradeobservatory/headlines.cfm?refID=88259 Dude, 7000 posts and you still haven't figured out the difference between the underline button and the URL button? Really? Dude, after 4700 posts you still can't address the issue and instead choose to attack the poster? I really couldn't care less about the issue. I just found it very amusing that you were either going to the trouble of underlining it for no apparent reason, or really did think that the underline button was the url button. You gotta admit, after spending this long on the forums it would be strange to know so little about their functionality. BTW, why would police be elected? That sounds like a terrible idea!Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #20 August 31, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuotehttp://www.iatp.org/tradeobservatory/headlines.cfm?refID=88259 Dude, 7000 posts and you still haven't figured out the difference between the underline button and the URL button? Really? Dude, after 4700 posts you still can't address the issue and instead choose to attack the poster? I really couldn't care less about the issue. I just found it very amusing that you were either going to the trouble of underlining it for no apparent reason, or really did think that the underline button was the url button. You gotta admit, after spending this long on the forums it would be strange to know so little about their functionality. I understand. You'd rather launch an attack on the poster than address the issue. Thanks for clarifying that for us. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #21 August 31, 2007 To get back to the original topic - This will last until the first fatal accident between one of these trucks and a US citizen. CNN will do a special on "KILLER TRUCKS CROSSING THE BORDER" (with scary music and rapid cuts between shots of trucks rumbling down the road) and FOX will do a piece on "Clinton's Legacy - Safety Last." The operator will protest that his trucks are fine, and the NTSB people investigating the crash will be told in no uncertain terms to find safety problems. (Since that's their job anyway, they will no doubt find some.) Mother's groups will march on Washington to ask Congress to "protect our children from the menace of faulty foreign trucks." And the problem will eventually go away. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #22 August 31, 2007 Cindy Sheehan will lead a group of mothers whose children have been killed by GWB's wrecklessness (sp) in allowing these killer trucks to roam free on our highways and call for his impeachment. And you will launch into a diatribe about how the money we are spending in Iraq could be better spent improving safety on the highways. Kallend will call Bush a liar and claim the right is just trying to pass the buck. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,183 #23 August 31, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuotehttp://www.iatp.org/tradeobservatory/headlines.cfm?refID=88259 Dude, 7000 posts and you still haven't figured out the difference between the underline button and the URL button? Really? Dude, after 4700 posts you still can't address the issue and instead choose to attack the poster? Whats next? You going to become the spelling and grammer police? You do realize that would be an elected position, right? Good luck with that. If you read as many student essays as I do in a year, you wouldn't badmouth the spelling and grammar police. You'd greet them as liberators and throw flowers.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #24 August 31, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote http://www.iatp.org/tradeobservatory/headlines.cfm?refID=88259 Dude, 7000 posts and you still haven't figured out the difference between the underline button and the URL button? Really? Dude, after 4700 posts you still can't address the issue and instead choose to attack the poster? Whats next? You going to become the spelling and grammer police? You do realize that would be an elected position, right? Good luck with that. If you read as many student essays as I do in a year, you wouldn't badmouth the spelling and grammar police. You'd greet them as liberators and throw flowers. Heh, heh. Maybe you are right ...bad analogy. How about ... it reminds me of the naggy, bitchy, ex-wife who sits in the back seat of the car not caring where we're going but bitches everytime we forget to put on the turn signal or do 5 miles over the limit? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #25 August 31, 2007 Quote Quote http://www.iatp.org/tradeobservatory/headlines.cfm?refID=88259 Dude, 7000 posts and you still haven't figured out the difference between the underline button and the URL button? Really? Even worse...I clicked your link......only to have Firefox tell me that it couldn't find the server at "thisishowyoumakeafuckinglink"... Back to the subject. I would like to find ways to make Mexico a more viable investment competitor to China. There are a lot more direct benefits for each if we can advance that. There has to be a solution to the security concerns.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
