Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : MITT ROMNEY -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (2570)	3/5/2008 2:56:45 PM
From: Jim S	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5586

"Do you have a reference showing her early support of NAFTA? No, of course you don't. Here close associates confirm she was cool about NAFTA." I wasn't the one who made assertions about her support, or lack thereof, of NAFTA. As I said, I'm not aware of her opposition. If you can't support your statement, that's fine. I'll give it the credence it deserves.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (2570)	3/5/2008 3:17:41 PM
From: DizzyG	Respond to of 5586

Again, incorrect, Kenneth... Do you have a reference showing her early support of NAFTA? Here close associates confirm she was cool about NAFTA. You always start with a very small grain of truth and then you layer your DNC spin on it. This is a better picture of Hillary's slippery position: Despite statements to the contrary in a letter signed by Congressional members who voted against NAFTA in 1993, Clinton has called herself a longtime NAFTA critic. Was she? That may depend on what your definition of what was was. Some former White House staffers and recent biographers insist she privately resisted. Earlier accounts, however, said she'd argued not against the deal itself but against pushing it ahead of her health-insurance plan. Clinton campaign spokesmen provided no specifics this week when asked what she objected to about NAFTA, or how, or when. In Tuesday's debate, Clinton said she'd "renegotiate" the pact "on terms that are favorable to all of America." "But let's be fair here," she added. "There are lots of parts of New York that have benefitted, just like there are lots of parts of Texas that have benefitted. ... And if you look at what I have been saying, it has been consistent." Judge the consistency for yourself: * In November 1996, she touted NAFTA's economic value in a Texas speech, two wire services reported. * In 1998 at a world economic forum in Davos, Switzerland, she cited "a very effective business effort in the U.S. on behalf of NAFTA." * While running for Senate in March 2000, she told the labor-backed Working Families Party the agreement was "flawed." * In her 2003 book "Living History", she cited NAFTA as a Bill Clinton achievement. One sample: "Although unpopular with labor unions, expanding trade opportunities was an important legislative goal." * In a 2004 teleconference, she said: "I think on balance NAFTA has been good for New York and America. But I also think that there are a number of areas where we're not dealt with in an upfront way ..." * In 2007, she told Time magazine: "I believe in the general principles it represented -- but what we have learned is that we have to drive a tougher bargain." newsday.com Give it up, Kenneth. You really stink as a DNC parrot. :) Diz-