Thread: House Floor Vote on Peru FTA Planned for the Week of Nov. 5

jp wrote:

CFR wants to destroy this country. Ron Paul wants to preserve it so of course they are going to give Ron Paul a low grade. He doesn't support unfair trade.

Of course they have an agenda. Moreover, they support free trade vice fair trade.

I'm not sure I understand your argument. Actually, they gave Ron Paul a respectable free trade voter grade of a 76%. That's not a low grade, however, it is lower than McCain's score of 100%. Hunter and Tancredo's grades were lower, Hunter's much lower. According to CATO, Hunter is the only one that has a pro-fair trade voting record between the three (Hunter, Tancredo, and Paul). Tacredo is somewhere in between and Paul has a definite free trade voting record.

Hunter: Rated 24% by CATO, indicating a pro-fair trade voting record.

Tancredo: Rated 61% by CATO, indicating a mixed record on trade issues.

Paul: Rated 76% by CATO, indicating a pro-free trade voting record.

The only real point I'm attempting to make here is that Hunter is pro-fair trade, Tancredo somewhere in the middle, and Paul pro-free trade (according to CATO). As I said earlier, most conservatives in the U.S. Congress are pro-free trade. Additionally, corporate America, for obvious reasons, support free trade. As Republicans, Hunter and Tancredo are the exception vice the norm on their trade position.

IMO, this is a case where the lower score is better - that's because I support fair trade over free trade. If you support free trade, the higher score would be considered better.

How about we get back to fair trade agreements ... this free trade agreement that benifits megi firms has gotten out of control. It doesnt benifit this country, only special interest groups

Today, fed up with the same line given by most Senator Staffers, I decided to try and contact one of the staffers who might listen and respond to my concerns rather than repeat back to me the same spin I have been receiving for weeks.

My first calls today were to the Washington Office and a couple of district offices of one of my Senators. My call was to ask how was the Senator leaning on the Peru Free Trade Agreement. I waited and then received the same response of "he is still reviewing and considering the legislation."

They asked me what comments I would like to pass on. I said I oppose the Trade Agreement and gave the reasoning.

The one staffer I finally contacted allowed me to express every concern about every recent piece of legislation and upcoming legislation. What should concern us all is that these young staffers are the ones directing their bosses on how to vote in many instances. So their viewpoints color/filter the bills and if they are for or against something it can have enormous impact. It was frightening to listen to him speak on the LOST Treaty and how he was currently reading it. He has a say in the Senator's vote. He was speaking of the Navy being behind it, though they spoke for the President's view. He said the Senator would speak with attorneys about LOST and others. I asked him to please read the opposition, to read comments from most of the Republican Presidential candidates who opposed it (Huckabee, Guiliani, Thompson), to view the video comments from Ed Meese, Frank Gaffney, Senators Vitter, DeMint and others. I asked him why should America put itself under UN control when they are corrupt. He said we had a veto and that we could not be overridden or something to that effect . Where does it say that? I mentioned all of the nations that belong to the UN and how they seldom support us. Why would we further submit to international rule. Loss of sovereignty. One vote out of approximately 150. 22 Magistrates. I don't see people rushing to our side.

Call on the Peru Trade Agreement.

Senators, Out of touch and sellouts, along with many others.

Psalm 91

Ron Paul DOES NOT support the unfair trade agreements. He opposes NAFTA, CAFTA, PFTA, SPP, NAU and every other FTA. He supports FAIR TRADE.

Is that clear enough?

jp wrote:

Ron Paul DOES NOT support the unfair trade agreements. He opposes NAFTA, CAFTA, PFTA, SPP, NAU and every other FTA. He supports FAIR TRADE.

Is that clear enough?

You're shooting the messenger here. I'm reporting Tancredo, Hunter, and Paul's free trade voting percentages from the CATO Institute and you're talking about unfair trade, NAFTA, CAFTA, etc., etc. I never said anything regarding Paul's position on NAFTA, CAFTA, etc. (I know he doesn't support those agreements) - and I certainly never said he supports unfair trade agreements. What I pointed out is that Hunter is rated as a 'fair trade' voter, Tancredo in the middle, and Paul as a 'free trade' voter according to the CATO Institute. There is no reason to read anymore into that than what I've provided.

Hunter: Rated 24% by CATO, indicating a pro-fair trade voting record.

Tancredo: Rated 61% by CATO, indicating a mixed record on trade issues.

Paul: Rated 76% by CATO, indicating a pro-free trade voting record.

If you don't believe CATO's information is accurate, than perhaps you should notify them. I didn't make this stuff up - it's in the link I provided in a previous post.

Why report something that is not true? CATO is Pr Free Trade and Pro CFR, What they report is inaccurate and flat out wrong.

Laraza calls us anti immigrants and xenophobes and that doesn't mean it is true either. People can report whatever they want.

Anyone else reading this thread needs to know and understand that what CATO is doing is trying to discredit Ron Paul because he takes a stand against their agenda.

No the more important issue is this current trade agreement and it has nothing to do with ORn Paul except that he is opposed to the Peru Trade agreement as well.

jp wrote:

Anyone else reading this thread needs to know and understand that what CATO is doing is trying to discredit Ron Paul because he takes a stand against their agenda.

What would they hope to gain by discrediting Paul? That doesn't make any sense. They think being for free trade is a good thing. That's like saying they're discrediting John McCain by indicating he has a 100% pro-free trade voting record. They aren't crediting or discrediting anyone. They are simply indicating where individuals stand on free trade.

The CATO Institute rates all current Congressman on trade issues. For the life of me, I can't see why they would single any one Congressman out and give him a wrong percentage score.

The ADL reports groups like the Minutmen as racists. Why would they do that? Because they have their own agenda, just like the CFR loving Cato Institute.

jp wrote:

The ADL reports groups like the Minutmen as racists. Why would they do that? Because they have their own agenda, just like the CFR loving Cato Institute.

For some reason you're not understanding what I'm saying. Furthermore, what ADL thinks about the Minutemen is not relevant to the discussion. We're talking about an institute that supports free trade. CATO's assigns the percentage utilizing the same formula for everyone. They don't pick out one member of the Congress and decide to lie just for the heck of it. That would serve absolutely no purpose. You don't have to agree with the score but it is what it is.

It is what is is and that is a lie.