Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General The decline of resources in America

CIA World Factbook (Say what you like about the CIA, but their statistics are well-researched and reliable.)

Is that the best you can do? The quoted statement made three claims:

1. people flow where the money flows
2. the neocons in cooperation with the Democratic party have created a situation that forced Mexican farmers off their lands and into the cities
3. 75% unemployment is common

Does the fact that people flow where the money flows have anything to do with NAFTA? If so, what?

How about the third claim, that 75% unemployment is common in cities? How do you explain that with your pat answer of "NAFTA"?

And the second claim: do you think the migration of Mexican farmers might not be attributable the implementation of corn subsidies in the US, rather than the simplistic, condesceding reference to NAFTA that was offered?

It was in fact this third claim that I was interested in seeing some support for. I was nice enough however to quote the entire sentence so the claim could be given in context. perhaps I should avoid doing so in the future.

Big long deep sigh....

What I said was that in "some cities", unemployment rose to the 70% level. I made no mention of Mexico as a whole.

I can not find the original source where I read that many border cities and overflow cities that took on the massive influx of mexican farmers following the implementation of Nafta. What surprised me was the 70% figure in some towns and communities, which is why I remembered it.

The articles I cited talk about how NAFTA has not been the "good thing" it was advertised as, in Mexico. If you have doubts about how the poor in Mexico feel about NAFTA, you will have to research beyond the corporate media which always slants things to the positive side when it comes to trade.

Just as in the US, it's not about Wall street.
It's about the poor people and whether their lives are better or harder.

I also made no mention of Mexico as a whole. In fact, I made no mention of Mexico at all, and neither did you. You only referred to the country of origin of those poor displaced farmers (why were they displaced, again?). You have yet to provide any evidence that any city in any country to which they migrated has an unemployment rate of 75%.

Not 70%, Roger. 75%. it's all in writing.

Breathe in. Breathe out. Breathe in. Breathe out. Good.

I just got through explaining what I meant and that I could not find the source that talked about some cities reaching extremely high unemployment rates. I thought it was 70%, but it appears I wrote 75%. If I can find the source, I'll make sure you get it Steve.

But the point isn't what the unemployment percentages are.

Are you this much of a stickler for those who support Kucinich without a critical eye to detail?

LOL

No, only about those who making sweeping pronouncements based on dubious non-facts and then disparage and condescend anyone who questions them.

Sweeping prouncements on dubious non-facts?

If I can find the source that shows my comments to be accurate, will you apologize?

Also, I read and reread my comments and still can not find anywhere that I disparaged you or anyone else.

Can you help me understand what you are talking about mr. sensitive?

While this does not say anything about the unemployment rates in the towns surrounding the farms that drove the immigrants to the cities, it provides numbers that tower above those quoted by the mainstream.

Furthermore, unemployment figures are largely inaccurate when it comes to peasants in Mexico. They are not even counting most of them because these people are not engaged in the system.

But I will keep looking just for you steve.

I doubt it.

Good man. I know I can depend on you.

So you make claims only to backtrack when challenged?