FIGHTING corruption?
I'm sorry, what was Fred Thompson's vote on lifting the embargo with Vietnam again???
And if you had any sense, you would realize that.
Posted on 07/27/2007 3:28:43 AM PDT by ovrtaxt
For decades, global elitists have claimed special knowledge that they alone could solve the world’s problems if only we (the ignorant masses) would leave them alone to get on with it. It would create jobs and economic prosperity, they said. They promised peace and security. Truly, what’s not to like about their New World Order?
Imagine how shocked they were when Financial Times published the results of an FT/Harris poll (July 22, 2007) which showed almost universal disdain for the very policies that were supposed to save us. According to the FT article,
The depth of anti-globalization feeling in the FT/Harris poll, which surveyed more than 1,000 people online in each of the six countries, will dismay policy-makers and corporate executives. Their view that opening economies to freer trade is beneficial to poor and rich countries alike is not shared by the citizens of rich countries, regardless of how liberal their economic traditions.
Yet, their clever defense is already built into the FT title: “Globalization backlash in rich nations”.
That’s right, it’s only the selfish rich nations who are resisting globalization. And, we should slap more taxes on ourselves to teach ourselves a lesson.
But wait, does this mean that poor nations are embracing globalization?
Apparently, anti-globalization riots and protests in 3rd world countries aren’t taken into account. Nor does it seem to matter that communist and other brutal dictatorships don’t even allow dissent; remember that there are plenty of dictatorships involved with the global elite, including countries like communist China.
In the FT/Harris poll, the question was posed: “Do you think globalization is having a positive or negative effect in your country?”
Less than 20 percent of citizen respondents in the UK, France, Spain and the U.S. viewed it as having a positive effect. Germany and Italy were a bit higher.
Still, well over 50 percent of all respondents voted “No” to globalization.
Another shock to the pro-globalization elite is the overwhelming passage (362-63 on July 24, 2007) of the Duncan Hunter Amendment (H.R. 3074) to the Transportation Appropriations Act, “prohibiting the use of federal funds for participation in working groups under the Security and Prosperity Partnership (), including the creation of the Super Highway.”
“The proposed NAFTA Super Highway presents significant challenges to our nation’s security, the safety of vehicle motorists, and will likely drive down wages for American workers,” said Congressman Hunter. “Much like NAFTA, the super highway is designed to serve the interests of our trading partners and will lead to neither security nor prosperity.”
Congressman Duncan Hunter, also a presidential candidate, told his fellow congressional colleagues,
“This 12 lane highway, which is already under construction in Texas, will fast-track thousands of cargo containers across the U.S. without adequate security. These containers will move from Mexico, a country with a record of corruption and involvement in the drug trade, across a border that is already porous and insufficiently protected.
“Unfortunately, very little is known about the NAFTA Super Highway. This amendment will provide Congress the opportunity to exercise oversight of the highway, which remains a subject of question and uncertainty, and ensure that our safety and security will not be comprised in order to promote the business interests of our neighbors.”
Obviously, criticism of globalization in the U.S. is certainly not limited to citizens only.
What end-run will the global elite devise to counter these negative sentiments? Will they simply stiffen their necks even more and barge ahead in defiance of citizens and Congress alike?
If history is a guide, they will most likely dismiss all such criticisms as coming from ignorant people who don’t know any better in the first place.
Related video:
Call for more tax on rich
What?
What’s his conservatism got to do with campaigning for Lincoln Chafee?
Why is Erin Burnett screwing Mike Darda?
Why is diet soda said to cause cancer?
Or how about this one, why don’t the rating agencies rate CDOs after seasoning rather than when they are issued?
So many more relevant questions, would you like some more?
I asked you, what was Fred Thompson’s vote on lifting the embargo with Vietnam?
Do you think free speech doesn't matter or that it doesn't exist in America because of money in politics? I reject either premise, with the caveat that if McCain-Fiengold type of legislation is allowed to stand and be added to, we will lose our right to speak gradually. The important thing with a right is the principle, not the effect. A person with little money, poor grammer, a lousy stage presence, and bizarre ideas has the same right to speak as a well groomed, attractive, articulate billionaire with great ideas (and vice-versa).
And if you had any sense in the response given to you, you would realize your question has nothing to with CFR.
“Why would any American patriot think something is wrong with Fred Thompson’s intentions?”
“We must give them aspirations of citizenship”
Fred Thompson, 2006
I'm sorry, what was Fred Thompson's vote on lifting the embargo with Vietnam again???
And if you had any sense, you would realize that.
Oh yeah, as a longtime conservative I think FREE SPEECH doesn't matter. In fact I believe in compassionate conservative communism. How you like them bananas?
I reject either premise, with the caveat that if McCain-Fiengold type of legislation is allowed to stand and be added to, we will lose our right to speak gradually.
Are you another American with ADD? I mean at least you've mingled in circles where you picked up the usage of the word 'caveat'. Certainly you can read but maybe you don't want to, maybe you just want to see your rant on an internet screen.
Here's the question posed to you in post #39:
He has rethought his strategy to replace the CFR strategy. Did you know that? He is now for full internet disclosure with strong enforcement of disclosure.
And here's a couple of additional questions for you:
Aren't you happy to see that Fred Thompson is able to review his actions, to see which actions had unintended consequences and to draw up a new strategy that will achieve the intended results while avoiding the unintended consequences?
Or are you one of those people that says a war is lost because a battle was lost?
B4DH = Bump for Duncan Hunter
You mean company like Fred Thompson’s very good friend AND supporter Zach Wamp, one of the sponsors of an anti-NAU bill in the House?
I am saying that your idea that free speech is a fantasy because there is money involved in the media is not well thought out.
No what you are saying is you don't like FDT and you're harping about CFR to discredit him while ignoring his recent positions on the corruption in DC.
As for your attempts to discredit me, have at it. It only goes to show you are a fool. Bring it on.
Would that be the amendment that Hunter wrote (and was passed two days ago) defunding the SPP?
No.
Thanks for the ping. Timely subject, and Rep. Hunter, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE, is right on it, God bless him. If there is any way he can stop the NAFTA highway, he will. But he starts with his bill to force foreign transport vehicles to abide by the same rules and regulations as domestic transport vehicles. I would like to see North and South border inspections mandatory on these vehicles as well.
Can someone provide an email address for Rep. Hunter’s office in Washington DC? We need to encourage him.
>Does anyone know what F.Thompson thought was more important?<
Since Fred Dalton Thompson was a heavy supporter of McCain-Feingold, what more do you need to know? He only flip flopped on that, as well as his ‘let the states decide on abortion’ stance after he decided to “think” about running for president, due to the Conservative opposition to both.
I have yet to hear FDT answer a question with a direct and concise answer. He is a lawyer through and through, and that’s what lawyers always do. Answer a question with a question!
“Afterall, FDR was photographed sitting next to Stalin and smiling.”
THAT is because Stalin was the big communist and FDR the big Socialist...yeah they had their differences but they also had a great more deal in common with respect to political philosphy.
Thompson is correct. We are NOT afraid of a global economy. A nation with our capability with free enterprise should have nothing to fear in competition with other nations. The issue isn’t should we participate in globalization or not, clearly we should as a matter of common sense.
The real questions on this issue should address to what extent to we compromise American values and the American identity in order to sucessfully compete globally? How far do we go? Is NAU the answer?
Well let’s look at the EU and what that little exercise has done. I’m not sure if we can call the EU a rousing success can we? Given that the EU was founded upon the bedrock of England, France, and Germany one would assue that it would be a home run for the whole of Europe. It hasn’t been has it?
the two primary bedrock nations for the NAU would have to be the USA and Canada. Mexico is not in any economic condition to be considered a “bedrock-type” nation - yet strangely they are looked at in that vein for one reason only - cheap labor. If Europe can’t find major success with three reletively strong economic powers as their foundation, how can we expect the NAU to be successful when one of the three promary partners is noticably weak where economics are concerned? Even with the USA as the leader, it just doesn’t seem reasonable for us to expect anything but higher taxes, slowed economic growth, increased unemployment, growing inflation from a NAU-type of effort. We have been down the stagnation road before thanks to the policies of Killer Rabbit Carter. We really don’t need to go there again, but I believe that is exactly what the NAU will ultimately do. If our neighbors in North, Central, and South American continents see economic quality, they need to find their own way to achieve those goals without pulling us down to their level, which is the ultimate result of any NAU.
Like killing 40 million people?
Yup....FDR only found a way to enslave at least 40 million to government entitlements - killing their souls perhaps, but by golly he at least didn’t kill them outright like Stalin did. The roots of many of societies problems today are rooted in the socialism brought about by FDR’s “only government can help you” policies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.