Skip to comments.
Free trade loses lustre
The Sunday Times ^
| February 29, 2004
Posted on 02/29/2004 1:13:49 AM PST by sarcasm
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 201-202 next last
To: jwalsh07
By the way, if imports are unethical because they take away American jobs, then exports must be unethical as well, no? No, because I am an AMERICAN!
All of my family and friends are Americans!
I live in America!
I could give a s*** how well the economies and job rates are in Mexico, Red China, India, or anyplace else!
I vote for people who (supposedly) care about AMERICANS!
Thats why free TRAITORS got their name, they don't give a d*** about their fellow countrymen and their god is money.
To: Luis Gonzalez
Is this a start? No, there's nothing "free trade" about hiring and firing of employee's.
42
posted on
02/29/2004 7:57:57 AM PST
by
lewislynn
(The successful globalist employee will be the best educated, working for the lowest possible wage.)
To: Iscool
Don't try to kid us...If you buy any thing any where in the US, you are buying Chinese "crap"...And I'd bet you leave your Lexus in the garage while you jump into your chevy and head to Wal-mart...I am always amused by geniuses like you knowing more about what I do with my money than I do. Of course, the next step is those geniuses who think they can spend my money better than I can. I see little difference between those two.
ANd I don't drive a Lexus. I drive a Ford, a 1988 Jeep Wrangler and my wife drives drives a Jeep Cherokee.
Do you shop at Wal Mart? I also take your statement to me regarding Chinese goods that you have a house full of them. Is that incorrect?
If it isn't incorrect, could you tell me how you can whine about imports while stuffing your shopping cart with same?
43
posted on
02/29/2004 7:58:02 AM PST
by
jwalsh07
To: Luis Gonzalez
And raising their income level, thus creating a market for our goods. If they're capable of doing the job(s) why do they need jobs of Americans to "raise their income level"? What happened to good old fashioned competition and business expansion?
44
posted on
02/29/2004 8:01:35 AM PST
by
lewislynn
(The successful globalist employee will be the best educated, working for the lowest possible wage.)
To: Walkin Man
So ethics are geographically based?
By the way, if you are calling me a traitor, you're not worth talking with. So can you clarify that for me, did you identify me as a traitor?
45
posted on
02/29/2004 8:01:56 AM PST
by
jwalsh07
To: A. Pole
Free trade means the removal of the national borders in economy (primarily removal of tariffs) and transferring the economical sovereignity from the nation state to the private international owners while the workers become the freely traded commodity without having any claims based on shared nationality or citizenship. Not cool at all, this free trade stuff is giving those who work for a living the shaft.
The GOP and Bush are for this? Really?!!
46
posted on
02/29/2004 8:04:57 AM PST
by
Rudder
To: yankeedame
The University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes
47
posted on
02/29/2004 8:05:54 AM PST
by
sarcasm
(Tancredo 2004)
To: Paul Ross
India has tariffs three times what ours are ---China's are also higher than ours and those countries are doing very well with so-called free trade ---so tariffs are obviously not bad.
48
posted on
02/29/2004 8:10:50 AM PST
by
FITZ
To: Rudder
A document that is thousands and thousands of pages long is not about freedom or free anything. You can get the definition of free trade if you decide you have some products you'd like to sell over in Mexico --- see what happens when you try to make it over -- it's not free trade ---not close.
49
posted on
02/29/2004 8:12:39 AM PST
by
FITZ
To: A. Pole
Yes, that's it.
Sovereignity, sovereignity ... who has the sovereignity? That is the question.
The Cornucopia of real wealths opens fully only when that question is answered correctly. And in what passes for an answer from "free trade" crowd these days is nothing but excuses for theft. Grand Theft of that sovereignity.
"We the People" are the sovereign here in the US of A. That is the FIRST statement of the Constitution. That FACT of the national charter is DUE all the respect, fealty, and honor accorded the very similar statement of G-d, Himself, in the charter given to Moses at Sinai: "I am the Lord, your God, who led you out of bondage!"
No corporation or limited liability partnership exists without charter from a nation, and those WE have chartered OWE US WHATEVER DUTY WE SHALL LAY ON THEM.
It is not the Corportation (whatever "internationality" it may falsely claim) who is the Master -- although that is in too many ways the trump of the Senate and Beltway -- it is US. Moreover it is a DUTY we may not be absolved up or give up.
Because "We the People" are merely agents of our own Master, that same Master Who directed Moses himself.
It is a solemn and dread duty, and to fail at it will be our death and ruin.
50
posted on
02/29/2004 8:13:38 AM PST
by
bvw
To: Luis Gonzalez
In America, private (meaning non-governmental) companies are free to run their corporations as they see fit You mean they've dropped all those laws like OSHA, workman's comp laws, harassment laws, minimum wage laws, FLMA laws and all the many others?
51
posted on
02/29/2004 8:15:40 AM PST
by
FITZ
To: FITZ
Good point about that document.
It would seem that what is being sold under the guise of Free Trade is actually a sell-out of the American wage-earner---correct?
52
posted on
02/29/2004 8:16:16 AM PST
by
Rudder
To: FITZ
You mean they've dropped all those laws like OSHA, workman's comp laws, harassment laws, minimum wage laws, FLMA laws and all the many others? Don't forget the trial lawyers who shove jobs out of the country.
It is fascinating watching you all try to blame Bush but are silent on the true factors shipping away American jobs. Envirowhackos, unions, and trial lawyers. All major parts of the democrat party.
53
posted on
02/29/2004 8:19:11 AM PST
by
Dane
To: Dane
First post if seen in this thread directly blaming Bush or anything.
But since you brought it up, since President Bush shares culpability along with every member of Congress including and especially Senators Schumer, Kerry and Edwards who gasbag and bloviate their disappointment while speaking to union crowds yet offer NO solutions whatsoever.
54
posted on
02/29/2004 8:28:33 AM PST
by
Doohickey
("This is a hard and dirty war, but when it's over, nothing will ever be too difficult again.”)
To: Dane
I don't blame Bush for all those laws like FLMA --- for one Clinton signed that ---but the government very much controls, practically owns, the corporations.
55
posted on
02/29/2004 8:35:52 AM PST
by
FITZ
To: sarcasm
I guess that you also believe that the chair of the labor commission is speaking the truth about his position. You guess? LOL
Let me repeat this in language that you can understand. You claim that because I agree with a NYT editorial, I am an East-Coast socialist. I claim that because you agree with the Communist Party's Labor Chiarman, you are an unreconstructed communist. That better?
56
posted on
02/29/2004 8:45:08 AM PST
by
1rudeboy
To: Beck_isright
This means this issue is far more important than imagined.The issue is about putting America first or putting America last. There was a time, one recent enough that I can remember it, when both liberals and conservatives put America first without question; they just differed on how to go about it. That is no longer the situation, for either lierals or conservatives.
IMO and FWIW.
57
posted on
02/29/2004 8:48:04 AM PST
by
templar
To: Dane
Anyhow the ones I blame would be the RINOS, if Bush would have gone more with the Conservatives --- and he's great on some Conservative issues ---- there would be no fear of a close election ---- to someone like Kerry??? He's pretty pathetic to have to have a close election with.
58
posted on
02/29/2004 8:48:06 AM PST
by
FITZ
To: jwalsh07
By the way, if imports are unethical because they take away American jobs, then exports must be unethical as well, no? If one thinks logically instead of emotionally, your take here would be absolutely correct.
But, of course, protectionists want it both ways.
![](http://mars.walagata.com/w/mrswing/__hr_rdb3.jpg)
59
posted on
02/29/2004 8:50:42 AM PST
by
rdb3
(Don`t be afraid doing tasks you`re not familiar with. Remember, Noah's ark was built by an amateur.)
To: Rudder
I think so. Around here you used to see these kind of poor entrepreneurs from Mexico coming over --- buying used clothes, used tires to take back to sell in Mexico --- for some reason free trade shut them down. I guess they compete too much with corporations who have made good deals with the governments --- an individual cannot do a free trade deal.
60
posted on
02/29/2004 8:51:16 AM PST
by
FITZ
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 201-202 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson