Posted on 01/10/2006 7:43:06 AM PST by hedgetrimmer
Another fool. The people who are most against free trade are the Communists and Greens. You're in their camp, not I.
Ivan
In case you hadn't noticed, you can't get oil into say, oil barrels that are sealed to EPA standards by poking with a stick into the ground.
Would you please at least make an attempt at thought next time. Knee jerk reflexes are not doing the job.
Ivan
RIght, I'm encouraging socialism because I want less government intereference in trade, not more. It is you protectionists who want the government to pick and choose what it is that people can buy or sell. Socialism calls for the government to make such choices in individuals economic lives, and that is precisely what you are in favour of.
You're the flaming red pinko subversive, not I. I am not the weakling who believes my country cannot compete against foreign companies and goes running screaming to nanny government for protection. That designation belongs to the likes of you.
Ivan
Tariffs are a constitutional feature of the United States government. You are advocating that we overthrow our Constitution because you want a "new system", which is an old system, which America fought to throw out in the American Revolution. Your old system was garbage then for America and its garbage still.
I've seen you struggle with math in the past. I don't suppose you can back up the idea that we owe China $8 trillion? (snicker)
So if this "Free Trade" deal requires $2.7 Billion of government interference, with money confiscated from American taxpayers, that's somehow "less government interference"?
Your logic is twisted.
I've seen you struggle with your own stupidity in the past, Toddster. It's a sad sight to behold.
It's not interference, it's opening up markets. You protectionists on the other hand want to restrict trade, force consumers to make choices that are, in the end, going to be made in Washington.
Yet you claim to be conservatives. That's definitely twisted.
Ivan
Are you using the B. Clinton dictionary?
Screw free trade. Why do we sign these dumbass trade deals?
There are plenty of companies that finance protectionism because they profit from anti-capitalist practices. The sugar industry in the USA is a leading example - they find it's better to play politics than actually compete with the rest of the world. It's not so cut and dried that companies or financiers are in favour of capitalism. Not just protectionist losers scream for mummy government to protect them.
Setting intelligent policy, however, requires realising that capitalism provides the best consumer choice, and thus putting forward those policies which bolster it.
Ivan
What came first, flunking 5th grade math class or protectionism?
At what price?
Yeah, we wouldn't want the entire world to be full of capitalists now, would we? Do you believe that saving the people of developing countries from development is a noble cause? Is escaping poverty, disease and ignorance, with the hope of a better life, a good enough reason for promoting increased trade?
You cry about the spending of $2.7 billion to facilitate these sorts of agreements that help develop trade while, at the same time, adamantly defending farm price supports (welfare) that cost American taxpayers/consumers tens of billions a year.
Personally, I would much rather have these trade agreements without foreign aid or other subsidies provided by the US taxpayer. Unfortunately, these sorts of things are political realities that will benefit this country over the long term - unlike your beloved price supports.
Your focus on a small expenditure such as this, in light of the massive government waste on entitlements, shows us you have no sense of priorities or of proportion.
Surely we don't disagree that our government / corporations are subject to WTO rulings?
RE: "You're paranoid. And this time, no one is out to get you."
Cute.
I mentioned Bill Clinton because he is a World Economic Forum (WEF) regular and if it is paranoid to believe that the Clintons and their domestic and international "comrades" have other than promoting U.S. sovereignty and military power in mind -- given their Red China shenanigans -- then.. Guilty!
When I say Davos of course I mean the World Economic Forum where business, academic, political, government leaders from around the world meet to identify and debate the economic and social challenges of the day and "to shape global, regional and industry agendas."
Of course it cannot order it can only influence the mission of those who do have some authority over corporations and world trade, e.g., governments, the WTO, the UN, and the CEOs themselves.
Though corporations pay for the WEF the counter-WEF, World Social Forum, associates (international unions, NGOs) attend and speak at Davos.
I am not suggesting a worldwide government that owns everything down to and including the skid marks on underwear is in the works; i.e communism.
My main point: I am saying that it is impossible for me to believe that WEF / WSF, et al. of that ilk are planning to make the world safe and prosperous and then ride off into the sunset.
(Chuckle) So it's sorta kinda like a welfare program, isn't it?
I suppose I can understand why Karl Marx supported it....
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.