Bush: Ports Deal Collapse May Hurt U.S.

AP via yahoo.com ^ | March, 10 2006 | JENNIFER LOVEN

[John Valentine]

but that doesn't mean the Feds have any right to grant sweetheart deals

The feds aren't proposing to grant any sort of sweetheart deal. What they are doing is maliciously interfering in the sale of a British company (P&O) to a Dubai company (DPW). Once again your socialist mindset lies exposed to see.

[Reagan Man]

Thank you kindly, arasina.

[hedgetrimmer]

Dwell on that for a while, my socialist friend.

Your claim was that our government was NOT created to protect individual rights and you are wrong. The socilists are the "free traders" btw. In fact a french socialist, Pascal Lamy, is head of the WTO. If socialism were so incompatible with "free trade" there would not be any socialists in the WTO, or communists for that matter.

[hedgetrimmer]

If our government was set up with the purpose of protecting individual rights (or liberty as your references suggest), then why was it necessary to add provisions to protect these very rights from the government itself?

NO government, not our government, not ANY government, from the beginning of time, was ever established to protect individual liberty. --John Valentine

[hedgetrimmer]

What they are doing is maliciously interfering in the sale of a British company (P&O) to a Dubai company (DPW). Once again your socialist mindset lies exposed to see.

"free trade" is anti socialist and anti communist? I see. Then the reason Hu Jintao and other totalitarians are getting wealthy is because?

And while you're answering that one, tell me again, why do "least developed countries" get trade advantages under the WTO's "multilateral trading system"?

[John Valentine]

Where on earth did you get the weird idea that the WTO, GATT and so on is "Free Trade".

I know that the term is loosly tossed around, but trade under these agreements is completely managed. You don't need multi-thousand page treaties to establish "Free Trade".

Welcome to the new world of alice-in-wonderland.

[John Valentine]

If our government was set up with the purpose of protecting individual rights (or liberty as your references suggest), then why was it necessary to add provisions to protect these very rights from the government itself?

NO government, not our government, not ANY government, from the beginning of time, was ever established to protect individual liberty. --John Valentine

Apparently you think there is some inconsistency between these two statements.

There is not.

In fact I have spent some number of words explaining the difference between the purpose of extablishing governance in the first instance, and secondary limitations that may be placed on governance (enumerated powers, for example) in the interest of individual liberty (or rights, if you wish).

The two are not the same thing except in your mind.

[John Valentine]

Then the reason Hu Jintao and other totalitarians are getting wealthy is because?

Maybe they're smarter than you.

[hedgetrimmer]

but trade under these agreements is completely managed.

EVERY "free trade" agreement is brokered through the WTO because our Congress has abdicated our authority to do so then the signed the GAT. So "free traders" are cohorts in the establishment of a centrally controlled global trading system. In other words they are enabling a communist/soclists global system.

[hedgetrimmer]

Maybe they're smarter than you.

Maybe more dishonest and less honorable. Smarter? That says a lot about you.

[hedgetrimmer]

"governance" is a global socialist word.

[John Valentine]

"governance" is a global socialist word.

Really.

[hedgetrimmer]

THE GLOBAL ECONOMY, ACCOUNTABLE GOVERNANCE, AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM

[hedgetrimmer]

Report of the Commission on Global Governance