Posted on 03/13/2006 6:35:44 AM PST by NormB
"We're seeing it in everything," said one of Mr. Bush's closest aides last week. "Iraq. The ferocity of an irrational argument over the ports. Guest workers. China and India."
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
At the time I claimed that Bush was not really conservative, but instead a total globalist. And I was right.
Bush bots unite!
Example, Levis moves all production out of America, china, india provide all service for the company. We sell crappy Levis Jeans to China and India, all the money stays in China and India and the pockets of Levis executives and stockholders. Good for America? Clearly not. Only good for the chosen few.
I am a capitalist, but there is going to be a fall out from all this, Companys will reap profits while scores of once employeed people go on welfare.
Bush is now going to start using the word "interdependence". How is it that we haven't been interdependent up till now?
The U.S. Treasury still gets its cut, though.
If Bush was a globalist, then so was Reagan.
In my opinion Bush and the talking heads that he has around him have created his coming irrelevance by refusing to take a heavy hand with respect to illegals and the border.
You can't talk tough about national security while doing nothing to stem the tide of lawbreakers that reside here and those that cross the border daily and expect to be taken seriously.
The result is that when you push for something like the ports deal your word is no longer good.
"...but instead a total globalist. And I was right."
Corporatist globalist.
How long before our laws are completely conformed to global laws? Whatever is good for the corporations will be extended to our lives.
Value added tax, universal tax to support various UN initiatives (see France), and hamonization of social attitudes are all on the horizon.
Gold cards and no borders for cross nation labor transfer, taxing authority harmonized with Mexico and other countries, and the continued downward pressure on labor wages to harmonize with China and India.
Nice future for our children....sarc/
The national interest demands that the debate be about the waste of National time and wealth in ANY form.
Foreign aid comes to mind.
Stopping decades-old practices that result in negative effects. e.g. aiding "palestinians"
That's what passes for logic on these threads.
Won't matter, once the knee jerkers get stuck on a mantra, they are really stuck on it, even though this administartion has given the finger to the UN, more times than Reagan and Jeanne Kirkpatrick ever did.
"example: GEICO. (General Electric Insurance Company)"
GEICO is Govt Employee Insurance Company, not too sure about the conection to GE either. Maybe the Aussie Gecko knows.
Capitalism seems to work best when there are government constraints to keep a balance between various factions...workers, owners, communities, etc. It seems that the problem is that the corporations have superceded the governments, globally, that maintained the balance.
The thing is, it isn't really the Dubai deal that's the problem. The Dubai deal is the one that finally struck a chord with the public. We only truly have a nation if infrastructure and points of entry are controlled by the US and US-owned and operated corporations.
What, exactly, is wrong with shunning isolationism?
The world has grown to small to be naive about our place in it. The dictates of the old world (i.e. Washington's farewell address to avoid foreign entanglements) is archaic.
It's not about being a Bushbot, it's about being right and fair about the facts.
"Isolationism" is an improper diagnosis of several unrelated issues.
Anti-Iraq-War sentiment is fomented from the Left and their Media. It is an anti-Western Civilization anti-Bush movement.
The Ports reaction was a logical reaction to a deal unexplained by the Bush administration. Had they done their politics right (praising the UAE's help in the WOT, preparing the way with PR, noting that they run terminals, etc.) this would not have been a PR catastrophe. When the Administration's response to prima facie (sp?) issues was to call their opponents xenophobic, they hardened resistance.
"Guest Workers" is Orwellian double-speak for mass law breaking by illegal immigrants. Couple that with wholly unprotected borders through which Jihadists could easily slip, and you can see the Administration is willfully blind to the issue.
"China and India" conflates the strategic opponent with the strategic ally. There are many reasonable people who are concerned about the rise of a fascist nationalist (nominally communist) expansionist China, trade notwithstanding.
So that leaves their argument at India. If you shave off all the other red herrings, you are left with Willie Green, Pat Buchannan and a few other left-wing-nuts.
So hey Karl Rove: Quit blaming your poor PR and bad ideas on Isolationism. The only thing most of the foregoing issues have in common is the Administration's several and disparate malfeasance.
Hear, hear.
Just remember - no matter how righteous a dude W may appear to be - he is still his father's son and poppy was the guy who invoked the phrase "new world order" more than anyone esle of his era.
We need trade reciprocity now.
All this port insanity simply proves the sheeple are willing to rush over the cliff.
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.