Replies

That what I thought. Listen, I am of the opinion that whenever someone uses that term "fair trade", what they're really suggesting is that the government sticks its nose into what would normally be the mutual and beneficial transactions between two or more parties...in essence, central planning or interference in economic freedoms. If Hunter is really for so-called "fair trade" -- just as many labor groups and far leftist socialists are -- I am afraid he will not have my support in the primary process and I will vehemently rail against him in Internet debating.

"fair trade" is a big middle finger to capitalism and I can not accept that from a Conservative. Though, if he win the nomination, I will hold my nose and pull the lever while I blast away on this single issue...it is that important to me. Without economic freedom, nothing else really matters.

Hunter is a protectionist and what you said about him and his stance on trade, is true.

This is one reason why he won't be able to get the needed funds and backing that he's going to need. Right now, he has all of $300,000 in pledges; not money in hand and no grassroots donations will bring him to where he needs to be financially.

yes, Dean played that "grassroots" stuff for all it was worth, but when all was said and done, he had backing from Move.On, etc. and that still didn't help him win the nomination.

I don't think Duncan means "fair trade" in the way the left wing crowd does. What he is concerned with are those that put their financial interest ahead of the national security interest. Such as the Loral deals with China.

"That what I thought. Listen, I am of the opinion that whenever someone uses that term "fair trade", what they're really suggesting is that the government sticks its nose into what would normally be the mutual and beneficial transactions between two or more parties...in essence, central planning or interference in economic freedoms. If Hunter is really for so-called "fair trade" -- just as many labor groups and far leftist socialists are -- I am afraid he will not have my support in the primary process and I will vehemently rail against him in Internet debating."

Actually, governments have been getting in the way of Capitalism for a very long time. This has become known as "free trade" and it is not free by any stretch of the imagination. Hunter is for taking down the boundaries that have prevented most capitalists in this nation from being able to sell abroad.

Are you for the stops that are in place today that prevent trade? That is what you are advocating.

Would you prefer trade be opened up or closed down? Hunter wants to put an end to the trade barriers and other impediments, not build more.

I am of the opinion that whenever someone uses that term "fair trade", what they're really suggesting is that the government sticks its nose into what would normally be the mutual and beneficial transactions between two or more parties...in essence, central planning or interference in economic freedom

Remember Airbus? They destroyed U.S. Private Sector competitors in commercial plane manufacturing from McDonnell-Douglas to Lockheed. Both of whom are out of the game now.

Fair trade calls for a response to a foreign conglomerate which sells planes at 30% below cost with their never-repaid "loans"... to destroy its private-sector competition, and keep their European jobs fat and sassy.

The self-professed libertarian priesthood of "free traders" have obstructed any response to these clear encroachment on free markets and free trades.

Evidently a level playing field is not their idea of free trade.

Hence, you turn a blind eye to the gradual destruction of the U.S. commercial aerospace capabilities.