Posted on 02/07/2004 4:46:02 PM PST by yonif
I thought because there is a poll on FR that says "If it's Kerry vs Bush how will you vote?" it would be good to start a thread on the matter for people to explain how they voted in the poll, if they choose to do so.
No. I am calling it for what it is - your declaration that you will NOT support Bush over Kerry.
I don't recall discussing ESL previously with you, yet you bring this up. I don't recall coming close to stating that I'm in favor of ESL, or federalized education. I do recall stating that federalized education has long-existed and discussing what Bush wants to do with the standardized testing...I do recall stating I don't agree with all of what he passed relating to the Education Bill; I do recall stating that he wants to enable parents, via vouchers, to place their children in whatever schools they choose, and something which the Rats oppose...something you didn't address.
What you are pleased as punch to see is a system where uncircumsised Philistines bureaucrats in Washington...
You are spinning. I never, once, indicated I was "pleased as punch" about anything with what's going on in education in the public schools.
But I believe the whole conservative ideology has been lost on people like you, for now you are apologizing for the existance of Jimmy Carter's socialist time bomb ...
People like me aren't now apologizing for Jimmy Carter. People like me never liked him to start with. Sorry to pop your baloon.
I thank you for patiently revealing the new Republican Party, one that differs in no way whatsoever from the Socialist or the recent Demoncat party.
You're a joke. Voting for Kerry/not voting for Bush, is the way to ensure that people like you get your socialist man, Kerry, in the White House, who will appoint liberal judges, create bigger goverment, raise taxes, spend more on more socialist programs...oh, yeah, that's how this whole "discussion" started.
For good reason, like any other "good" communist party member - go along or you and your family are dead!
(Boldface added for emphasis)
----------------------------------------------
'ON November 7, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the conference report on the 2004 Defense Authorization bill (H.R. 1588) with a much weakened version of its "buy American" program. Under the original proposal as crafted by House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-CA), all critical components in a weapon system would have had to be American-made and the overall system had to be 65 percent American. Those two requirements were eliminated under intense pressure from the Bush Administration, whose commitment to the recovery of American manufacturing has now been clearly shown to be phony.
The defense bill still calls for the Pentagon to produce a study assessing how much the United States depends on foreign suppliers and to provide incentives to encourage contractors to use American machine tools, the building blocks of all manufacturing. The current 50 percent American-made requirement for weapons was retained. Under the approved provisions, the Pentagon would have to create a Defense Industrial Base Capabilities Fund to ensure that the domestic industrial base can manufacture all critical military components. The Pentagon also would have to stop buying from any countries that have refused to deliver military supplies because they objected to U.S. military operations.
Rep. Hunter should be commended for moving the issue forward, even if only a small distance. The Pentagon study on foreign suppliers will have to be closely watched as neither the DoD bureaucrats nor the prime defense contractors want the facts known about how far “globalization” has already gone to weaken the domestic integrity of the nation’s defense industrial base. The battle over the defense bill this year was conducted mainly behind closed doors, the arena in which big business is most comfortable. Corporate managers are well aware that if the public knew how they were conducting their business, without the faintest regard for the prosperity or security of the United States, the political backlash would be unrestrainable.
Boeing, the largest defense contractor in the United States, led the fight against the Hunter initiatives. One motive is a desire to integrate its commercial and military supply-chain on a global basis. Shortly after the weakened defense bill passed the House, it became known that Boeing plans to hold a conference in Beijing next week with its Asian suppliers (mostly Chinese) to discuss the design and construction of its new 7E7 jet. The 7E7 is to be a super-efficient, long-range aircraft pushing the edge in aviation technology. The plane is scheduled to debut in 2008.
Boeing China president David Wang was quoted in China Daily as saying that Boeing wants more Chinese participation in the program because it sees Beijing as a strategically important part of its globalization strategy. Boeing has forecast that China will need nearly 2,400 new airliners, worth $197 billion, over the next two decades. To capture this market, “Boeing should become more Chinese in China,” said Wang, “Twenty years from now, China will view Boeing as a global China brand, not just a global brand....We must be more Chinese in our leadership, in content...have more designs, capability coming from China in the long term.”
Thus Boeing in America lobbies for more foreign content in its U.S.-produced aircraft, even those it builds for the military, but Boeing in China is committed to more Chinese content in the planes it builds there. It would seem Wang is correct, Boeing is well on its way to being more of a good corporate citizen of China than of the United States.
Boeing is also negotiating with Chinese partners to establish a $100 million repair, modification and maintenance joint venture in Shanghai. Both the production and maintenance of advanced aircraft in China involves a substantial transfer of technology and the skills needed to it into top-line equipment; knowledge that is easily translated from commercial to military industry. The problem with high-tech outsourcing is not just that the United States will become dependent on the supply of critical components than could be cut off in a crisis, thus crippling the American armed forces; but that the transfer of the information needed to produce the critical components will help arm a future enemy and increase the risk of war.
For example, the White House has agreed to allow Boeing to transfer two 737-800 aircraft to China that contain the QRS11 computer chip in their navigation systems. The chip has the potential to be used for military applications, such as in missile guidance systems. The chip is on the restricted Munitions List and should require an export license, but the State Department has given Boeing a pass. The House International Relations Committee has raised questions about this transaction, but will likely have no more success is constraining Boeing than did the House Armed Services committee.
Boeing CEO Phil Condit is also the head of the Business Roundtable (BRT). The BRT spearheaded the campaign to win most favored nation trading status for China. As part of its lobbying effort, the group published a booklet on “Corporate Responsibility in China.” The report was filled with examples of how BRT members were helping to build China's industrial base, endowing it with advanced technology and more productive methods. For example, “Rockwell has established industrial automation training laboratories in 10 of China's better universities” and “was the first foreign company to install an in-house automation technology training lab in a Chinese state-owned enterprise.” Honeywell Aerospace proclaimed its “unprecedented” agreement with Aviation Industries of China (AVIC) which manufactured both military and civil aircraft, missiles, engines, advanced materials and other items. Honeywell boasted how it provides extensive training for AVIC's “best engineers” including bringing them to U.S. plants to learn about American technology firsthand.
It seems that Boeing and other transnational corporations are running their own foreign policies, for their own purposes, while the Bush Administration looks the other way. When Congress comes back from its holiday recess, it must take another, stronger crack at these rogue corporations, who are so eager to please foreign governments and shed their American allegiances that they can no longer be trusted. Indeed, it is now best to assume from the start that corporate and national interests are no longer in concert. '
(c)Copyright 2001-2002 TradeAlert.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The mind rejects what the senses can't deny. There is conceptual paralysis in the GOP regarding what exactly the national interest is, and in the members of this forum who will defend the current administration beyond reasonable limits.
When Clinton was pulling this kind of crap the GOP went ballistic with outrage. Now that we have a, err, cough, COUGH "conservative" in the White House, that outrage has disappeared.
It strikes me that the GOP has thrown its mind in the garbage and lets "those who know better" make their critical decisions for them. This is a quality antithetical to everything the GOP is supposed to stand for.
I am struck dumb by the blank-eyed, blind support the current administration receives. It's enough to make one weep.
Better get ready to turn in your guns.
Yeah, right.
I caught that. I live next door to an Army National Guard Armory. The unit there is now in Iraq.
While he voted for NAFTA, GATT, and MFN(cosponsoring it too) for China.
That's alright, I'll help bury his ass election time and bail the country out of your dumbassed decision.
Ask Al Gore, among many others.
1. Judges. Do you really think Orrin Hatch and Arlen Specter will play hardball on judges?
2. We don't know who will be in Congress. The dems could take it back for all I know.
3. Foreign Policy - Will Kerry step up to the UN on treaties? Small Arms treaty for example.
4. Cabinent - Klinton's boy in HUD brokered the Smith and Wesson Sellout.
5. Attorney General - Ashcroft sucks, Kerry would probably bring in Schumer.
I can understand a 3rd party vote, but Jane Fonda Kerry?
You're right about the moral fabric of the country, but that still relates to the size of government and to the activist judges with their socialist/godless agenda meddling in our lives and telling us what we can and can't do in our own states, communities and homes. Reduce the size of government and you give the power of morality back to the people. Reduce the size of the government, and the people can be free to determine how their children are educated and disciplined. Reduce the size of the government and local jurisdictions can decide for themselves whether to have a nativity in a public park or the Ten Commandments in the courthouse or whether to have prayer and the pledge of allegiance in the schools. Reduce the size of government and the states and communities can decide just how much perversion and immorality they will tolerate.
The lifeline of big government has to be cut to effect change in the moral climate of America. As long as the obscene government funding continues for enterprises and organizations that are anti-American and immoral at the core, our culture will continue to erode and fall into decay.
There are several quotes that address the issue. The one you're looking for was made by John Adams:
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
I beg to differ. I believe Mo holds that title.
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.