Posted on 05/08/2007 6:35:55 PM PDT by rob21
Just thought that this would be of interest to Duncan Hunter supporters.
I was just watching Hannity and Colmes and Sean Hannity asked her who she supports for president. She replied "Duncan Hunter". Sean said, "But do you really think that he can win?". Ann then said that he might win if Sean Hannity would actually talk about him on his show.
I'm glad that Ann called Hannity on this. He has been hyping Giuliani for the past few months while ignoring the true conservative in the race.
I’m not suprised. She has long said Hunter is “outstanding”. Hopefully, she sees the Hunter is getting some mo, so she’s endorsed him now.
LOL.
I’ll lay off the wine next time.
That’s because Hunter is going to be the President.
I was very disappointed in the Rasmussen Poll that showed that Duncan did not pick up any traction from the debate. He is still in really low numbers and needs to do something to ignite his campaign. He is going to be out of a job as congressman and if nothing is done soon out of the White House. He still has time, but people were saying months ago that he will make strides and be in first place by Spring but that has not even near close. He is pretty much stalled at around 1 percent for around 9 months. Please explain what you see that I don’t. I am SERIOUSLY interested.
The Ann Coulter video’s been removed. :(
Those Third World nations were far worse in their practices prior to the inception of the WTO. If anything, it’s Europe rather than the third world that gets away with too much, particularly as it relates to the Third World. Farmers from the latter have had to deal with the high subsidization and tariffs protecting Europe’s agricultural producers in amber much as the United States has had to deal with Europe’s ridiculous junk science restrictions on selling genetically modified foods.
And yes, I am a (classical) liberal with respect to free markets, including free trade. However, I don’t believe the case for free trade has been made as effectively as other issues. As Brink Lindsay puts it,
“Unfortunately, back in this country, the supporters of the global economy too often play right into the hands of the Seattle crowd. Self-described free traders seldom make the case that open U.S. markets are beneficial regardless of whether other countries pursue similar policies. Worse, they demand “reciprocity” from our trade partners and decry “unilateral disarmament.” But since the United States is more open than most countries around the world, such rhetoric leaves the impression that we’ve been left with the short end of the stick. Consequently, the charge that we’ve ceded our sovereignty to faceless bureaucrats in Geneva looks plausible.
At the same time, supporters of trade liberalization too often expose their cause to guilt by association. In an analysis of congressional voting patterns, a Cato Institute study found that members of Congress who voted for lower trade barriers but higher trade subsidies (including IMF funding) outnumbered those who voted for free trade and against subsidies by better than 4 to 1. No wonder so many people believe that globalization is just a racket for big business. Also, the pro-trade camp tends to lump free trade together with support for international institutions generally: Backing the WTO, funding the IMF, and paying our U.N. dues are frequently presented as planks in a common platform.
To respond effectively to the growing anti-globalization movement, friends of free markets must make clear that their cause has nothing to do with top-down internationalism. Their polestar should be the national economic interest, here and abroad, in openness and competition. If international organizations can provide useful service to that interest, fine. If not, they should go. Consistent and clear-eyed free-trade nationalism is the best way to clear the protesters off the streets. The grim alternative is more tear gas and rubber bullets.”
Of course Lindsay is wrong in the last statement. Moonbats like those at the Seattle WTO Conference will not be appeased by greater transparency nor anything else.
Now, free trade requires trading partners, which means it opposes nations simply being arbitrarily assimilated in to one another. For instance, Sarkozy wants to stop “fiscal dumping” from countries like Ireland, i.e. he thinks the EU should be able to force Ireland to harmonize its tax rates with France’s and the rest of “old Europe’s”. This is counter to free trade and points out why, as Roger Scruton ably showed in his essay in the Cambridge Companion to Hayek that economic liberalism is safe only with conservatism to protect it. The cosmopolitan libertarian who thinks that membership in a nation means nothing, that nations are a thing of the past, that fences are not sometimes needed to make good neighbors, is simply mistaken in the same way Scruton demonstrates Hayek, for all his brilliance was.
More to the point, as Abraham Lincoln and Leon Kass in different contexts have argued, people are not commodities. The Wall Street Journal is therefore wrong to link the liberalizing of immigration, much less the “liberalizing” of illegal immigration, to free trade.
So yes, of course I support HR 4437! Despite his amnesty bill, I suspect President Reagan would have as well.
I wonder who the “user” was that removed it. Someone else can repost it. Walter??
The problem with “free trade” is that it is not free. The US is by and large following years of regulations and oversight, with the threat of lawsuits if they cheat or do something underhanded. In China, the commies in power help their industries cheat. Whether its thru espionage, bribes, subsidies, dumping, copyright and patent infringements, devaluing their currency, blocking imports, tariffs, etc.
They do all this right under our noses and we do next to nothing to stop it. And on top of that, they are our enemy. It makes NO SENSE to give China the upper hand, in anything, much less in a trade deal. They indeed have a goal to undermine our manufacturing. They have a goal to retake Taiwan. They sold nuclear technology to Pakistan and North Korea.
If you want this kind of unfettered, lopsided trade, at least have it with people that do not consider us to be their enemy.
Duncan Hunter not only will force renegotiations on trade with China, he will stiffly penalize them for malfeasance. And this nonsense of offsets will end.
Newt Gingrich is correct on this one:
In the US, there exists a coalition of union leaders who prefer protection over competition. This liberal coalition complains about companies’ outsourcing jobs while insisting on corporate taxes that encourage companies to go overseas. They prefer that government impose on business obsolete, absurd work rules, even though these raise costs, lower productivity, and make America less competitive in the world market.
The challenge to American economic supremacy from 1.3 billion Chinese and more than 1.1 billion Indians is vastly greater than anything we have previously seen. India’s embrace of capitalism and China’s bizarre combination of Marxist-Leninist government and free market initiatives will create a future where one-fourth of the world’s markets will be controlled by these countries. Those who advocate economic isolationism and protectionism are advocating a policy that could help China and India surpass the US in economic power in our children’s or grandchildren’s lifetime.
Working with the WTO and allies like Japan and Australia is America’s most effective tool to stop illegal Chinese practices such as patent infringement.
If China is attempting to undermine American manufacturing, it’s doing a terrible job. The best way to undermine American manufacturing is through “fair trade”... American manufacturing can be measured only by its output, not by the number of jobs in that sector of the economy, and output is up.
Perhaps it didn't create the desired effect...
Their inefficient practices have a long term goal. To undermine US manufacturing.
It might suck for them to have to subsidize exports, pay for spies in US research labs and manufacturing facilities, put up stiff tariffs on US products that the people might really want, spend millions on lobbyists to protect their racket in the halls of congress, put fake protien into animal feed, sell organs from prisoners, demand and bribe their way to get “offset” technology from companies who sell to them, spend money to buck up our enemies throughout the world, send their kids to the best US tech colleges, pirate software, run companies that counterfiet US brands, censor the internet, peg their currency to the dollar, and literally give away land for us to set up high tech manufacturing there, but its all worth it to them.
To create a paper tiger that cannot manufacture its own war machines - the US.
You can believe the chicoms are just a benign bunch of capitalists if you like. I don’t.
Go Hunter!
So long as America keeps to free market practices, trying to undermine its manufacturing is a fool’s errand-— as economists from Sowell to DiLorenzo have shown, predatory pricing doesn’t work.
The main reasons the United States has such a great war machine are 1) the heroes of our armed services 2) the fact that the United States is such a rich nation.
As Charles Pena puts it: “Whether it’s the president of the United States or a soldier on the front line, the ultimate criteria should be procuring the best, highest performing, technologically advanced and reliable equipment at the most reasonable cost. To do otherwise and simply buy American would be irresponsible and misguided patriotism.”
Pena needs his head examined. In his scenario we should outsource all of our arms manufacturing to China. We can show them how to make the things they haven’t yet stolen plans to. Teach them our R&D methods while we are at it. We can save billions each year and get more equipment to boot.
We’ll be even richer, and more dumb pricks can become lawyers and insurance salesmen, instead of engineers and machinists.
I never could understand why he had those people on.It was tedious to watch and I dont anymore.The last straw was his backing of roooooooooty.
In case anyone cares, I do too.
Pardon me for jumping in the middle of this but hey, if we’re gonna let china build our weapons why not let iran do it as well. I mean, I trust the chinamen as much as I trust the iranians. jeez.
I don’t expect to convince you that free trade makes America stronger, though-— my point has simply been to attempt to clarify the terms, i.e. to point out that Duncan Hunter believes in fair rather than free trade.
But Hunter’s main thrust is and always has been Security. That outsourcing critical technologies and manufacturing capabilities makes zero sense.
He’s not talking about stuffed animals and ball peen hammers.
On the other hand, I must admit General Shinseki’s recalling the Army berets because they had Chinese parts on the face of it seems to me to have been as dumb as the “berets for all” idea in the first place.
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.