Free trade's victims turning against Bush, GOP

The Herald Sun ^ | August 25, 2003 | associated press

[Poohbah]

And, I might add, in your usual distorting manner, you failed to address the real points.

I addressed them. You just didn't like the answers, and you have no facts to challenge them with, so you are left with a claim that I distorted them.

Waah, waah, waah. Tango Sierra.

You never really want to address anyone's post in its entirety, you pick and choose things out of context, a snippet here or there.

Yes, a sentence here, the next sentence there, the sentence after that over there...

Until I run out of your sentences to quote, of course.

And, once again, the politician's whine of "I was taken out of context."

Professional politicians don't get a pass here, son. Neither do people who try to act like the worst of them.

I note that most of your anarchist buddies have a similar style.

"Anarchist?"

BWAHAHA!

Is your mission one of discrediting the far Right?

I leave that task to your eminently-capable hands.

[GOP_1900AD]

So why are you whining here to your little cabal of America haters?

[GOP_1900AD]

Specifically, among other failures, you did not address the point I made about specific instances where US headquartered companies (of which I listed four but there are others beyond these) have at best, failed ethically and empowered America's enemies, and at worst, committed treason. Do I have to hit you over the head with one point per post and couch my questions in such a manner that you provide a yes no answer? Is that what it takes to engage in a debate with you?

[Poohbah]

So why are you whining here to your little cabal of America haters?

Ah, so it's a "cabal" now.

Hard to keep those code words straight.

I was just pointing out to other people that you've made ad hominem remarks to or about your stunning hypocrisy.

I can understand why you would dislike me doing that.

[Jeff Head]

Belmont, the way your plan is worded on investigating companies...it does amount to proscribing an investigation of every company and every one of their employees across this whole nation and the nations we do business with.

I believe that there must be a specific reason (probable cause) for each such an investigation before it can begin.

There are already plenty of areas where that probable cause may exist to take up any serious AG's time. If those companies in violation are punished severally and in public for the proven violations, it will act as a deterrent for the whole...which is how it should work.

In addition, for those companies working on classified material, a serious enforcement and proscribing of existing classified materials and security classification would work. It used to be much tighter and more difficult than it is now in my opinion.

Otherwise, we are setting up the entire nation up for a massive all entrusive governmental undertaking of all companies and all employees...probably logistically impossible and something the people (yours truly included ) would not sit still for. Imagine the bureauracy and government spending necessary for such an undertaking. Imagine the chances and opportunities for abuse, particularly under am administration like the former one (Clinton).

You should seriously consider rewording at least that part of your plan IMHO.

Now, there is no doubt in my mind that the level of outsourcing of our manufacturing, technological and agricultural base that is going on today is foolhardy and dangerous. Not only is it hurting American workers and allowing for significant technology transfer associated with it, but we are placing the physical assets necessary for us to operate as a nation in the hands of nations who are some of our most potential adversaries.

Making yourself dependent upon and vulnerable to such adversaries is never a good idea. Like I said, it is foolhardy at best.

We need policies that address this issue and protect our free market for what is was intended, and that is the free, unrestricted trade between free nations. When nations who represent the anti-thesis of freedom and liberty want to get involved...you restrict them from it until they change, letting up on those restrictions progressively as they change.

We don't need another massive governmental program that restricts us all to do this. In fact, we need to remove th heavy governmental restrictions already placed on American workers (heavy social restructuring taxation, OSHA, myriad Agenda 21 environmental restrictions, Employment, etc.) to make them more competitive. IMHO, we also need to establish incentives for invetiveness, quality and competitiveness, and then, except for using our trade restrictions to keep undesirable, totalitarian and non-free nations out of the mix (ala some of harpseals proposals), government needs to get the heck out of the way altogether.

Just my opinion.

Jeff

[Poohbah]

Specifically, among other failures, you did not address the point I made about specific instances where US headquartered companies (of which I listed four but there are others beyond these) have at best, failed ethically and empowered America's enemies, and at worst, committed treason.

Out of pity for you, I don't address every inane and foolish argument you make, particularly the idiotic ones that ignores basic elements of jurisprudence.

What A, B, and C may or may not have done is irrelevant to the question of whether there is probable cause to investigate X, Y, and Z.

One needs specific reason to conduct an investigation. You refuse to recognize that fact.

Do I have to hit you over the head with one point per post and couch my questions in such a manner that you provide a yes no answer? Is that what it takes to engage in a debate with you?

No, it takes the ability on your part to recognize that you don't know what you're talking about. Until then, I'm the one debating, and you're just demonstrating your ignorance.

[Alamo-Girl]

Your opinion sounds right to me, Jeff!

[GOP_1900AD]

Hi Jeff, thanks for the CONSTRUCTIVE discussion (unlike the ad hominem attacks coming in from a few others). You have made some good points and these will help to make this proposal even stronger. Mainly, the proposal as it stands is constructed from a very extreme and doctrinaire standpoint, something to spark further thought and discusion. Parts of it can be leveraged for other proposals, orders and strategies. Thanks again!

[GOP_1900AD]

Yes, it is a cabal. On these posts which question our current suicidal globalism, it is always the same group who show up to discredit. I've also noticed largely the same cabal showing up on any posts which have to do with the increasing geopolitical threat of the PRC. Do you work for the PRC?

[Poohbah]

Yes, it is a cabal. On these posts which question our current suicidal globalism, it is always the same group who show up to discredit.

And it's always the same (very small) group who shows up screaming that the sky is falling, so I guess you're guilty of being part of a cabal as wel.

I've also noticed largely the same cabal showing up on any posts which have to do with the increasing geopolitical threat of the PRC. Do you work for the PRC?

No.

And you've just revealed the abject shortcomings of your character. Unable to argue with facts, you engage in ad hominem attack, accusing all who disagree with you of disloyalty. Of course, you'd NEVER say that sort of thing face-to-face.

[GOP_1900AD]

You have no idea what I would or would not say face to face. However, I think we are getting off track here. Time to focus back on the matter at hand. Would you be categorically opposed to a more stringent (Federally required) background check on any H1Bs, L1s or Permanent Residents who are hired by US based companies or by foreign firms' subsidiaries here? Would you be categorically opposed to a ban on hiring the nationals of countries on a proscribed list? How would you propose keeping active PLA or ErBu from working for companies based in the US?

[rdb3]

Of course, you'd NEVER say that sort of thing face-to-face.

Precisely. That may be a case where one's mouth may write a check that one's hindparts can't cash.

[GOP_1900AD]

It would appear that this may be a case of illegal interference in foreign policy by a US headquartered corporation. Seems like probable cause and reason for FBI and CIA to launch an investigation.

[DarkWaters]

It's utterly devoid of meaning, even if it was factual.

If something is factual, then how is it devoid of meaning? It is what it is and nothing else. If something where even a lie it wouldn't be devoid of meaning, since it would tell you something about the lie and the context that it is washed in.

Simply put you contradict yourself in the same sentence. It makes no sense, but it certainly doesn't mean your lack of thought on the subject matter has no meaning either. It revels a great deal about what kind of person you are, someone who will excuse anything so long as things remain the same. Alas, the true undercurrents of real change always occur in this time period because no one was willing to be honest with what was going which is required to nip events in the bud otherwise chaos reigns supreme. And then you want to talk about losing your rights? You and everyone else will be too worried about your own survival to be worried about a constitution or any semblance of law. There are those of us who would like to avoid this worst case scenario, to do so requires prudence and honest and not deception and denial.

[Poohbah]

If something is factual, then how is it devoid of meaning?

If Bill Clinton were to complain about you being a crook...I would be hard-pressed to actually care about it, even if you were some sort of crook, simply because he's so much worse a crook than the mean or median for crooks.

[Poohbah]

It would appear that this may be a case of illegal interference in foreign policy by a US headquartered corporation. Seems like probable cause and reason for FBI and CIA to launch an investigation.

Please cite the appropriate US law making it illegal for someone employed by a US company from expressing his opinions in talks with officials of a foreign country, particularly. I'd really like to see that section of the US Code.

[GOP_1900AD]

So that means you approve of Jesse Jackson going on his globe trotting Anti American rubbish spouting junkets? Did you also approve of Sean Penn going over and being a Saddam bootlicker?

[Poohbah]

So that means you approve of Jesse Jackson going on his globe trotting Anti American rubbish spouting junkets?

No.

But you need to cite the appropriate section of the US Code that forbids such actions.

Did you also approve of Sean Penn going over and being a Saddam bootlicker?

No.

But you need to cite the appropriate section of the US Code that forbids such actions.

Rhetoric is a fine thing when you're simply on the stump. But when you start talking about things being "illegal," you really need to show exactly how they are illegal.

[rdb3]

I'd really like to see that section of the US Code.

As would I.

[Poohbah]

I'm not holding my breath waiting for belmont_mark to provide the citation.

I hear asphyxiation is not a pleasant way to die.