BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

NotNow[_2_]

wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 08:46:22 -0400, NotNow wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 17:38:08 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote:

Oh, come on now. You can't possibly think that the
Bush/Cheney/Halliburtion/Dubai debacle was on the up and up. No one
except a complete opposite of Harry could think that!!!!!!
Former President Clinton had a pretty sweet consulting deal with Dubai
too.
And China... can you say "How much to sleep in the Rincoln bedroom?"
It is no accident that WalMart doubled it's market share in the 90s.
They are from Bentonville Arkansas, a suburb of Little Rock.

Aren't republicans FOR free trade? Or is that with certain qualifiers?

I don't have a problem with free trade,
The real question was if this was "fair" trade.
We pile environmental, labor and safety laws on our corporations (not
a bad idea) without imposing those on the competition (the bad part),
then wonder why they kick our ass.

Ah, so then it's not free trade if we put a bunch of restrictions on it,
not is it? If the cost of environmental and safety laws make us
non-competitive in a certain sector, it's time to re-invent.

BTW this trend still continues. All of the upcoming "carbon" and
existing CFC protocols that favor countries like China and Mexico who
are largely exempt.

So? First of all that's the personification of "free trade". I take it
you really don't want free trade at all, you just don't want anyone in
the U.S. bound by any rules. Tell me, what ARE Mexico and China's
environmental, safety and labor laws anyway? Don't say they are
non-existent because that's not true.

Do you have a problem with the unions getting "busted" because all
the jobs are in China now?

Nope.