On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 12:56:43AM -0400, Norbert Cartagena wrote:
> Paul M Foster wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 11:06:35PM -0400, Norbert Cartagena wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > (P.S. Paul, as for a vast right-wing conspirracy, what do you call the
> > > WTO?)
> >
> > I don't actually know that much about the WTO. I presume their purpose
> > is to promote trade across traditional trade barriers.
>
> Yes, that is their stated purpose, but you fail to see AT WHAT COST this
> is accoplished. These, my friend, are the people who have FORCED us to
> cahnge many of our environmental laws as well as our worker laws in
> order to create a more "competitive" environment for multi-national
> corporations. They force countries to change even their constitutions,
> threatening forced economic retaliation if they don't, in order to
> plaease their multi-national corporate masters. A body of nopn-electred
> officials imposing their will on sovereign nations under the threat of
> economnic sanctions forced unto their other members (a good example is
> how ther WTO forced us to put sacntions on India because it was in their
> constitution to not allow companies to pattent life - ie. pattented
> bio-engineered organisms which, iunder Indian law, had no validity
> because, to them no form of life can be pettented. In order to lift
> sanctions they had to allow Monsanto, the multinational chemical
> company, to have a pattent on life, which they consider holy and
> unppattentable). Yeah, the WTO promotes trade, but who comes out
> winning? The multinationsal that own it, not the citizens of the country
> they're supposed to help. Remeber those nice dolphin laws we used to
> have to protect dolphins from getting caught in tuna-nets? Well, im
> order to allow other countired to "fairly" sell tuna in the US, we HAD
> to lift those laws!!! Laws we voted on and passed as a sovereignty!!!!
> Granted, many Tuna companies are still Dolphin safe (so they claim), but
> many others are not! The point is that out sovereignty as a nation was
> violated! And this is the result of Capitalism run amok (yeah,
> capitalism is good, but letting it run free is NOT a good idea). Yeah,
> the market will sort itself out -- into 8 or so mega corporations that
> will implant chips on your butt to know what you do with who and when.
> And, for the record, all WTO meetins are completely closed door meetings
> - no reporters intide, not even any publicly available records. You
> wanna se the mythical "Illuminati"? Look at the WTO.
>
I can't argue this very well, since I have only your description of
these things. Of course, I'm not particularly dolphin-friendly myself.
> > I fail to see
> > the harm in this. In fact, I can see a great deal of good coming from
> > it. And how is it right-wing?
>
> Right wing - no interference from the government in economic matters.
> This is what happens. Why pay attention to government when youi could
> opress people directly?
In general, though, leaving business alone is a good thing.
> >
> > Now, NATO is a vast left-wing conspiracy. Witness their currently
> > scheduled conference on the elimination of small arms all over the
> > world. They are holding closed door meetings to strategize how to
> > eliminate personal ownership of firearms worldwide, including the United
> > States. In complete contravention of our Constitution. This is just one
> > of a number of ultra-liberal things they're involved in.
>
Argh. Yes, I meant UN.
> DO you mean the UN or Nato here? NATO only has presidence over its
> member nations - hardly nations all over the world. As for the UN, yeah,
> and they're also talking about a one world government. I, like you,
> disagree with the elimination of personal ownership of firearms - yes, I
> support the existence of the NRA, even though I disagree with some of
> their points, such as the gun-show loop holes. However, the good they do
> far outweighs the evil they do. If we fight the evil and accept the good
> - is that not our duty as citizens? Remember, Government belongs to the
> people and in the end, only the will of the people trully rules - or at
> least that's the way it's supposed to be. Politicians all over ("right"
> and "left" wing alike) seem to think that you're more equal than others
> if your pocket book is big enough (as Cheney displayed in the little
> Clinton-Like fund raising party for his energy sector friends and
> lobyists he did this weekend).
Clinton sold the Lincoln bedroom and sold the US out to anyone and
everyone. Hardly comparable to Cheney.
> This is why term-limits are such a good
> idea, too bad that no-one's been able to fill that promise ("I will
> support term limits for my 7th term in a row!!" "Me too!" "Me too!").
Agreed. I think "career politicians" is against what the Founding
Fathers intended.
> Unless, of course, you have as many connections as the Bush Dynasty.
> Then, who cares about term limits!!! You have money and power!
>
Puhleeze. You're not even rational on this subject. Bush has some honor,
which is more than I can say for anything connected to the Clintons. And
a reminder: Bush Sr. was a one-term president, Bush Jr. was a
term-and-a-half governor, and Jeb has only been in office less than a
full term.
I don't think any of your statements about the Bushes and Cheney are
grounded in any facts at all. I think it's just your left-wing bias. You
just automatically dislike these guys. Cheney's probably the most
intelligent, erudite person to occupy the pres/vp slot in a hundred
years.
You probably don't like Reagan, either. Ugh.
> >
> > It escapes me why so many conservatives support the UN.
> >
>
> Because it's the only thing that has stopped the onset of World War 3,
> and you know it. The League of Nations was the perfect example of this.
> Culd they have stopped WW2? No, they didn't have the teeth. But they
> could have certainly had a greater effect had 1) the US supported it and
> 2) had it had any teeth, any troops.
>
I don't know any such thing, and such a claim is ludicrous. The US and
USSR prevented WWIII by knowing what devastation would occur should they
spark it.
I don't favor any international body "preventing" wars. If two states
want to go to war, let them. It's not up to us or anyone else to stop
it. We can try to mediate, and we can step in if our national interests
are at risk.
Yes, the US, by virtue of its power, gets to be the bully of the world.
Fine by me. We earned the right to push the world around. And despite
what the rest of the world _says_ we are more benevolent than any of the
rest of the world would be in our position.
I used to think it was unfair of the US to unduly influence the rest of
the world in favor of democracy, etc. But I recently realized that it
was in the best interest of the world to do what we do.
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:40:54 EDT