Whoever said it was most likely referring to religious and not political dogma.
In any case, we all know what appealed to you about this quote and why you posted it. It's Will, as a Conservative Independent, declaring how superior he is to anyone who belongs to either of the two parties.
Wikipedia/Political positions of Ralph Nader/Free trade: Nader is a staunch opponent of free trade.
Ned Lamont on Free Trade: In the last 18 years [of Lieberman's 3 terms], we have lost 40% of our manufacturing-related jobs. We have lost over half of our defense-related jobs. People are earning less. A lot of our good paying jobs are leaving the state and leaving the country. Senator Lieberman has never seen a trade agreement that he didn't applaud. I don't think this is the type of leadership we want. When it comes to bringing home things for the state of Connecticut, we are 49th out of 50 states.
Ned Lamont: I support strictly-enforced fair trade policies which level the playing field, requiring that American products have the same access to Chinese markets that Chinese products have to American markets. I would support only reciprocal trade agreements which include strong labor and environmental standards.
A smart man. Obviously Will would strongly disagree with Lamont's stand on trade.
I voted for Lamont over the Iraq War/Liebermann's incessant hawkishness.............And Mr. Lamont was clearly wrong about people earning less over those 18 years. Real disposable income went up significantly over that time.............China's a tough one, wd. While, yes, there's a part of me that wouldn't mind getting a little tougher with the bastards, even with them it gets a little tricky. a) They own a significant part of our new debt and it's never a very good idea to piss off your banker. b) The fact that they're already retaliating (i.e., when Obama put that tariff on tires, they responded by slapping one on American autos - a hughly emerging car market, wd) against us. And c) a lot of the people in this country benefit greatly from the lower prices and this in turn helps out other businesses (in my Newport example; hotel workers, restauranteurs, artists, gallery owners, etc.). It's a very delicate situation, wd.
As dmarks would say, the [trade] war is already on. You want to allow the current level of Chinese attacks to continue because you're afraid that if we fight back they'll attack us more. Problem is Will, using your strategy we are guaranteed to lose.
Anyway, my point is that dmarks' claim that your voting record proves you're not a Conservative is false. You voted for politicians that disagree with your Conservative positions. Your voting record proves nothing.
All we need to do is look at your posts to see you're a Conservative.
They put a tariff on American autos in response to the tariff that we put on tires. China is a hugely emerging auto market and we've essentially put that in jeopardy.......And if they don't buy up any more of our debt in further retaliation, then what, wd? Who buys the debt up then, the SEIU?......I voted against politicians who disagree with my conservative positions? Being against the Iraq War and voting AGAINST Liebermann and Bush? You're insane, you know that?
Will: I voted against politicians who disagree with my conservative positions? Being against the Iraq War and voting AGAINST Liebermann and Bush? You're insane, you know that?
If one of us is insane I'd say it's you, given that your prior comment reads as nonsense to me (I have no idea what you're saying).
a) You said that I vote against peple who disagree with MY CONSERVATIVE POSITIONS. What are you fucking talking about? I told you that I voted against Mr. Liebermann due to my opposition to the Iraq War. How in the hell is that a conservative position? b) I said that the Chinese hold a majority of our NEW debt. You really need to read more carefully.
A) What are YOU fucking talking about? I didn't say any such thing. Are you making up crazy sounding shit and trying to fool people into thinking I really said it in order to bolster your claim that I'm "nuts"?
B) OK, so what you're worried about is what happens if China stops buying our debt?
The problem is that, due to your simplistic view of this problem, you don't realize that it's the free trade insanity that put us in this situation! Because of the huge trade deficit, China doesn't have a lot of options regarding what to do with all the dollars we're sending them. Buy our debt or our assets.
If we stop sending them our jobs our economy will improve. More people with good jobs will increase tax revenues and we won't need to borrow so much. Perhaps we can even start paying down the debt like we were close to being able to do under Clinton.
Free trade is only going to make the problem WORSE. We will continue to get poorer and the amount of our debt China holds will continue to increase.
I, for one, do not have any irrational fear of Mexicans. While so many on the Right do (over immigration) and many on the Left do also (over Mexican workers and NAFTA)
dmarks: ...many on the Left do also (over Mexican workers and NAFTA)
Of course you don't. Because you want to drop the wages of American workers until they're on par with Mexican workers. dmarks is enthusiastically on board with the plan to destroy the middle class and transfer their wealth to the plutocrats.
No, I don't. That is a pure fabrication and a false accusation. Why not attack me for what I want, instead of such a tranparent straw man attempt?
I won't bother defending this, since it is not my view or goal, and never was my statement.
"dmarks is enthusiastically on board with the plan..."
Not my plan. I hope the person you are really speaking to and mistakenly using my name for shows up sometime. Until then, you are a fool flapping his gums.
I didn't use a straw man. You frequently comment about how you think some workers are getting paid to much, which is why you want to do away with the minimum wage. And free trade IS pushing down wages here. That's a fact and not at all a straw man.
Which leads me to wonder... why did you link to the definition but not read it?
Also, there is no mistake regarding who I'm talking to. The person my comments are directed to is here now. We don't have to wait for him to show up.
"I didn't use a straw man. You frequently comment about how you think some workers are getting paid to much"
This is an obvious fact, in the case of a certain number of minimum wage earners who are being given unearned handouts above the fair value of the work as a result of "minimum wage" laws. But this is only some of the 6% who are minimum wage earners, which makes it a small percentage of workers indeed.
Some also end up making less as a result of the minimum wage laws. A lot less. These are the thousands who lose their jobs when small businesses are forced to fire people due to minimum wage increases. Clearly, these workers deserve more and better than this.
"Which leads me to wonder... why did you link to the definition but not read it?"
I did. You didn't.
"Also, there is no mistake regarding who I'm talking to."
There is. You are making up stuff I never said and attributing it to me.
"The person my comments are directed to is here now."
wd, I apologize for the harshness of that final comment of mine. It was late and I got a little blustery. I will try to stick to the topic in the future.
There's a part of me that really wants to like you, wd. I mean, you're not the first idealistic young man whose ever existed - you do in fact know that, correct?
I'll tell you what, wd. I appreciated your idea of getting rid of loopholes and reducing the corporate tax rate to 25%. That would insure that a company like GE (which, I gather, paid nothing) would in fact pay the same as a company like UPS (which, I gather, paid a lot).
28 comments:
Dogma is the friend of a lazy mind.
Whoever said it was most likely referring to religious and not political dogma.
In any case, we all know what appealed to you about this quote and why you posted it. It's Will, as a Conservative Independent, declaring how superior he is to anyone who belongs to either of the two parties.
Sorry to break it to you, WD, but Will is no conservative. His Presidential voting record (past and stated future intention) proves it.
"My karma ran over your dogma."
dmarks: Sorry to break it to you, WD, but Will is no conservative. His Presidential voting record (past and stated future intention) proves it.
How?
Nader in 2000. Kerry in 2004. Lamont in 2006.
I said "how", not "who".
In any case, what about this (info below)?
Wikipedia/Political positions of Ralph Nader/Free trade: Nader is a staunch opponent of free trade.
Ned Lamont on Free Trade: In the last 18 years [of Lieberman's 3 terms], we have lost 40% of our manufacturing-related jobs. We have lost over half of our defense-related jobs. People are earning less. A lot of our good paying jobs are leaving the state and leaving the country. Senator Lieberman has never seen a trade agreement that he didn't applaud. I don't think this is the type of leadership we want. When it comes to bringing home things for the state of Connecticut, we are 49th out of 50 states.
Ned Lamont: I support strictly-enforced fair trade policies which level the playing field, requiring that American products have the same access to Chinese markets that Chinese products have to American markets. I would support only reciprocal trade agreements which include strong labor and environmental standards.
A smart man. Obviously Will would strongly disagree with Lamont's stand on trade.
I voted for Lamont over the Iraq War/Liebermann's incessant hawkishness.............And Mr. Lamont was clearly wrong about people earning less over those 18 years. Real disposable income went up significantly over that time.............China's a tough one, wd. While, yes, there's a part of me that wouldn't mind getting a little tougher with the bastards, even with them it gets a little tricky. a) They own a significant part of our new debt and it's never a very good idea to piss off your banker. b) The fact that they're already retaliating (i.e., when Obama put that tariff on tires, they responded by slapping one on American autos - a hughly emerging car market, wd) against us. And c) a lot of the people in this country benefit greatly from the lower prices and this in turn helps out other businesses (in my Newport example; hotel workers, restauranteurs, artists, gallery owners, etc.). It's a very delicate situation, wd.
Will: It's a very delicate situation...
As dmarks would say, the [trade] war is already on. You want to allow the current level of Chinese attacks to continue because you're afraid that if we fight back they'll attack us more. Problem is Will, using your strategy we are guaranteed to lose.
Anyway, my point is that dmarks' claim that your voting record proves you're not a Conservative is false. You voted for politicians that disagree with your Conservative positions. Your voting record proves nothing.
All we need to do is look at your posts to see you're a Conservative.
They put a tariff on American autos in response to the tariff that we put on tires. China is a hugely emerging auto market and we've essentially put that in jeopardy.......And if they don't buy up any more of our debt in further retaliation, then what, wd? Who buys the debt up then, the SEIU?......I voted against politicians who disagree with my conservative positions? Being against the Iraq War and voting AGAINST Liebermann and Bush? You're insane, you know that?
Will: I voted against politicians who disagree with my conservative positions? Being against the Iraq War and voting AGAINST Liebermann and Bush? You're insane, you know that?
If one of us is insane I'd say it's you, given that your prior comment reads as nonsense to me (I have no idea what you're saying).
Also, most US debt is held by Americans.
a) You said that I vote against peple who disagree with MY CONSERVATIVE POSITIONS. What are you fucking talking about? I told you that I voted against Mr. Liebermann due to my opposition to the Iraq War. How in the hell is that a conservative position? b) I said that the Chinese hold a majority of our NEW debt. You really need to read more carefully.
A) What are YOU fucking talking about? I didn't say any such thing. Are you making up crazy sounding shit and trying to fool people into thinking I really said it in order to bolster your claim that I'm "nuts"?
B) OK, so what you're worried about is what happens if China stops buying our debt?
The problem is that, due to your simplistic view of this problem, you don't realize that it's the free trade insanity that put us in this situation! Because of the huge trade deficit, China doesn't have a lot of options regarding what to do with all the dollars we're sending them. Buy our debt or our assets.
If we stop sending them our jobs our economy will improve. More people with good jobs will increase tax revenues and we won't need to borrow so much. Perhaps we can even start paying down the debt like we were close to being able to do under Clinton.
Free trade is only going to make the problem WORSE. We will continue to get poorer and the amount of our debt China holds will continue to increase.
WD said: "Your voting record proves nothing."
I respectfully disagree. A person's voting record is the most important indicator of something like this, not a secondary one.
dmarks: A person's voting record is the most important indicator of something like this, not a secondary one.
Will voted for candidates who are against free trade, so using your logic that means Will is also against free trade.
How do you explain his recent post saying he was in FAVOR of free trade?
Did someone hack his account?
I, for one, do not have any irrational fear of Mexicans. While so many on the Right do (over immigration) and many on the Left do also (over Mexican workers and NAFTA)
dmarks: ...many on the Left do also (over Mexican workers and NAFTA)
Of course you don't. Because you want to drop the wages of American workers until they're on par with Mexican workers. dmarks is enthusiastically on board with the plan to destroy the middle class and transfer their wealth to the plutocrats.
"Because you want to..."
No, I don't. That is a pure fabrication and a false accusation. Why not attack me for what I want, instead of such a tranparent straw man attempt?
I won't bother defending this, since it is not my view or goal, and never was my statement.
"dmarks is enthusiastically on board with the plan..."
Not my plan. I hope the person you are really speaking to and mistakenly using my name for shows up sometime. Until then, you are a fool flapping his gums.
I didn't use a straw man. You frequently comment about how you think some workers are getting paid to much, which is why you want to do away with the minimum wage. And free trade IS pushing down wages here. That's a fact and not at all a straw man.
Which leads me to wonder... why did you link to the definition but not read it?
Also, there is no mistake regarding who I'm talking to. The person my comments are directed to is here now. We don't have to wait for him to show up.
"I didn't use a straw man. You frequently comment about how you think some workers are getting paid to much"
This is an obvious fact, in the case of a certain number of minimum wage earners who are being given unearned handouts above the fair value of the work as a result of "minimum wage" laws. But this is only some of the 6% who are minimum wage earners, which makes it a small percentage of workers indeed.
Some also end up making less as a result of the minimum wage laws. A lot less. These are the thousands who lose their jobs when small businesses are forced to fire people due to minimum wage increases. Clearly, these workers deserve more and better than this.
"Which leads me to wonder... why did you link to the definition but not read it?"
I did. You didn't.
"Also, there is no mistake regarding who I'm talking to."
There is. You are making up stuff I never said and attributing it to me.
"The person my comments are directed to is here now."
Why not instead attack me for my actual views?
Actually, I let this one slip by:
"And free trade IS pushing down wages here. That's a fact".
No, it is not. It is quite disputed: I find many arguments on your side, and many opposing.
wd, I apologize for the harshness of that final comment of mine. It was late and I got a little blustery. I will try to stick to the topic in the future.
But I'm still nuts, right?
There's a part of me that really wants to like you, wd. I mean, you're not the first idealistic young man whose ever existed - you do in fact know that, correct?
Let me guess...
idealistic = misguided?
I'll tell you what, wd. I appreciated your idea of getting rid of loopholes and reducing the corporate tax rate to 25%. That would insure that a company like GE (which, I gather, paid nothing) would in fact pay the same as a company like UPS (which, I gather, paid a lot).
Dogma spelled backwards is
amgod...
Post a Comment