1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Whose freedoms?

Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by ktn4eg, Aug 2, 2011.

  1. glfredrick

    glfredrick New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,996
    Likes Received:
    2
    Good job mods... By pulling the map, you eliminate the evidence for my position. :wavey:
     
  2. billwald

    billwald New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    2
    >Have you actually considered the impact to trade and global economy that you're proposing?

    YES! The USA is large enough to be our own market if the manufacturing jobs came home and the working people had money to spend. The global economy is killing us, not helping us.
     
  3. Don

    Don Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    11,048
    Likes Received:
    321
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Manufacturing jobs...manufacturing with what?

    In one sense, you're absolutely correct: You want to create jobs in this country? Then look at manufacturing requirements. You want to sell clothes in Wal-mart? Then someone has to sew them. Where do we get the material? From the people who manufacture cotton into cloth, and of course, the people who grow and harvest the cotton.

    But how much do we import to make many of the things we buy every day from convenience stores?

    What about the oil that's used for petroleum products? How much of that is produced within our country, and how many products would we have to stop making in order to not overtax our country's oil production?

    In other words, have you truly thought out what you're proposing? What products will we be able to continue making on our own, and what will we have to discontinue?
     
  4. poncho

    poncho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Ron Paul, Non-Intervention, and the Real Isolationists

    I believe billwald is proposing non interventionism not isolationism.

    Isolationism is a word people throw around to make it sound as if those opposed to an increasingly expensive unsustainable all war all the time everywhere policy are selfish ingrates on the "fringe" and of course "a danger to their own country". Which is just warfare state propaganda borrowed from the Nazis repackaged and "americanized".

    I've noticed that those who use the word isolationism are either trying to shut down a discussion of foreign policy before someone who opposes an all war all the time everywhere policy starts to make sense or, they don't know the difference between isolationism and non interventionism.

    Intervention is defined in the dictionary as the "interposition or interference of one state in the affairs of another." That is, specifically, the act or fact of altering the affairs of one state by the willful action or coercion of another state. There are many examples of such intervention in world history, should one wish to educate themselves as to more exactly what it means. Our combat engagements (since there is no declared war) in Iraq are a form of intervention. Our economic sanctions against Cuba are another. Of course, in the interest of fairness, there have been plenty of positive instances of intervention as well, such as the liberation of Vichy France.

    Isolation, on the other hand, is defined as "a policy or doctrine of nonparticipation in international economic and political activities." That is, specifically, the decision of one country to focus the entirety of its citizenry and industry within its own borders. Thus, no trade, no talking, no participation with the rest of the world in any form. Those of you who have taken even the most rudimentary of economics courses know how wonderful trade is in creating wealth. Those of you who study history will know how woeful a decision it is to isolate one's country from participation in its community. And that, really, is the most important distinction: participation.

    What exactly does that distinction mean?

    CONTINUE . . .

    If you got a better idea then let's hear it.
     
    #24 poncho, Aug 11, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 11, 2011
  5. billwald

    billwald New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    2
    >Intervention is defined in the dictionary as the "interposition or interference of one state in the affairs of another."

    And in the current trade situation US legislation encourages sending US jobs off shore. After WW2 we manufactured most all the consumer goods we needed or wanted. Now 90% of our clothing is manufactured in China and it is almost impossible to buy US made home appliances.

    Henry Ford said he paid his workers a living wage so they could buy the products he made in his factory. His grandkids have moved the factory to Brazil, Spain, and Turkey so we only need half a living wage and credit to buy his products. (If you require two working adults to pay your bills then you must each be making half a living wage. <G>)
     
  6. poncho

    poncho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Right and who benefits? The American people as we were all lead to believe when we were herded into NAFTA and GATT? No, we do not. The global mega corporations and the bankers who finance them benefit . . . at our expence.

    Anyone out there who still thinks that our government is at the top of the power structure in these United States has rocks in their head. The bankers and corporations own our government lock stock and barrel.

    We go to "war" for the benefit of a handful of global elites that couldn't care less what happens to our troops or this country.

    What has "internationalism" and "interventionism" (in a word, globalization) done for us? Well, it's helped to lower our wages, increase unemployment, increase the size and scope of government, reduced our freedoms, bankrupted us, sent our children to die and be maimed in needless interventons in several countries around the world with even more in the planning stage and is turning a once free nation into a militarized big brother stasi police state. And who benefits?

    The global central banksters and corporations. These are the real enemies of freedom.

    The sooner you all figure this out the sooner we can all start working to get this country back on the right track. In the words of Jim Morrison, "break on through to the other side" get out of the false left vs right paradigm and realize that the global elite use both parties to ram their "international" (one world government) policies down our throats.
     
    #26 poncho, Aug 13, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 13, 2011
  7. Don

    Don Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    11,048
    Likes Received:
    321
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Bill and Poncho, you're absolutely correct; but you're not being realistic.

    I'll give you an example of what I'm talking about, and then I'll tell you outright what the problem with what you're saying is.

    Background: The Navy has contracted out their network services. It used to be called "Navy-Marine Corps Internet" (NMCI). It's currently in contract renewal. The contract has had "scope creep" since day 1, and costs continue to spiral out of control. A Navy member in Hawaii has to contact the NMCI Help Desk on the East Coast in order to request work to be done. Everything is identified as a "service"; the computer under your desk is a "provided service" in order to run the data and network services you need to do your job. Each service is specifically identified in the contract; if you need additional software, or a new scanner that's not currently on the contract, you have requested a contract modification that requires additional costs.

    Problem: The Navy is completely dissatisfied with the way the overall service has gone, and are trying to develop a plan to take themselves off the contract and revert to military only. This is more complicated than previously thought, because implementation of the contract meant they didn't need as many IT specialists, and now the Navy doesn't have the military manpower and IT knowledge to replace the contractors. Any plan they come up with will take at least 5 years to implement while they gain authorization to add more military members (which, by the way, in an environment of budget cuts, is a challenge in and of itself), and then implement training courses to ensure those military members have the IT skills necessary to take over the technology; not to mention, contract termination fees and costs.

    In other words, for the Navy, they're facing a situation where the "status quo" may be the way they *have* to go because they've inadvertently put themselves in a position they don't have the resources (financially and otherwise) to recover from.

    How does this relate to what you two are stating? Where are our manufacturing capabilities in the U.S.? How long will it take to ramp up the manufacturing capabilities for everything we'll need to continue U.S. self-sustainment? Where are the trade schools and training courses to ensure we have the people who can do the manufacturing?

    Has the U.S., in its "globalization" endeavors, put itself into a position where it may have to maintain the status quo, simply because we don't have the resources (financial and/or otherwise) to implement what you're proposing?
     
    #27 Don, Aug 13, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 13, 2011
  8. poncho

    poncho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Haven't forgotten about ya Don just got busy in other areas. I'll get back here to address your questions soon as I can. :thumbs:
     
Loading...