Globalisation backlash in rich nations

And yet you continue to do so regularly. As far as ronnie goes I do not have any repect for him. Why that bothers you so is beyond me. But the disrespect folks like you have shown others like Rsuh or Sean isnt above anything I have said. What you think of them is of no concern to me except when you try to hold me to a standard you do not hold yourself to.



I never said you suggested redistibuting wealth was the answer. However to summize that CEO's should get less than they do because someone has less is a liberal view and certainly is supported in the article. And now having cired fowl at what I did not suggest you said you go and do it anyway. Lets get off the maerry go round.

While it may be indidividuals teaming up with CEO's for personal gain it most certainly isn't the government. The whole government is not in cahoots with such an idea and to suggst otherwise is inane and lacks credibility.

 

I understand, but there are many who might describe you as "rich". They don't know the salary range of your particular occupation. And then, of course, you work in the oil business. That automatically puts you on the side of evil and ill gotten wealth.:BangHead:

 

How many people ever say they read the article. Almosat always it is implied. However, suggesting that one has not read it is oftena tactic used when no real defense can be made.

 

So what? What does this prove?

 

It shows a reason, Timmy, why people are rebelling against free trade. You may not like. I may not like it. But it is reality that has to be taken into account when dealing with issues.

 

In other words, Timmy, you haven't read the article and can't deal with a substantive discussion on this subject.

 

Hey, Timmy, if you did have respect for Congressman Paul I would have to question whether I should continue to support him for president or not as it would mean that he was becoming acceptable to warvangelicals and I don't won't to be on the same political team as them.

 

So you do the same thing but you are upset at the way I do it as if it is different than the disrespect you show them Give me a break.

Worrying about who makes more than others is liberal. And then wanting to redrstribute that wealth to be "fair" is liberal and everyone knows it.

Your point is valid. But the answer is not wealth redistribution. The answer is stopping this behavior. And we nheed to understand that there are more reasons for supporting this stuff besides money.

 

Actually I did. I said redistrinuting wealth is not the resolution. You ahve doen nothing but make false accusations.

 

You use the word "liberal" liberally just like Jesse Jackson uses the word "racist" liberally. You both use the words so liberally to describe any view or any person that you disagree with that you diminish them to the point where they mean nothing.

 

If so, then either you read it before this morning or you are a speed reader as it covered 14 pages in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs.

 

The characterizations in the article are mere opinion. The whole article is in my mind discedited because the agenda of the author is income redistribution. And by the way the Presidents policies on China are wrong and should be fought against. People aren't rebelling against free trade. They are against specific polices. Not all free trade as the author suggests. In the end the author is all about income redistribution. And it is irresponsible to show a difference in incomes without showing the reasons in order to make it appear that the wealthy are to blame. More liberal misdirection. There are a good number of reasons which have nothing to do with the wealthy.

 

I agree with that, Timmy.

But not liking the authors' prescription does not nullify the validity of the statistics.