Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Because you repuse to consider anything else in your calculations. You see no problem with being dependant on an enemy nation, which is builiding it's military to defeat us as we speak. HOW has this occurred? Too much family ties and fantasizing about a nubile michael p. keaton?
My viewpoint considers all things, trade, human rights, national security, stabilizing the world markets, and what would be best for all these things. I don't understand how trade equates to dependence, we don't have to buy $2 widgets from China. This discussion has nothing to do with 80's sitcoms, sorry. I am not going to keep playing these liberal exaggeration games with you, if you want to have a rational discussion on topic, we can do that. Let's leave Micheal P. Keaton out of this, mmk?
Market stability is actually a secondary concern of mine. Your program rewards cruelty. You can call that "an opportunity to afford to create a base for possible change" or watever, but it's shyte-minded.
It's not a "program" and it's not "mine". It is official US trade policy, and it was signed into law by a democrat president over a decade ago. Trading with China is not a reward to them for being cruel to their people, as much as you want to make it that. Look... If you made widgets for $2, and could sell your widgets as fast as you could make them to the Europeans, and I come along and agree to buy some of your widgets... are you being rewarded by me? How so? You would have sold your widgets anyway, I am not going to pay you more for them than the Europeans. $2 in China's pocket, is $2 in China's pocket, regardless of the source. So, there is no "reward" here, the Chinese are not really 'gaining' anything from trade with the US, they will still produce and sell the same amount of products, just some of them will go to the US market now.
The last part of my statement, which you butchered, is regarding the logical fact of having leverage in negotiation. I refer back to my car wash example, and looking outside, I don't see that my car has been washed by you, what gives? How come you haven't yet washed my car? Could it be, you have no motivation to do so? Could it be, I have nothing to leverage you with? Now, I can sit here bitching at you all day and all night, and I will bet, my car will still be dirty in the morning. I can call you all kinds of names, put you on ignore, refuse to ever speak to you again, and I bet my car will still be dirty in the morning.... Why? Again, because I have no leverage, nothing to motivate you to do as I wish. If you understood I had a $10,000 paycheck with your name on it, and it was completely up to me if you got it, I think you might be a little more open to coming and washing my car, don't you?
You're the true liberal pinhead.
This is too funny to even respond to!
You keep repeating the same thing. YOu keep repeating your trade arguments which are valid to a degree, but you apply them in an extreme fashion and factor no other considerations into policy.
I keep repeating the same thing because you aren't listening, and you keep repeating the same things. The trade arguments are important, since we are discussing... well... trade! They are not my only point, and I have clearly outlined how trade and diplomacy can eventually lead to change and reform in the human rights policies of China. We've also touched on national security, and my argument considers this as well, we are substantially better off and in a better place, as a strong allied trade partner with China, as opposed to snubbing them and refusing to do business. Look around, not very many countries go to war with each other, when they are involved in multi-billion dollar trade deals.
So, as you can see, my argument factors in all the considerations. Across the board, it is better for the US to be a trade partner with China, than for the US to stick its head in the sand and ignore China. We stand a better chance of changing the human rights conditions, we stand a better chance in stabilizing world markets, we are less likely to be attacked and have war declared on us by pissed off Chinese. Whatever your "issue" is, we are better off being on friendly diplomatic terms and trading with China.
Not forget, just not reward the totalitarians with billions in trade. Why can't you see the abject stupidity of your actions?
Again, agreeing to buy your products and sell you mine, is not a reward. You continue to act like the US is giving China something by trading with them. China doesn't care if we trade with them or not! If we don't, someone else will, and they know that. I don't see the abject stupidity of US trade policy signed into law by president Clinton, and supported by most economic consultants, and I don't see where you have shown it to be such. If we don't trade with China, and we have no economic mutual interest, and no leverage, how are we going to effect any change in China? Is this not paramount to "forgetting" about the problems in China?
The UN should be disbanded. And honestly, highlighting clinton's support for the chinese doesn't sweeten the deal. Im not REALLY a liberal, that's just the only compartment your feeble mind possesses to slot me into it.
Well... this bodes even worse for your idea. Who is supposed to make China stop abusing its people? Where is the political pressure going to come from, if not the isolated US, or the UN? Do you suppose we could bribe the Russians into pressuring China? HA! Right! I keep mentioning Clinton because he signed the MFN treaty with China, and you continue to rant like a lunatic about the evil neocon plot to form a NWO. This trade with China issue has been around a long time, and it has both republican and democrat fingerprints on it. You keep wanting to make it a 'Bush and the Neocons' thing, and it simply isn't.
I know you don't want people to think you are a liberal, you have done a fairly good job of masquerading as something else, but you continue to resort to classic liberal debate tactics. I'm merely trying to help you by pointing out the transparency. If you are going to try to fool people, you should at least try to avoid typical liberal tactics of debate, that is a dead give away!
You're living in fantasy land.
Well, I am there with the world's leading economists, former presidents, the WTO, and a few billion Chinese! Meanwhile, you look stunning in your tin foil hat, standing with the liberal nut jobs of the world.
Your approach should be abandoned, because empowering enemies TO THIS EXTENT is never wise. Im not saying we should return to autarky. Look it up.
And how exactly is trading with the #2 superpower of the world, "empowering" them? It seems to me, they are already empowered, or at least to the extent of being #2 behind us. I don't need to look up your pinhead word, you endorse not trading with China, and further isolating ourselves from them, which will never lead to negotiation of any kind, and will never do a damn thing to end the human rights abuses in China. You have refused to articulate how isolationism and ignoring the problem, is ever going to fix it. You can't even explain a logical theory on how this works, because any one with an ounce of brains can figure out, it won't work, you can't effect a change by disengaging, which is what you propose.
My viewpoint considers all things, trade, human rights, national security, stabilizing the world markets, and what would be best for all these things. I don't understand how trade equates to dependence, we don't have to buy $2 widgets from China. This discussion has nothing to do with 80's sitcoms, sorry. I am not going to keep playing these liberal exaggeration games with you, if you want to have a rational discussion on topic, we can do that. Let's leave Micheal P. Keaton out of this, mmk?
Market stability is actually a secondary concern of mine. Your program rewards cruelty. You can call that "an opportunity to afford to create a base for possible change" or watever, but it's shyte-minded.
It's not a "program" and it's not "mine". It is official US trade policy, and it was signed into law by a democrat president over a decade ago. Trading with China is not a reward to them for being cruel to their people, as much as you want to make it that. Look... If you made widgets for $2, and could sell your widgets as fast as you could make them to the Europeans, and I come along and agree to buy some of your widgets... are you being rewarded by me? How so? You would have sold your widgets anyway, I am not going to pay you more for them than the Europeans. $2 in China's pocket, is $2 in China's pocket, regardless of the source. So, there is no "reward" here, the Chinese are not really 'gaining' anything from trade with the US, they will still produce and sell the same amount of products, just some of them will go to the US market now.
The last part of my statement, which you butchered, is regarding the logical fact of having leverage in negotiation. I refer back to my car wash example, and looking outside, I don't see that my car has been washed by you, what gives? How come you haven't yet washed my car? Could it be, you have no motivation to do so? Could it be, I have nothing to leverage you with? Now, I can sit here bitching at you all day and all night, and I will bet, my car will still be dirty in the morning. I can call you all kinds of names, put you on ignore, refuse to ever speak to you again, and I bet my car will still be dirty in the morning.... Why? Again, because I have no leverage, nothing to motivate you to do as I wish. If you understood I had a $10,000 paycheck with your name on it, and it was completely up to me if you got it, I think you might be a little more open to coming and washing my car, don't you?
You're the true liberal pinhead.
This is too funny to even respond to!
You keep repeating the same thing. YOu keep repeating your trade arguments which are valid to a degree, but you apply them in an extreme fashion and factor no other considerations into policy.
I keep repeating the same thing because you aren't listening, and you keep repeating the same things. The trade arguments are important, since we are discussing... well... trade! They are not my only point, and I have clearly outlined how trade and diplomacy can eventually lead to change and reform in the human rights policies of China. We've also touched on national security, and my argument considers this as well, we are substantially better off and in a better place, as a strong allied trade partner with China, as opposed to snubbing them and refusing to do business. Look around, not very many countries go to war with each other, when they are involved in multi-billion dollar trade deals.
So, as you can see, my argument factors in all the considerations. Across the board, it is better for the US to be a trade partner with China, than for the US to stick its head in the sand and ignore China. We stand a better chance of changing the human rights conditions, we stand a better chance in stabilizing world markets, we are less likely to be attacked and have war declared on us by pissed off Chinese. Whatever your "issue" is, we are better off being on friendly diplomatic terms and trading with China.
Not forget, just not reward the totalitarians with billions in trade. Why can't you see the abject stupidity of your actions?
Again, agreeing to buy your products and sell you mine, is not a reward. You continue to act like the US is giving China something by trading with them. China doesn't care if we trade with them or not! If we don't, someone else will, and they know that. I don't see the abject stupidity of US trade policy signed into law by president Clinton, and supported by most economic consultants, and I don't see where you have shown it to be such. If we don't trade with China, and we have no economic mutual interest, and no leverage, how are we going to effect any change in China? Is this not paramount to "forgetting" about the problems in China?
The UN should be disbanded. And honestly, highlighting clinton's support for the chinese doesn't sweeten the deal. Im not REALLY a liberal, that's just the only compartment your feeble mind possesses to slot me into it.
Well... this bodes even worse for your idea. Who is supposed to make China stop abusing its people? Where is the political pressure going to come from, if not the isolated US, or the UN? Do you suppose we could bribe the Russians into pressuring China? HA! Right! I keep mentioning Clinton because he signed the MFN treaty with China, and you continue to rant like a lunatic about the evil neocon plot to form a NWO. This trade with China issue has been around a long time, and it has both republican and democrat fingerprints on it. You keep wanting to make it a 'Bush and the Neocons' thing, and it simply isn't.
I know you don't want people to think you are a liberal, you have done a fairly good job of masquerading as something else, but you continue to resort to classic liberal debate tactics. I'm merely trying to help you by pointing out the transparency. If you are going to try to fool people, you should at least try to avoid typical liberal tactics of debate, that is a dead give away!
You're living in fantasy land.
Well, I am there with the world's leading economists, former presidents, the WTO, and a few billion Chinese! Meanwhile, you look stunning in your tin foil hat, standing with the liberal nut jobs of the world.
Your approach should be abandoned, because empowering enemies TO THIS EXTENT is never wise. Im not saying we should return to autarky. Look it up.
And how exactly is trading with the #2 superpower of the world, "empowering" them? It seems to me, they are already empowered, or at least to the extent of being #2 behind us. I don't need to look up your pinhead word, you endorse not trading with China, and further isolating ourselves from them, which will never lead to negotiation of any kind, and will never do a damn thing to end the human rights abuses in China. You have refused to articulate how isolationism and ignoring the problem, is ever going to fix it. You can't even explain a logical theory on how this works, because any one with an ounce of brains can figure out, it won't work, you can't effect a change by disengaging, which is what you propose.
