BoatBanter.com - Palin, you should have been in Chicago

Calif Bill wrote:
"J i m" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:00:41 -0400, NotNow wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 09:32:34 -0400, NotNow wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 16:05:42 -0400, NotNow
wrote:

More about China's labor laws:

"Foreign executives said that they are especially worried about new
labor regulations because their companies tend to comply with
existing
laws more rigorously than some of their Chinese competitors do.
Their
competitive disadvantage could increase sharply, they said, if the
new
rules put fresh burdens on foreign companies that their local
counterparts ignore."

Thanks for the link.

Like I said "fair trade"
So you are FOR "fair trade", but against "free trade"?
I never said anything different. "Free trade" was your term
So you ARE against free trade?
I don't know, I have never seen free trade. As long as the government
puts burdens on corporations that are not
put on in other countries trade is not "free".
I understand why we do it but I am also not confused that it puts a
thumb on the scale.
The only question is if our attempts to put safety nets under workers
and saving the planet will end up bankrupting the country. If the
dollar collapses we will lose all of that protection along with
life as we know it. Socialism and environmentalism are rich man's
games.
Yeah, we shouldn't want a toxic free place for our kids to grow up, huh?
We should have just let the chemical factories in Niagara Falls spew
crap into the Love Canal where the cancer rates and birth deformities
were much higher than usual.
Nobody is saying we should kill our kids, the problem is the rules we
enforce on our companies and do not require the same for exports to the
US. And Love Canal is a very bad example to use. It was a toxic waste
dump, that had been sealed over, etc. The City Fathers had taken over
the land and against the advice of the chemical company, sold it to
developers. Was the politicians making money that cause the disaster in
the end.
Aren't most man made disasters caused by politicians?

No the excessive problems in the aftermath of a disaster is caused by the
politicians.

One of the ongoing joys of rec.boats: the never-ending attempts by the
righties to rationalize and justify corporate behavior, no matter what
horrors it might inflict upon the public.

I'm sure there are rightie posters here who see nothing wrong with
corporations dumping dangerous chemicals in the water supply. After all,
it's profit uber alles .

--
Whatever moral rules you have proposed, abide by them as they were laws,
and as if you would be guilty of impiety by violating any of them,
*unless* you are a conservative Republican office holder or minister. If
that is your position in life, then anything goes.