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.



I stand corrected. ;-)

On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 20:52:04 -0700, Jim wrote:

Lu Powell wrote:
From the website of Free Library, at
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Some+e...e.-a0192591436



"Some employees are simply irreplaceable. Take Michelle Obama, for
example. The University of Chicago Medical Center hired her in 2002 to
run "programs for community relations, neighborhood outreach, volunteer
recruitment, staff diversity, and minority contracting." In 2005 the
hospital raised her salary from $120,000 to $317,000--nearly twice what
her husband made as a U.S. senator. Oh, did we mention that he had just
become a U.S. senator? He sure had. Requested a $1 million earmark for
the UC Medical Center, in fact. Way to network, Michelle! But now that
Mrs. Obama has resigned, the hospital says her position will remain
unfilled. How can that be, if the work she did was vital enough to be
worth $317,000? We can think of only one explanation: Roland Burris's
wife wasn't interested."



Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliberton, quit to become Vice President, but
still gets "deferred compensation," bonuses and held stock until 2006.

Halliburton received no bid contracts and cost plus contracts for their
work in the Iraq war.

Profiting from a war, especially one you were instrumental in starting,
should **** you off.

But it doesn't. Everything is Obama.

War profiteering used to be a bad thing, but it's ok now. As long as
you are a Republican, that is.

Whatever Obama does is OK, if you can respond with something Bush or
Cheney did.

What a mindset!
--

John H