Voting for who?

[Tallen]

Considering the candidates and their positions, who are you thinking about voting for at this time.

[TigerBunny]

Well...I only read the title when I voted Tallen. I've "considered" voting for several real and or fictional "people". :medium-smiley-010:

[Tallen]

I sent out an email to several people about a year ago about McCain getting the Republican nomination. At that time most folks felt there was no possible way he would have gotten that, and most everyone said they would never vote for McCain.

Now here we are and it seems that most of the people that were against McCain a year ago are now trying to invent reasons to vote for him. I was to. So..., I guess for conscience sake I will vote for a third party candidate that represents my views better than McCain. If that means that the Republican's loose the office, so be it. I voted for George W., which was against my conscience, and have regretted it every since. Not this time.

[tking]

I don't know. At this point, I don't think it much matters. No one is going to be prepared for what they're stepping into with this economy.

[Joe S]

I'm voting McCain, but I have been studying Romans 13 to prepare myself for the eventuality that we will be witness to a paradigm shift toward real progressive socialism (Marxism) with the federal government grabbing more and more power until they have it all, no matter who wins. It's coming. The rest of the West is already there.

[Joe S]

The story John McCain told of the Vietnamese guard who loosened his bindings to relieve his pain and then drew a cross in the sand in front of McCain on Christmas was very touching to me.

[Tallen]

I agree, McCain's story is quite touching and inspiring. He has endured much hardship for his country. Based upon this alone, he is much more qualified for the office of the President than Obama. But that is not the qualifications of the President. I have been thinking about that, since both of these candidates have brought up the issue of qualifications. Here are the qualifications as prescribed by our founding fathers:



Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

Term limit amendment - US Constitution, Amendment XXII, Section 1 – ratified February 27, 1951

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.


I guess for me that is good enough as well. If the qualification of the Constitution are met, then they are qualified for the office. This doesn't mean that they would be good for the country, that is a matter of policy, idealology and experience, which are not a consideration of qualification. All of the candidates are qualified, not all of them are experienced.

[Ken Hamrick]

Considering the candidates and their positions, who are you thinking about voting for at this time.I voted in the poll for Bob Barr, but that was before I checked out Charles Baldwin. He really needs some more advertising. Thanks for adding him to the poll--I'm changing my vote!

So what do you guys think of voting your conscience as opposed to strategizing the election (i.e., voting for the lesser of two evils only because he "has a chance" to win)? There are many believers, especially the "Take back America" bunch, who say it is our responsibility to ELECT a conservative, and not merely to vote for who best represents our view (especially if we are "throwing away our vote" on an unelectable candidate). I mentioned in my SBC Sunday School class that God has already decided which candidate He is going to install, and so I'm not worried about it; and you would have thought I was speaking a foreign language. It was objected, "But what if more people vote for the guy God doesn't want in office??" :medium-smiley-098:

Should not we, as Christians, vote for the candidate that best represents what Christians believe? In my opinion, there seems to be such a man in every presidential election. The problem is that such men are never one of the top two or three. So the real question becomes, do we vote in a way that will reflect our true values and beliefs; or do we vote for a man who is less deserving of our vote (forsaking the more deserving candidate) in an effort to strategize the winning of the election? In other words, do we consider it far better to vote for a popular "so-so" candidate (and abandon the excellent but less popular candidate) if it gives us a better chance of beating the popular and terrrible candidate? In such a strategy, we do not vote for who we think is the best candidate, but for who we think has the best chance of beating the terrible and popular alternative.

My question is this: is such a strategy biblical? If all the Christians voted for the best candidate regardless of the fact that we think he has no real chance of winning, it would be a testimony to the nation of our presence, our numbers, our concerns and our character. Also, our votes would be going to the man who most deserved them. And by voting, that is really what we are testifying to: by voting for a candidate, we are testifying that this candidate best represents my views, values and beliefs. By not voting for the best candidate, we are testifying that he does not best represent what our views, values, and beliefs are--and the nation surely takes note of that as well. "The country really is not all that Christian and conservative if the candidate who is the most Christian and conservative got almost no votes." Not only these reasons, but the bigger reason. We should vote our conscience, and not "vote the election." Our duty is to vote for the absolutely best candidate--one whom we as believers think best represents the concerns and beliefs of the people of Christ. That is our duty. It is not our duty to win the election. Leave the outcome of the election in God's hands. Who knows?--The unlikely but godly candidate may shock the world and win, if enough believers do their duty regardless of what may come.

So that's how I see it as of now. My job is not to win the election, or to do all I can to make sure the bad guy doesn't get in--that's God's job. My job is to vote for the best candidate, as measured by his beliefs, character, values and concern for the things of God. It's not about who has a chance to win. It's about who deserves my vote. So yes, I'll be "throwing away my vote" (on the best man) in this election, and I recommend all believers do the same. God is in charge.

[Tallen]

I agree Ken. I voted for George W. in the last two elections, and this was against my conscience. I have regretted it since. I am voting out of conviction from now on. This means that I am voting for the person that best represents my moral convictions and family values.

[Ken Hamrick]

I agree Ken. I voted for George W. in the last two elections, and this was against my conscience. I have regretted it since. I am voting out of conviction from now on. This means that I am voting for the person that best represents my moral convictions and family values.Amen!

I'm going to print some info on Mr. Baldwin and take it to some of my believing friends to survey their reactions.

And you're not alone--I voted for Perot! We live and learn (hopefully).

[Athanasius]

I think God pretty much was betrayed by America back in the 60's when God was barred from the schools and when this country embraced abortion. Think about where we've been ever since.

There is a clear choice for voters between:

1. A man who fought for this country, who upholds the right to life, who is far from perfect, but who really does put America first, with a running mate who is a born-again Christian,

and

2. A man who claims to be a Christian but does not believe Jesus is the only way to salvation, who believes not only in abortion but in a form of infanticide as well (no medical procedures for little ones who survive late term abortions), and who has embraced a godless political philosophy, Marxism, which has traditionally been an enemy of the Gospel.

For a Christian, there really is no choice but to either not vote or vote for McCain.

[Joe S]

Well, I agree. That's why I said it was an aside. My second door neighbor when I was a kid was a prisoner of war in Germany for 2 years, but he wouldn't have been a good president (and he would have agreed).

I was actually speaking of a specific story McCain told, that made me wonder. Was the guard a Christian? Sympathetic to Christians? Mocking? Either way, the guard's actions gave McCain hope when all he saw was despair. I would pray that whenever any of us despair, we would look to the cross as the only hope we can believe in.

[Tallen]

Well..., after last nights debate (really?), I would say that McCain has done what he can to loose. He didn't come accross well and stumbled on the issues with rambling that just repeated the same four or five points. His answers were lacking. Obama was comfortable and seemed to at least try and face the issues he was asked about. http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/23/23_21_15.gif (http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001_ZSYYYYYYYYUS)


http://www.smileycentral.com/sig.jsp?pc=ZSzeb112&pp=ZSYYYYYYYYUS (http://smiley.smileycentral.com/download/index.jhtml?partner=ZSzeb112_ZSYYYYYYYYUS&utm_id=7920)

[Ken Hamrick]

I think God pretty much was betrayed by America back in the 60's when God was barred from the schools and when this country embraced abortion. Think about where we've been ever since.

There is a clear choice for voters between:

1. A man who fought for this country, who upholds the right to life, who is far from perfect, but who really does put America first, with a running mate who is a born-again Christian,

and

2. A man who claims to be a Christian but does not believe Jesus is the only way to salvation, who believes not only in abortion but in a form of infanticide as well (no medical procedures for little ones who survive late term abortions), and who has embraced a godless political philosophy, Marxism, which has traditionally been an enemy of the Gospel.

For a Christian, there really is no choice but to either not vote or vote for McCain.Since there will be more than these two choices on the ballot, then why is the only choice for the Christian "to either not vote or vote for McCain?"

[Ken Hamrick]

Well..., after last nights debate (really?), I would say that McCain has done what he can to loose. He didn't come accross well and stumbled on the issues with rambling that just repeated the same four or five points. His answers were lacking. Obama was comfortable and seemed to at least try and face the issues he was asked about. http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/23/23_21_15.gif (http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001_ZSYYYYYYYYUS)
http://www.smileycentral.com/sig.jsp?pc=ZSzeb112&pp=ZSYYYYYYYYUS (http://smiley.smileycentral.com/download/index.jhtml?partner=ZSzeb112_ZSYYYYYYYYUS&utm_id=7920)His perfomance didn't seem that bad to me. I liked the retort about running against Bush. I am disappointed by his "federalist" view of letting individual states decide the abortion issue.

[Tallen]

His perfomance didn't seem that bad to me. I liked the retort about running against Bush. I am disappointed by his "federalist" view of letting individual states decide the abortion issue.

There was a couple of times that I thought Obama really put him on the offense. Once was when Ayers came up and he minimized his association with him. Another that comes to mind is when they were laying out their health plan initiatives. And it also seemed that McCain was more intent on trying to disparage Obama than giving straight forward answers about his plans. Saying over and over that one has answers to problems without giving specifics about them is not going to win much confidence in the voter.

The end of the matter for me is at this point in time I am voting third party as a matter of conscience. Neither McCain or Obama are addressing the issues in a manner I am comfortable with. More government, more taxes, and more intrusions into private business and private affairs are not an answer to the problems of Americans. We need to clean house politically, and get the ol' boys out and all those that have become sympathetic to the ol' boy network. This means that both Obama and McCain need to retire from politics and let new blood in. It's time to restore the ideal that leading this nation is an honorable undertaking where we send the best people with the highest standards of moral character that see themselves as servants of the people. Instead we have a nation of folks that are trying to justify people that see themselves has champions that have conquered their constituency and will stoop to whatever possible means to insure their "careers" in a public office.

[Avraham's Blessing]

I, too, think "M" did a better job. I thought that he could have pressed a few issues better. I have no problem with his federalist view regarding abortion going back to the states. I thought that he should have pressed Obama to jointly sponsor a bill to stop third term abortions.

[Tallen]

I, too, think "M" did a better job. I thought that he could have pressed a few issues better. I have no problem with his federalist view regarding abortion going back to the states. I thought that he should have pressed Obama to jointly sponsor a bill to stop third term abortions.

One place I thought McCain out-shined Obama was when they were asked to justify their running mates. Another place was when he used "Joe the plumber" and talked to him. McCain would be better off at using a strategy like that than trying to point out faults in Obama's agenda and person.

I agree with folks that say Obama is more articulate and comfortable in his presentation, and this appeals to a lot of folks.

[raderag]

I, too, think "M" did a better job. I thought that he could have pressed a few issues better. I have no problem with his federalist view regarding abortion going back to the states. I thought that he should have pressed Obama to jointly sponsor a bill to stop third term abortions.

That would actually be an anti-federalist or even articles of confederation view. Since the 14th ammendment, all persons are given the due protection of law from all governmental bodies. Therefore, we must only recognize that a fetus is a person.

[bartalonis]

I'm voting for Chuck Baldwin. I'm also voting against every politician that I can who voted for the socialistic Bailout for Billionare Bankers.

Baldwin is against abortion, and will certainly allow God back into the classroom (as if someone could kick Him out in the first place).

BTW, if a president can sign an executive order to abolish pose comitatis and habeas corpus then let's put someone in the whitehouse that will abolish abortion the same way (just being facetious folks).

"executive order - stroke of the pen law of the land - pretty cool hah"

That's part of the problem. Only Congress is to make law. Not the courts, not the president, and not bureaucrats.

I'm voting for Baldwin because he stands up for our constitution and also knows that our government is a republic and not a democracy. He also knows that before we go to war against another country then war must be declared by Congress.

I voted for Bush twice. Both times I was voting for the lesser of two evils. I will never do this again and from now on I will vote for who I believe will uphold our constitution and live up to his oath.

I once placed FDR, Truman, Carter, and Clinton as the worst presidents that we ever had. Now, they'll have to make room for Bush. I don't see how anyone could have damaged our republic more than he has and I'm ashamed of myself for voting for him - especially the 2nd time.

bartalonis

[Tallen]

I'm voting for Chuck Baldwin. I'm also voting against every politician that I can who voted for the socialistic Bailout for Billionare Bankers.

Baldwin is against abortion, and will certainly allow God back into the classroom (as if someone could kick Him out in the first place).

BTW, if a president can sign an executive order to abolish pose comitatis and habeas corpus then let's put someone in the whitehouse that will abolish abortion the same way (just being facetious folks).

"executive order - stroke of the pen law of the land - pretty cool hah"

That's part of the problem. Only Congress is to make law. Not the courts, not the president, and not bureaucrats.

I'm voting for Baldwin because he stands up for our constitution and also knows that our government is a republic and not a democracy. He also knows that before we go to war against another country then war must be declared by Congress.

I voted for Bush twice. Both times I was voting for the lesser of two evils. I will never do this again and from now on I will vote for who I believe will uphold our constitution and live up to his oath.

I once placed FDR, Truman, Carter, and Clinton as the worst presidents that we ever had. Now, they'll have to make room for Bush. I don't see how anyone could have damaged our republic more than he has and I'm ashamed of myself for voting for him - especially the 2nd time.

bartalonis

Same here. I will never again vote for the "evil of two lessors" and think I am getting the "lessor of two evils". I am, from now on, voting according to my conscience. Bush did a tremendous harm to both the Constitution and the Republic. And I see McCain following the same path in the quest for daddy Bush's "new world order".

[raderag]

Same here. I will never again vote for the "evil of two lessors" and think I am getting the "lessor of two evils". I am, from now on, voting according to my conscience. Bush did a tremendous harm to both the Constitution and the Republic. And I see McCain following the same path in the quest for daddy Bush's "new world order".

What exactly do you suppose the new world order is?

[Tallen]

What exactly do you suppose the new world order is?

It's what Bush said it was. It is a transference of political, monetary and military power from a sovereign nation to the cooperative effort of nations to effect policy and government. Brett we are effectively allowing other nations to establish US policy outside and contrary to the Constitutional mandates.

Listen to Hannity sometime, he goes through this regularly.

[raderag]

It's what Bush said it was. It is a transference of political, monetary and military power from a sovereign nation to the cooperative effort of nations to effect policy and government. Brett we are effectively allowing other nations to establish US policy outside and contrary to the Constitutional mandates.

Listen to Hannity sometime, he goes through this regularly.


Have you read or listened to the speech where GHB talked about the NWO? It was in reference to the fact that all of the international community (including the USSR) stood against Iraq.

[Tallen]

Have you read or listened to the speech where GHB talked about the NWO? It was in reference to the fact that all of the international community (including the USSR) stood against Iraq.

Yes, I remember.

[JBaker45]

It's what Bush said it was. It is a transference of political, monetary and military power from a sovereign nation to the cooperative effort of nations to effect policy and government. Brett we are effectively allowing other nations to establish US policy outside and contrary to the Constitutional mandates.

Listen to Hannity sometime, he goes through this regularly.
When Obama hands us over to the NWO, what will you have to say then bro?

[Tallen]

When Obama hands us over to the NWO, what will you have to say then bro?
The same as I do now, you should have voted your conscience. Governments and "kings" are designed by the Lord's providence and we are to submit to them.

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. (Rom 13:1-4 KJV)

Really John, I truly think we ought to be voting our conscience being influenced by our moral convictions. For our Lord's kingdom is not of this world and we are to stay within what he leads us to do by his word and by the Spirit. We are the salt, and we season the country by our witness.

Do you think if Obama wins the election it will be something that the Lord is not prepared for? Or do you think that His providence is working something other than good for those that love him?

[JBaker45]

The same as I do now, you should have voted your conscience. Governments and "kings" are designed by the Lord's providence and we are to submit to them.

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. (Rom 13:1-4 KJV)

Really John, I truly think we ought to be voting our conscience being influenced by our moral convictions. For our Lord's kingdom is not of this world and we are to stay within what he leads us to do by his word and by the Spirit. We are the salt, and we season the country by our witness.

Do you think if Obama wins the election it will be something that the Lord is not prepared for? Or do you think that His providence is working something other than good for those that love him?
I think that you will live to regret the day you see the damage that a liberal socialist can do to this country my friend. And the ramification will long outlive his presidency.

As for me, my conscience can not allow for this to happen.

[Tallen]

I think that you will live to regret the day you see the damage that a liberal socialist can do to this country my friend. And the ramification will long outlive his presidency.

As for me, my conscience can not allow for this to happen.

John, I already regret the socialist damage in America. And I do not think the status quo two party partisan politics is working in America. RvW is nearing it's forth decade standing, and I get it, it isn't going to be over-turned for the next 10-30 years, if it will ever get over-turned. There is absolutely no reason to continue down a path that leads to decades worth of failure. We are fighting two "pre-emptive wars" on foreign soil and allowing the roles of the highest offices in the land to be redefined by radical politicians and personal agenda. We have been handed a bankrupt economy because the current Republican in office hasn't the foresight and common sense to realize what is happening under his watch. We have been given for the last twenty years mediocre Presidential candidates at best and lousy for the most part. I regret that the Republican party has put McCain as it's candidate and that the "best" Democratic candidate is a man with the moral convictions of Obama. I regret that the leftist political ideology is pulling to Republican party to the left because of the desire to win offices instead of standing for conservatism.

John..., I am already past the point of regret. And there is no reason to continue the same coarse that leads to failure time after time. That is an insane policy. It's time for a political revolution in America and for men and women of moral fortitude to stand up and take control of this out-of-control nation being led by self-serving and greedy politicians. The regret is old and it is time for house cleaning and action on the part of those of us who are willing to give our voice to better this country.

My conscience speaks to me also, and it tells me to vote for someone that has moral values and political motives that will better this country, not tax it into nonexistence and drive it further away from our founding principals. :wwink:

[Avraham's Blessing]

Ted, I truly appreciate your post. Unfortunately, we have to make a choice for this election that is less than adequate. I will vote for McCain.

I do believe that a strong third party with clear goals must be established. It can't be a party that embraces the extremes of either direction. It would have to be a moderate party in order to gain acceptance. I believe that we should look at Fiscal Moderation and Moral Responsibility.

I would like to entertain more thought and discussion on this.

YP



John, I already regret the socialist damage in America. And I do not think the status quo two party partisan politics is working in America. RvW is nearing it's forth decade standing, and I get it, it isn't going to be over-turned for the next 10-30 years, if it will ever get over-turned. There is absolutely no reason to continue down a path that leads to decades worth of failure. We are fighting two "pre-emptive wars" on foreign soil and allowing the roles of the highest offices in the land to be redefined by radical politicians and personal agenda. We have been handed a bankrupt economy because the current Republican in office hasn't the foresight and common sense to realize what is happening under his watch. We have been given for the last twenty years mediocre Presidential candidates at best and lousy for the most part. I regret that the Republican party has put McCain as it's candidate and that the "best" Democratic candidate is a man with the moral convictions of Obama. I regret that the leftist political ideology is pulling to Republican party to the left because of the desire to win offices instead of standing for conservatism.

John..., I am already past the point of regret. And there is no reason to continue the same coarse that leads to failure time after time. That is an insane policy. It's time for a political revolution in America and for men and women of moral fortitude to stand up and take control of this out-of-control nation being led by self-serving and greedy politicians. The regret is old and it is time for house cleaning and action on the part of those of us who are willing to give our voice to better this country.

My conscience speaks to me also, and it tells me to vote for someone that has moral values and political motives that will better this country, not tax it into nonexistence and drive it further away from our founding principals. :wwink:

[Avraham's Blessing]

I just got this in an E-mail:

Catching Wild Pigs

A chemistry professor in a large college had some exchange students in the class. One day while the class was in the lab the Professor noticed one young man (exchange student) who kept rubbing his back, and stretching as if his back hurt. The professor asked the young man what was the matter. The student told him he had a bullet lodged in his back. He had been shot while fighting Communists in his native country who were trying to overthrow his country's government and install a new Communist government.

In the midst of his story he looked at the professor and asked a strange question. He asked, 'Do you know how to catch wild pigs?'

The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line. The young man said this was no joke. 'You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the
ground. The pigs find it and begin to come everyday to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in The last side. The pigs, who are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat, you slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd.

Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity.

The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees happening to America . The government keeps pushing us toward socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in the
form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine, drugs, etc.. While we continually lose our freedoms -- just a little at a time.

One should always remember: There is no such thing as a free lunch! Also, a politician will never provide a service for you cheaper than you can do it yourself.

If you see that all of this wonderful government 'help' is a problem confronting the future of democracy in America , then spread the word. If you think the free ride is essential to your way of life then you will probably delete this emai l, but God help you when the gate slams shut!

In this 'very important' election year, listen closely to what the candidates are promising you !!

Just maybe you will be able to tell who is about to slam the gate on America .

'A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have.' - Thomas Jefferson

[bartalonis]

Yodas, that story comes from and old story that was created from an incident down here in Georgia. I'm sure it was embelished over the years. The original story envolved about a hundred pigs in a county near the swamp. However, it makes a very good point about socialism.

http://www.afn.org/~govern/pigs.html

Here's another story that I'm fond of:

Not yours to give: http://www.fee.org/library/books/notyours.asp

BTW, I make no claim about these two websites. I have no idea what else is on the sites so take care. When I saw your post it reminded me of these two stories that I am fond of so I did a quick search and found these two web pages.

God bless,

bartalonis

[Tallen]

Ted, I truly appreciate your post. Unfortunately, we have to make a choice for this election that is less than adequate. I will vote for McCain.

I do believe that a strong third party with clear goals must be established. It can't be a party that embraces the extremes of either direction. It would have to be a moderate party in order to gain acceptance. I believe that we should look at Fiscal Moderation and Moral Responsibility.

I would like to entertain more thought and discussion on this.

YP

Maybe if the Republican's loose the Presidency, they will get back to their conservative values and we can get back to business. :bigthink:

[raderag]

Bart,

I’m putting all of your comments in one post.


raderag,

There is generally not anything wrong with free trade if it is conducted in the traditional manner where each sovereign country works out the trade agreement for their mutual benefit. However, trade agreements such as NAFTA actually destroy part of the sovereignty of each participating nation. Agreements such as NAFTA work under the world trade organization and set up supra-national organizations which actually trump organizations in the governments envolved. The sovereignty of each government is slowly broken down. I’m not so sure that NAFTA takes any sovereignty away from any governments, but rather gives businesses a standardized way of doing business between countries without government interference. If you have ever been involved in international regulations and business, you would know how important that was. Most of the brouhaha is over the fact that tribunals are set up to arbitrate disagreements. It’s a boggey man for the NWO conspiracy types to cling to.



A case in point is the Europeon Union. The EU began as a simple trade agreement between several of the
European nations. Slowly but surely as the supra-national regulating bodies were established the sovereignty of each nation was broken down. The politicians of each nation were behind it and kept signing these agreements. However, if you think that the average citizen of these nations understood that they were loosing their sovereignty think again. Here, again, this doesn't take a lot of research. Because the EU arose out of a trade agreement, all trade agreements are bad? Besides that the EU plan was public and in the open many years before it came about.



If you think that we have become richer because of NAFTA think again. Oh yes in one way - we get cheaper goods; however, what good are all these cheaper goods if our wealth producing industries are destroyed in the process. We are loosing our manufacturing jobs everyday. We're even beginning to import our agricultural products and we are becoming a service oriented economy. When times get hard people can mow their own yards or cook their own hamburgers and Walmart can fire their door greeters. Cheaper goods and more productive industry. The GDP of the US is still growing. Yes, we are loosing some of our manufacturing jobs as we are becoming a more wealthy country. Some of these people shift into service, and some into things such as information, high tech, and the like. Then again, as other countries like Japan and Korea, have their labor costs rise, they bring their factories here. Once again, there are no examples of trade harming a countries economy. OTOH, this whole anti-trade agenda was discredited (and almost given up on) when the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act essentially launched us into the Great Depression. All of this was designed to help the farmer. Didn’t turn out so well.

As I have said before, all of these arguments were dealt with in Adam Smith’s “The Weath of Nations” over 250 years ago. Everything that has happened since pretty much reinforces this.



Suppose we were to get into a war with China? Are we going to order our warships and other hardware from China? I wonder how well this will work out?We still have, and should protect our capacity to produce military equipment. I’m not arguing against that.






another thing to think about
There are also some moral things to take into consideration about trade with China. Here's a case in point. I read an article about a well known tennis shoe company that makes all of it's shoes in China. Their factories work mostly women. These women live in dormatories on the factory property where a number of women are in a room with double decked bunks and a night stand for each. They pay the company rent for these lodgings and the food they eat but have very little freedom. At the end of the week these women get a meager living after their exspenses. The company lands the pair of shoes in the states for around $17.00 and sells the pair of shoes for over $100. Environmental laws, safety laws, and child labor laws don't exist in China or at the least recieve little attention. However, we do get our shoes and the shoe company does make a tidy little profit. Where did you read that article?
We may not like these conditions, but they are there to work because it is an improvement from what they had before. We went through our sweat-shop age, and so will every other third world country on the way to economic strength.

Furthermore, these treaties can regulate things such as working conditions, etc.



Here's something else to think on. Go look at your average fast food restaurant and think about what is going on. One sits at a window and takes an order, another sits at a window and hands the order out, several stand behind a counter and take orders, one cleans up the parking lot, another cleans up the tables, several are in the back flipping hamburgers and filling the bags. Most of these jobs can be taught to someone in a couple of hours so people are easily aquired. Also, little wealth for the country is created here. A fast food restaurant is generally a service oriented business. If we had a severe recession many of these jobs could dry up overnite because people can cook their own hamburgers and the fast food restaurant can let the people go as fast as they were hired because their is no skill to amount to.

However, in factories, farms, and mines and all of the industries that support them there are many skilled jobs and wealth is created from the raw materials that are used. The skills that people aquire are even considered capital and are a source of wealth. It takes time to train many of these people and the trained people are not as easily aquired so these businesses tend to hang to their people longer during an economic downturn. The differences between a manufacturing economy verses a service economy are very real. One is truly wealthier and more secure than the other.
Comparing fast food to manufacturing is hardly fair as there are many other jobs in our economy.

[bartalonis]

Read this article (http://www.citizen.org/trade/nafta/articles.cfm?ID=17640), raderag. Most Americans know that NAFTA is not good - at least most Americans that have to work. We are loosing our manufacturing plants and do you not understand how much food that we have to import now? It's all over the press. We even have to worry about the safety of our food supply, now.

Our government can play all kind of games with economic figures. Most Americans can see that we are becoming a service economy. The top 5 percent of the people in our economy are getting richer. The rest find it more and more difficult to make ends meet.

It's common sense. Look at the growth of fast food resteraunts, convienience stores, yard service businesses. Sit back in your chair and close your eyes and think about how many more services are performed, now. Service jobs can disappear fastser than you can shake a stick at in a downturn because when times are hard people can do without a service. They can stay at home, eat at home, watch tv instead of going to a movie, make minor repairs, etc. ect. ect.

On top of all of this the larger corporations are even beginning to outsource many of the services.

The American worker knows these things are so because he/she has to live with it.

I have been in manufacturing all of my life. Most of my suppliers are manufacturers. Many of our customers are manufacturers. I can't recall any of them who think that NAFTA is good for America.

The manufacturers that are left are becoming more of the nature of assembly plants where the parts are imported.

bartalonis

http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/NAFTA@7/index.html
http://www.wowessays.com/dbase/ab5/lvt253.shtml
http://www.ftaa-alca.org/spcomm/SOC/Contributions/Quito/cscv39_e.asp

[JBaker45]

Maybe if the Republican's loose the Presidency, they will get back to their conservative values and we can get back to business. :bigthink:
But with Obama selecting Supreme court justices, it could take 30+ years to recover from the liberal court - Yikes!

[raderag]

Read this article (http://www.citizen.org/trade/nafta/articles.cfm?ID=17640), raderag. Most Americans know that NAFTA is not good - at least most Americans that have to work. We are loosing our manufacturing plants and do you not understand how much food that we have to import now? It's all over the press. We even have to worry about the safety of our food supply, now.

Our government can play all kind of games with economic figures. Most Americans can see that we are becoming a service economy. The top 5 percent of the people in our economy are getting richer. The rest find it more and more difficult to make ends meet.

It's common sense. Look at the growth of fast food resteraunts, convienience stores, yard service businesses. Sit back in your chair and close your eyes and think about how many more services are performed, now. Service jobs can disappear fastser than you can shake a stick at in a downturn because when times are hard people can do without a service. They can stay at home, eat at home, watch tv instead of going to a movie, make minor repairs, etc. ect. ect.

On top of all of this the larger corporations are even beginning to outsource many of the services.

The American worker knows these things are so because he/she has to live with it.

I have been in manufacturing all of my life. Most of my suppliers are manufacturers. Many of our customers are manufacturers. I can't recall any of them who think that NAFTA is good for America.

The manufacturers that are left are becoming more of the nature of assembly plants where the parts are imported.

bartalonis

http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/NAFTA@7/index.html
http://www.wowessays.com/dbase/ab5/lvt253.shtml
http://www.ftaa-alca.org/spcomm/SOC/Contributions/Quito/cscv39_e.asp

Public Citizen? That is basically a socialist organization itself.

[raderag]

Bart,

Here are some articles for you:

http://www.freetrade.org/node/87
http://www.freetrade.org/node/82 (http://www.freetrade.org/node/61)

[raderag]

Bart,

Here are some articles for you:

http://www.freetrade.org/node/87
http://www.freetrade.org/node/82 (http://www.freetrade.org/node/61)

Don't forget that free trade is the absence of government; it is allowing capitalism to work without the socialist intervening hand of government. Fair trade, protectionism, etc is a mercantilist and now socialist approach to regulating the economy. There may be extreme cases (human rights, national security) where the government needs to intervene, but for the most part a free society will allow business to buy and sell without the government deciding what is best.

The government cannot plan an economy, and that includes issues of trade. As with anything, there will be winners and losers, but if we don't have free trade, we will all be losers.

[Avraham's Blessing]

But with Obama selecting Supreme court justices, it could take 30+ years to recover from the liberal court - Yikes!

The Truth is that Ted can vote Baldwin and not hurt McCain's chances. He lives in Michigan which obviously is heavily Democratic. that state is a loss.

Being in Illinois, I guess that I can do the same thing.

YP

[JBaker45]

The Truth is that Ted can vote Baldwin and not hurt McCain's chances. He lives in Michigan which obviously is heavily Democratic. that state is a loss.

Being in Illinois, I guess that I can do the same thing.

YP
Sure, and since I live in a blue state (of Californiacation), my vote for McCain may not count either. But the message of the importance of voting Republican is still valid, particularly for people in the swing states.

[Tallen]

Sure, and since I live in a blue state (of Californiacation), my vote for McCain may not count either. But the message of the importance of voting Republican is still valid, particularly for people in the swing states.

Michigan will not be a swing state. It is historically a liberal state. Just come here and see what our current govenor has accomplished. I think we are the only state that is in a true depression. :angry:

[Avraham's Blessing]

Michigan will not be a swing state. It is historically a liberal state. Just come here and see what our current govenor has accomplished. I think we are the only state that is in a true depression. :angry:

Illinois's democratic Governor's approval rating is 10 points lower than Bush's :biglol::BigB:

[Tallen]

Grandholm (Michigan's governor) has pushed for higher taxes on industry and told GM and Chrysler that if the merge that will hurt Michigan. :yum:


She hasn't put 2 and 2 together..., her higher taxes are driving industry out of the state by the droves. She blames Bush for the job loss (over 400,000 so far) in Michigan. We have a tax on small business that taxes employers for having a payroll.., imagine that. If you pay people they tax you for it. http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_2_111v.gif (http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001_ZSYYYYYYYYUS)


"People are mad in Michigan. We're mad that the Bush administration has stood idly by while we have lost almost 400,000 jobs since Bush became president." Grandholm

She pushes Al Gore's green earth policies as the answer to Michigans economic problems. http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/10/10_1_138.gif (http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001_ZSYYYYYYYYUS)

[bartalonis]

Public Citizen? That is basically a socialist organization itself.

raderag, I've been up to the river cabin and just got back. Don't read anything into this - I'm strickly limited government. There's not a socialist bone in my body. However, socialists tend to be big on labor unions and they are against free trade. They seem to have it right on this article.

bartalonis

[bartalonis]

Don't forget that free trade is the absence of government; it is allowing capitalism to work without the socialist intervening hand of government. Fair trade, protectionism, etc is a mercantilist and now socialist approach to regulating the economy. There may be extreme cases (human rights, national security) where the government needs to intervene, but for the most part a free society will allow business to buy and sell without the government deciding what is best.

The government cannot plan an economy, and that includes issues of trade. As with anything, there will be winners and losers, but if we don't have free trade, we will all be losers.

I'll try it one more time. These free trade agreements that we are getting ourselves into have plenty of government in them. That's the problem - the regulators are supra-governmental entities that tend to break down the sovereignty of the indiviual nations over time.

We are a large enough country and have a large enough state department to where we can sit down with each nation and deal with them directly rather than going through these supra-governmental agencies. We should work each individual agreement out to the benefit of our own nation.

bartalonis

[travelah]

Considering the candidates and their positions, who are you thinking about voting for at this time.

Any votes at this point for anybody other than John McCain is a tacit endorsement of the destruction of our judicial system and it's need for a constructionist approach. If you know that the Obammunists are intent on putting an activist judiciary in place, then to aid them in that objective is to be complicit with their objectives.

[Joe S]

I'm afraid we're done for Trav. Hide your guns and teach your children that "loose lips sink ships".

[raderag]

I'm afraid we're done for Trav. Hide your guns and teach your children that "loose lips sink ships".

I disagree, and this kind of talk has been going on for the last 100 years.

[Tallen]

I disagree, and this kind of talk has been going on for the last 100 years.

Which demonstrates why I am not so worried about voting third party. The fact of the matter is when it comes time to put a justice in place, more than likely it will be a moderate. Someone that will appeal to the majority of voters. This is so that those involved in the process can keep their constituencies for the next election.

Either McCain or Obama is politics as usual, and if the appointee is either far left or far right, he will not make it through the process.