Republicans Spit on the Constitution

[Oddball]

Sure, it's just that doing business without our naval forces preventing China from pursuing the entire SC Sea will be more costly than the naval fleet were paying to stay there. 1/3rd the worlds trade, remember that.

And China would forsake our trade to control the SC Sea? That is what you are saying, and that is nonsense.

You think we're in a position to reject trade from China? Who's goods does our poor and middle class shop for when they go to Walmart? You think the American poor and middle class can afford American made goods? Stop trade with China? Good luck.

To whom would China then sell their crap?

You think that the Australians and Kiwis could buy up all that stuff, even at the point of a fleet of ships?

 

[Oddball]

Enjoy
Videographic: China's territorial claims - YouTube
Vietnamese ship got intercepted in South China Sea - YouTube
China´s massacre in Spratly islands [real footage 1988] - YouTube
PHILIPPINES, JAPAN STRENGTHEN MARITIME COOPERATION Two Island Nation to attack China - YouTube

Let those nations throw off Chinese aggression.

They're not our bastard stepchildren.

I could take the importants of each of these nations to the US one by one but I would be writing a book in the process. Thus, I will ignore the above. Indeed, we have a world economy and the only thing preventing China from taking over their fishing waters and off shore natural resources is our Fleets. Good luck trading goods with those countries when you allow the Chinese to hack a good chunk of their economy. Note that goods from these three countries are already more expensive than that of the Chinese. Also note that they cannot stand up to the Chinese in a military confrontation.

Guess what, Major Burns.....The Monroe Doctrine was meant to be confined to the western hemisphere.

MYOB.

 

[Publius1787]

Let those nations throw off Chinese aggression.

They're not our bastard stepchildren.

I could take the importants of each of these nations to the US one by one but I would be writing a book in the process. Thus, I will ignore the above. Indeed, we have a world economy and the only thing preventing China from taking over their fishing waters and off shore natural resources is our Fleets. Good luck trading goods with those countries when you allow the Chinese to hack a good chunk of their economy. Note that goods from these three countries are already more expensive than that of the Chinese. Also note that they cannot stand up to the Chinese in a military confrontation.

Guess what, Major Burns.....The Monroe Doctrine was meant to be confined to the western hemisphere.

MYOB.

International trade is our business. You would lesson our influence in international trade? Now that will really hurt our economy! We are getting a bargain by "butting in" the South China Sea. It pays for itself. It helps foster good relations that otherwise could not have been fostered among enemies and friends alike.

 

[Publius1787]

And China would forsake our trade to control the SC Sea? That is what you are saying, and that is nonsense.

You think we're in a position to reject trade from China? Who's goods does our poor and middle class shop for when they go to Walmart? You think the American poor and middle class can afford American made goods? Stop trade with China? Good luck.

To whom would China then sell their crap?

You think that the Australians and Kiwis could buy up all that stuff, even at the point of a fleet of ships?

The point is that without their crap our economy collapses. Look around your house, on your body, and in your yard. Why did you decide to buy those Chinese goods over American, Filipino, Japanese, etc...? I'm willing to bet it was because they were cheaper. Now imagine paying more for everything you own "without their junk." Your looking at economic calamity much worse than 2008.

 

[Oddball]

Uh-huh...You've still not revealed what's in it for the Chinese to piss off their #1 customer.

Could you give us the Cliff Notes version?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Publius, let's start giving some evidence for your grandiose suggestions.

You have offered us nothing really, and I am not interested in the taxpayer funding a forward fleet to make our giant corporations any richer.

China and the rest of Asia will trade with us because it is in everyone's best interest to do so. There will be no grand collapse.

 

[Oddball]

Piss off, Fake....Gentlemen are conversing.

 

[Publius1787]

Publius, let's start giving some evidence for your grandiose suggestions.

You have offered us nothing really, and I am not interested in the taxpayer funding a forward fleet to make our giant corporations any richer.

China and the rest of Asia will trade with us because it is in everyone's best interest to do so. There will be no grand collapse.

Sure, what specifically?
Our corporations? You would do without them too?
I didn't make a proposition of "grand collapse." He did. I said the result of doing something stupid like cutting off trade with China would create economic calamity.

 

[Publius1787]

Uh-huh...You've still not revealed what's in it for the Chinese to piss off their #1 customer.

Could you give us the Cliff Notes version?

The plain fact is that it isn't. Just as it isn't in ours to piss them off. All things being equal, we're not going to stop trading with each other no matter how pissed off we are. The point is to prevent them from monopolizing 1/3rd of the worlds trade which would be disastrous for everyone but China.

 

[Oddball]

Uh-huh...You've still not revealed what's in it for the Chinese to piss off their #1 customer.

Could you give us the Cliff Notes version?

The plain fact is that it isn't. Just as it isn't in ours to piss them off. All things being equal, we're not going to stop trading with each other no matter how pissed off we are. The point is to prevent them from monopolizing 1/3rd of the worlds trade which would be disastrous for everyone but China.

OK...So their reason for allegedly "monopolizing 1/3rd of the worlds trade" would be?

Concentrate.......What's their motivation?

Oh, BTW.....If they've "monopolized" 1/3 of the world's trade, then there's no monopoly....Words mean things.

 

[Publius1787]

Uh-huh...You've still not revealed what's in it for the Chinese to piss off their #1 customer.

Could you give us the Cliff Notes version?

The plain fact is that it isn't. Just as it isn't in ours to piss them off. All things being equal, we're not going to stop trading with each other no matter how pissed off we are. The point is to prevent them from monopolizing 1/3rd of the worlds trade which would be disastrous for everyone but China.

OK...So their reason for allegedly "monopolizing 1/3rd of the worlds trade" would be?

Concentrate.......What's their motivation?

The same reasons anyone would want a monopoly. So that the world will be 1/3rd MORE dependent on Chinese policy/trade. It would be a giant geopolitical trading chip. It would be like having the legitamet authorty to close off the Panama/Suez canal. Please, I don't beleive you understand the gravity of their clames and actions. Watch the videos I posted. Specifically the first one. The Chinese aren't going to tell you the real reason why they claim the whole SC Sea. "Officially" their stance is that it all belongs to them because it did many many years ago (which is bs). In reality those fisheries, oil reserves, and other natural resources, not to mention the route 1/3rd of the worlds trade passes though, is a target that would grant them a huge geopolitical/economic advantage much to the damage of the world economy.

Be ever weary of a country that's willing to harm its own people in an effort to dominate a world economy. We don't need to act like them, but we need to be weary of their motivations and defend our own economy in the process.

 

[Oddball]

The plain fact is that it isn't. Just as it isn't in ours to piss them off. All things being equal, we're not going to stop trading with each other no matter how pissed off we are. The point is to prevent them from monopolizing 1/3rd of the worlds trade which would be disastrous for everyone but China.

OK...So their reason for allegedly "monopolizing 1/3rd of the worlds trade" would be?

Concentrate.......What's their motivation?

The same reasons anyone would want a monopoly. So that the world will be 1/3rd MORE dependent on Chinese policy/trade. It would be a giant geopolitical trading chip. It would be like having the legitamet authorty to close off the Panama/Suez canal. Please, I don't beleive you understand the gravity of their clames and actions. Watch the videos I posted. Specifically the first one. The Chinese aren't going to tell you the real reason why they claim the whole SC Sea. "Officially" their stance is that it all belongs to them because it did many many years ago (which is bs). In reality those fisheries, oil reserves, and other natural resources, not to mention the route 1/3rd of the worlds trade passes though, is a target that would grant them a huge geopolitical/economic advantage much to the damage of the world economy.

What's to their advantage to damage the world economy, that would in turn need to buy their cheap crap?

You're making no sense whatsoever.

 

[Publius1787]

OK...So their reason for allegedly "monopolizing 1/3rd of the worlds trade" would be?

Concentrate.......What's their motivation?

The same reasons anyone would want a monopoly. So that the world will be 1/3rd MORE dependent on Chinese policy/trade. It would be a giant geopolitical trading chip. It would be like having the legitamet authorty to close off the Panama/Suez canal. Please, I don't beleive you understand the gravity of their clames and actions. Watch the videos I posted. Specifically the first one. The Chinese aren't going to tell you the real reason why they claim the whole SC Sea. "Officially" their stance is that it all belongs to them because it did many many years ago (which is bs). In reality those fisheries, oil reserves, and other natural resources, not to mention the route 1/3rd of the worlds trade passes though, is a target that would grant them a huge geopolitical/economic advantage much to the damage of the world economy.

What's to their advantage to damage the world economy, that would in turn need to buy their cheap crap?

You're making no sense whatsoever.

Damage from the pont of view of people living in the effected countries, to include ours. China cannot be damaged in such a sinerio because 1) they have yet to realize full productive potential, (leaving a large workforce yet to be employed) and 2) they are willing to harm the economic well being of their citizens for the long term plan of increasing the economic viability of their country as a whole. Indeed, the poorer we are the more we are dependent on China. (They are still a command economy) .I skipped a couple of steps so if there's any questions just ask. Think of it as a modern form of mercantilism. The home country isn't effected, but their trading partners are sapped. In other words, a real crappy balance of trade.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Publius, let's start giving some evidence for your grandiose suggestions.

You have offered us nothing really, and I am not interested in the taxpayer funding a forward fleet to make our giant corporations any richer.

China and the rest of Asia will trade with us because it is in everyone's best interest to do so. There will be no grand collapse.

Sure, what specifically?
Our corporations? You would do without them too?
I didn't make a proposition of "grand collapse." He did. I said the result of doing something stupid like cutting off trade with China would create economic calamity.

I doubt goofball wants to end trade with China. He is not bright whatsoever, but on this he has some insight. Not much, but some.

No one said doing anything without corporations, only why the taxpayer should subsidize a forward fleet in order to "guarantee" trade and profits for said corporations when it is in China's interest to continue trade with us.

 

[Publius1787]

Publius, let's start giving some evidence for your grandiose suggestions.

You have offered us nothing really, and I am not interested in the taxpayer funding a forward fleet to make our giant corporations any richer.

China and the rest of Asia will trade with us because it is in everyone's best interest to do so. There will be no grand collapse.

Sure, what specifically?
Our corporations? You would do without them too?
I didn't make a proposition of "grand collapse." He did. I said the result of doing something stupid like cutting off trade with China would create economic calamity.

I doubt goofball wants to end trade with China.

No one said doing anything without corporations, only why the taxpayer should subsidize a forward fleet in order to "guarantee" trade and profits for said corporations when it is in China's interest to continue trade with us.

Very short answer.

Start with Locke, review Smith, take in some Madison/Jefferson, perhaps some Hayek and Freidman, and before long you will realize that commerce is just as much an extension/necessity of individual liberty from the poorest among us to the wealthiest. China isn't going to play along those lines. Infact, they are going to impede that process. Besides, they don't want to defend trade in the SC Sea, they want the whole SC Sea. In the end were going to trade with each other no matter what. We can't afford not to and China is giving us the rope to hang ourselves with. Lets not hasten the process.

By the way, the only reason for a Navy is to protect international trade and ensure everyone plays straight. Think of nations as individuals and Navy's as a second amendment issue. Disarming yourself only places you in a dangerous position.

US Navy Mission Statement
The mission of the Navy is to maintain, train and equip combat-ready Naval forces capable of winning wars, deterring aggression and maintaining freedom of the seas.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Property =/= Liberty and Corporate Trade =/= Liberty

Dead wrong neo-con prattle

 

[Publius1787]

Property =/= Liberty and Corporate Trade =/= Liberty

Dead wrong neo-con prattle

Property is an extension of the fruits acquired by the excersize of your liberties. Property is just as much a right as your liberties themselves. Corporations answer to markets. They are purest form of democratic choice. It wasn't until liberals destroyed art 1 sec 8 clause 1 of the us constitution in the late 30's before corporations became an full scale undue influence problem.

Stop with the contradiction nonsense. If you have a position explain it. An argument is a series of statements to establish a definite proposition. Contradiction is just to say the opposition of the person speaking to you. Name calling doesent help your case either. See here >> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

 

[Dot Com]

aren't all social cons for big brother gov't? Whatever happened to the rw'ers who said, when Bu$h II was wiretapping w/o warrants- "well, if you're not doing anything wrong then whats the prob?"

 

[Publius1787]

aren't all social cons for big brother gov't? Whatever happened to the rw'ers who said, when Bu$h II was wiretapping w/o warrants- "well, if you're not doing anything wrong then whats the prob?"

Talking to yourself?

 

[Dot Com]

I'm addressing the OP. Mandatory Ultrasounds are big gov't.