>> until they disagree with it. we just walked out on a UN conference for racism b/c we didn't like its direction. the un didn't *force* us to do jack. and this was really a minor thing - not like usurping our sovereignty <<
that's because we finally have a decent president with a backbone who is not afraid to put america's interests first. this is the exception, not the rule. i shudder to think where we would be had we elected that commie pinko leftist marxist gore.
>> imho, our sovereignty is taken away when we are forced to do things we don't want to do <<
i didn't say it was always "taken" away, i said we often sign it over.
>> if we want to do it (and you disagree) that doesn't make us less sovereign <<
you really need to get over this notion that sovereignty has to be forcibly taken from us. we can hand it over if we choose to. just because we choose to surrender our sovereignty does not mean we still retain that sovereignty.
>> i see nobody that can *force* us to do what we don't want to do. <<
like i have said on numerous occasions, oftentimes we hand our sovereignty over on a silver platter. whether we chose to hand it over or not, doesn't change the fact that it's gone.
>> china? please. that would make gst happy, though (wasn he the guy touting china?). that is a stretch. <<
i never said china was ready just yet. i believe you asked me who would one day step up to challenge us as the next great superpower. that is my answer. you can laugh all you want, but look at how free trade, interventionism, imperialism, hegemony, & hubris destroyed the british empire. those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
>> second, you strongly implied that the US has signed over all merger approvals to europe by bringing up the ge/hon veto in terms of giving up national sovereignty. you wouldn't mislead us, would you? <<
i only commented on the ge/hon deal. how does that translate into "strongly implied the US has handed over all merger approvals"?
is this not what i said?
Earlier this year, the EU voted against GE's proposed $43 billion purchase of Honeywell amid concerns that GE could distort competition by using its financial arm to help sell its jet engines and Honeywell's avionics.
The rejection, which ultimately led the two companies to scuttle the deal, was a rare European veto of an all-American combination that had already won approval from U.S. antitrust enforcers.
biz.yahoo.com
>> perhaps this had NOTHING to do with the "one world order" and EVERYTHING to do with the mechinations of the european stock and commercial markets <<
once again you are missing the point. the point is not the reasons why the EU blocked the deal. the example of the push toward globalization and a new world order is the fact that they can effectively block the deal.
>> iow, you make a choice ge/hon. go ahead and merger. we can't stop you. but you will not trade on OUR stock markets and you will not business in OUR europe. you can do all the business you want in the USA, though. <<
once again the suggestion is made that we need to pander to foreign interests. you are helping to make my point. we can't make our trading partners mad, because they won't do business with us. so we cede more sovereignty to them and let them kill our deals, all because we need access to their markets.
>> sorry, craig, this one doesn't float. ge/hon are free to merge. they just can't run over europe's sovereignty by *forcing* europe against its will to sell ge/hon products. for someone so concerned about amercian sovereignty, you sure are willing to trample on europe's sovereignty. <<
once again, i said we signed our sovereignty away. i never said the EU forced our country to enter trade agreements where we give the EU the right of veto. |
