I don't believe that is what will result from globalization. Mainly what will happen is consolidation of wealth and power by a few, and the loss of our power over representatives. At state levels we have more control over our lives, at federal levels we have less. As we give more power to leaders elsewhere, we lose even more control over accountability.

Americans haven't shown themselves to be responsible enough. Ever walk down the aisle at Wal Mart? They're usually pretty crowded. This is why I support some protectionism. Not only does it keep more jobs here, it also gives smaller businesses a seat at the table who don't have the global bargaining power that Wal Mart etc does.

__________________
Society is produced by our wants and government by our wickedness ~Thomas Paine

That's what I'm talking about. We have to practice capitalism responsibly. Whenever we don't the citizens accept socialism as the cure. Refer to how unions got started in the US. Democrats are known as the party for "the little guy" even though their policies produce no legitimate results for them. Republicans could capitalize on *some* protectionist policies....but as of now they are the party that vehemently opposes all protectionism.

Some might say that (usually liberals) but I don't agree with that. I'm not a neocon and I support victory in Iraq. Neocons are basically just more socialist Republicans with a mixture of outspoken religious values IMO.

-.-
I didn't even say that. I said by today's standards they could be Republicans. Have you not noticed the fiscally socialist policies of many Republicans today??

__________________
Society is produced by our wants and government by our wickedness ~Thomas Paine

You know BB if I take a totally un biased stance I would agree with you.

The Republicans have to take note though what happened to my party (the Labour Party) when we offered up for slaughter left of centre candidates, it started the period of darkness, starting with thatcher!

So if you reverse the analogy, in the climate of today, and after 2 terms of Dubya's "conservatism" another rightwing candidate in this election would have sent you to the wilderness for at least 4 terms, with McCain you are in with a shout, if he wins he will only last for one term, it is what he ushers in if that happens that interests me, as a once political strateghist!

I have to say taking an unbiased view of the rep/candidates, the Newt would have in my opinion, if he have stood, and but for your current fear of "baggage" ( I Know he has enough to fill the left luggage department at grand central station) wiped the floor with both sides

I do not care about a candidate's private life, it is his or her brain that counts, not there religion or there lack of it or where there sexual urges lead them to

Politicians are natural "johns" they will (*)(*)(*)(*) any political whore as long as they gain a place in history!

Your analogy is way off the mark. By no stretch of the imagination is Bush in american terms a conservative. The last conservative was Reagan 20 years ago. By contrast, Labour before Blair WAS a socialist anachronism.

__________________
Blade: "more educated and literate people than Justabubba"

Justabubba: "that would include everyone"

http://politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=27847

... so true!

and McCain is going to be a more forgetful version of the little bush ...

__________________
Some

Words From History:

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction...” — Ted Kennedy (September 27, 2002)


"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." - Ronald Reagan.

From my other thread it sounds like the fundamental core issue for conservatives is ending progressive taxation and generally hanging onto money instead of allowing it to be dispersed to other with less (I.e. local or state programs instead of federal ones for most things).

If you want to gain support for that view, you might do well to find out at what income point someone benifits from those changes. Also you might want to study which regions come out ahead. Or suburbs vs downtowns, vs bad part of town.

Now if it's only the top 10% that come out way ahead under conservative policies, that probably won't help you.

But if you find that benifits kick in at a low income point you could gain a lot of converts with the whole "they're taking your money" thing from the group of people who don't think they make enough money to be a conservative, but maybe do.

If you're pulling welfare/medicare and such that could move the income level needed way down.

That sounds like an entitlement slanted comment.
When you work for it - what reason would motivate people to happily be FORCED to give it up?

__________________
Some

Words From History:

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction...” — Ted Kennedy (September 27, 2002)


"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." - Ronald Reagan.

What does this have to do with the topic?

I wanted to vote for him. Like Condi, he didnt want to run. Newt is Neocon where it matters. He was my 2nd choice after Condi.


Why would I start another party when everything I want is right here? I'm comfortable.


But it ain't gonna happen. Neocons own this party now. You can camp out in the backyard if you want though.



You havnt done a very good job so far.

McCain may be a little more liberal than I'm comfortable with on some issues. But on foreign policy he is all neocon.

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

Perhaps that will happen. Maybe there will be a 20/80 effect - like we have in America. Is that really so bad?

I'm more concerned with what you said about the representation. I don't know what you're talking about. How will we lose our representation?

You definetely know why they exist. What I'm saying is that it's not bad that they exist, but Bush has done it over the course of 8 years. I think it will eventually be a good idea to have globalization, but I don't think it will only take 8 years, it will take 100 years. It has to be slow to keep from major corruption of the market - like with walmat.