GO GO GO To all the demonstrators and rioters.. more power to you. It is on the socialist/capitalist industrial one worlders who want to take your Contstitional rights. Do you think a country like India or China will give a rats ass about your children or paycheck? I hope the kick the WTO ass out of USA. This is the shot heard round the world.

-- jeff (jeff@free.com), November 30, 1999

Answers

Jeff:

I think that you are getting carried away.

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), November 30, 1999.

I agree with your position but not your reason.

Indian and Chinese children work in sweatshops to produce your crappy clothing, not the other way around.

Get a life and an education.

Pete

-- Peter Starr (startrak@northcoast.com), November 30, 1999.

I liked the question raised by a caller on the radio show I'm listening to. He said something like "WTO has no right to be here, what authority do they have? I thought it was Congress' job to decide trading and tariffs?"

It made me think.

-- Hokie (nn@va.com), November 30, 1999.

Hokie:

They are here because they were invited. They were created in part by our Congress.

Best wishes,,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), November 30, 1999.

The sweatshops are government sponsored. Ours will be, too, if we allow our "elected" gods to have their way with us. Americans by and large, are large, lazy, and ignorant. Been there with lazy and ignorant, will be there no more. We are betrayed. BEAR ARMS, OR WEAR CHAINS.

-- nowillienoo (axemansrv1@aol.com), November 30, 1999.

You have a choice, buy American cars & American clock radios. Dont buy any TV's if they are all made in countries you dont like. No one is forcing you to work for someone else. Start you rown business. STOP whining!! & stop polluting this board with NON-y2k related info...

Thanks (i feel much better now)

-- INever (invercheckmy@onebox.com), November 30, 1999.

Z,

Yep, I respect your opinion, and can see on the other hand what an embarrassment this riot would be to our citizens with international business associates.

Certainly congressmen maintain business interests, as do their constituents. Sounds like the constituents in Seattle beg to differ. It's really a shame. Currently the scanner's broadcasting someone using a baseball bat on cars. Just a sec ago the broadcast was shots fired in a park. shutting down south bound traffic on Pine due to protesters "edging on cops". Very sad. All these lives on the line tonight.

-- Hokie (nn@va.com), November 30, 1999.

listening to the scanner, this sounds real, i hope no one gets hurt, i hope the protest remains peaceful. CNN_TV isn't covering this. They're doing a story on BIOMETRICS....duh, iNever learned the metric system!

-- iNever (inevercheckmy@onebox.com), November 30, 1999.

"It is duty to desrtoy WTO.. this is war for our nations soul..."

First part's OK, but it's too late to save our nation's soul. It was sold out a long time ago...for a good profit, too.

You'll have to start over. Kicking the WTO out of the US, and kicking the US out of the WTO is a good start.

But it's only a start.

-- hunter (way@up.north), December 01, 1999.

THE FOLLOWING MAKES IT CLEAR. Rise up on your hind legs sheeple!!!

>LA Times > >Sunday, November 21, 1999 > >The Stealth Coup: US Democracy >Fades As WTO Seizes Control For >Multinational Corporations... > >The Stealth Coup > >The WTO and the Fed have essentially become two new >branches of government, in many ways more powerful than >Congress and the president. Who elected them anyway? > >By KEVIN PHILLIPS > >WASHINGTON--An important prelude to the 2000 elections >could take place in Seattle, if organizers can produce their hoped-for >"protest of the century" against the Third Ministerial Conference of >the World Trade Organization that begins Nov. 30. > >Doubters scoff at this. While activists urge people to travel to >Seattle to protest the WTO, nine of 10 Americans probably can't >explain what the organization is. So they won't be paying attention to >complaints that the WTO is about to become an unelected fourth >branch of the U.S. government, or that it is a magna carta for U.S. >multinational corporations to further decrease their dependence on >American employees and loyalties. > >The World Trade Organization, though officially only 4 years old, >represents a huge intrusion on U.S. politics and on national, state and >local decision-making, largely in the interest of multinational >corporations and trade lobbies. Scare talk like this has been >exaggerated before. But this is not hyperbole: Legislators in >Washington could be on the brink of understanding that they--and the >voters--are losing control over the evolution of America's role in the >global economy in the 21st century. > >This is a grave danger. The historical evidence from the two >previous great economic world powers is that whatever financial >elites want--high-profit global priorities--is bad for ordinary citizens, >who are more vulnerable and require that domestic economics come >first. > >Yet, headlines from Seattle could launch a public debate, >especially if the protesters are largely American. It's this nation >whose ordinary citizens have the greatest political and economic >stake in limiting the WTO and its anticipated role. > >Alienated voters bemoan losing control over U.S. policymaking, >but representatives and senators share in the loss. Where the U.S. >government once had three branches--executive, legislative and >judicial--it now has five. The newest branches are the unelected >Federal Reserve Board, which controls money supply, interest rates >and, in many respects, the U.S. economy; and the WTO, which not >only controls trade practices but can overrule federal, state and local >laws that interfere with trade rights as the organization defines them. >Politicians and voters have little or no control over either the Fed or >the WTO. > >Power, quite simply, has been shifting to major financial >institutions and multinational corporations. In the Federal Reserve >system, which operates behind closed doors, controls its own funds >and is independent of Congress, the presidents and boards of the >individual regional Federal Reserve banks are selected by the >business and financial communities. Yet, some of the regional Fed >presidents sit on the Open Market Committee, which makes Federal >Reserve interest-rate and monetary policy. This lack of democracy >didn't used to matter much. But in the last decade, the world's central >banks have been gaining influence over national and international >economies and becoming increasingly independent of politicians and >elected officials. > >Trade policy has similarly been moving from elected hands to >unelected private interests and global bureaucrats who better >represent the multinational trade and investment communities. This >includes international agencies, trade lawyers and lobbyists, banks >and multinational corporations of all national stripes, though U.S. >firms have the most clout. > >Despite occasional talk by right-wing kooks that the WTO is >dangerous because the United States has only one vote and could be >outmuscled, the effective control in WTO--as in the International >Monetary Fund, the World Bank and other such organizations--lies >with the Quad countries--the United States, Japan, Canada and the >European Union--whose decisions, in turn, are dominated by >multinational trade and investment elites. The real problem is that >their loyalty is to the man in the executive suite, not the man on the >street. > >In the last decade, the Washington trade-policy establishment has >moved to strip U.S. politicians and voters of their influence over >trade policy by a number of devices. For example, in 1994, the key >congressional vote in favor of establishing the World Trade >Organization was held according to "fast track" rules and during a >post-election lame-duck session of Congress, when defeated >lawmakers would be pliable and the measure could be slipped >through with little discussion. The fast-track procedure was >established so that Congress could not tinker with trade agreements >sent to Congress but had to reject or rubber-stamp them, as it did >with the North American Free Trade Agreement. > >The WTO is exhibit A in the neutering of Congress and the >voters. WTO procedures allow countries to challenge each other's >laws and regulations as violations of WTO trade rules. Cases are >decided in secret, with documents, hearings and briefs kept >confidential and unreleased, by tribunals of three bureaucrats, usually >corporate lawyers. There are no conflict-of-interest restraints for >these people. In addition, no appeal is possible outside the WTO. > >Under this authority, barely debated in the legislative fast shuffle >of 1994, the WTO has already overturned part of the U.S. Clean Air >Act and declared illegal a recent U.S. environmental regulation. Now >there is talk of enlarging WTO's jurisdiction to include education and >health matters. Congress is being fleeced like lambs at a shearing. > >Proponents of this transfer generally argue that either >1) globalization is the inevitable and we have to guide it or >2) globalization may involve some sacrifices but, in the long >run, most Americans will profit. > >History's example, however, raises major cautions. Indeed, the >two great world economic powers before the United States--the >Dutch in the 17th and early 18th centuries, and the British >thereafter--followed the same internationalization trajectory as their >world leadership peaked and then went into decline. > >This precedent is as frightening as it is clear. As the Dutch and >British global economies peaked, their future, said the elites, lay in >embracing international rather than internal economic opportunities. >As the old industries started to fade--textiles, shipbuilding and >fisheries in the Netherlands; coal, textiles and steel in Britain--the >elites said: Never mind. We now lead the world in services: banking, >finance, overseas investments, shipping, insurance, communications. >And that's where the payoff is. > >Within each nation--1720-40 Holland and Britain in the "Upstairs, >Downstairs" era of 1900-1914--two things came to pass. First, >common people started losing the old industrial jobs that had made >ordinary Dutchmen and Britons the envy of Europe. The old >industrial districts deteriorated. Second, even as industrial decay >worsened, finance and investments soared, inequality mushroomed >and the elites buzzed about a new golden age. But then, something >went wrong; finance, investments and services lost their way. The >golden age imploded and the economy became no more than a shell >of its old broad-based heyday--Holland in 1770 or Britain in 1945. > >This is the enormous risk that ordinary Americans--the huge >two-thirds in the economic middle--now take in allowing U.S. >democracy and representative government to be undercut and >restructured by the U.S. equivalent of the financial and multinational >elites that so selfishly misdirected early 20th-century Britain and >18th-century Holland. Recent statistics showing the top 1% of >Americans soaring on financial wings, even as inflation-adjusted >median family incomes are about the same as they were 25 years >ago, buttress the parallel. So do efforts of current U.S. elites to move >their investments overseas, as the earlier Dutch and British elites did, >and to sell technology to nations like China that could easily become >a threat to U.S. interests. > >It's easy to see why U.S. corporate CEOs and investment >bankers want the new globalism. Dozens have publicly admitted they >don't want their organizations to be American any longer; they want >them to be international so they can cut loose from stagnant median >family incomes and the future pensions and benefits for those >58-year-old workers in Kansas and Kentucky. > >The WTO is many things, some of them reasonable. To say >otherwise would be misleading. Nonetheless, too many multinational >banks and corporations silently applaud the WTO as an enabler of >overseas investment that will make it safe for U.S. companies to >move more of their employment, profits and loyalties elsewhere. >Ordinary Dutchmen and Britons couldn't stop the earlier trends, and >maybe Americans can't stop these. > >Even so, tens of thousands of angry people in the streets of >Seattle, giving these issues a human face, could do more than attract >headlines and evening-news coverage. They might propel the matter >into an arena where such important decisions should be made: the >2000 presidential and congressional elections. * > >- - - > >Kevin Phillips, a Political Historian, Is Author of "The Politics of Rich >and Poor" and "The Cousins' Wars: Religion, Politics and the >Triumph of Anglo-america."

-- FreeBrave (Ofthepeople@Bythepeople.Forthepeople), December 01, 1999.

Way to go, jeff. Your literate and well reasoned dialectic has convinced me to defend my Contsitistustisusitutional rights. Remind me, which Article is it that deals with world trade? ;)

OHHHHH TEEEEE.

-- Colin MacDonald (roborogerborg@yahoo.com), December 01, 1999.

Let's see:

• WTO
• World Court
• United Nations
• NATO no longer a "defensive" alliance
• Global Corporations
• Sovereign nations labeled as "The Old World Order"

Emerging world government? :-(

-- Anonymous999 (Anonymous999@Anonymous999.xxx), December 01, 1999.

I can hear Kenny D now: "Pay no attention to that capitalist behind the curtain"

-- a (a@a.a), December 01, 1999.