What do you think about the CNN report that the U.S. Olympic team's uniforms were made in China? Is that a ridiculous, ill-conceived notion or a practical business/trade decision?
Disgraceful. Everyone involved with that decision should be fired and publicly called out for their disrespectful and insulting treatment of our Country and our Olympic team. I don't really care what they were thinking. In my opinion, the uniforms worn by athletes representing the U.S. on the world stage of the Olympics should be proudly made in America by Americans. With their close ties and support of China, I can't help but wonder if the White House had any involvement with this one ??
At least they can't blame Bush, though I wouldn't be surprised if they tried.
What clothing is made in America? Nile, Reebok, Speedo are all made in China, Bangladesh, or Vietnam.
Maybe our textile industry is kaput.
If we beat China in every event, who cares? Winning is everything, then we can have the last laugh.
Nile is a river outside Detroit.
"At least they can't blame Bush, though I wouldn't be surprised if they tried."
Here's a surprise for you while you're drinking your TEA, the uniforms for the olympics that Romney "saved" (during the Bush years) were made in Burma (now Myanmar). Put that in your bag and steep it.
With their close ties and support of China, I can't help but wonder if the White House had any involvement with this one ??
It's too early to be so stupid. The Olympic Committee picked Ralph Lauren. The company has manufactured with cheap labor for years...as so most clothing manufacturers.
Any bets that puddycat shops at Wal-Mart...
You guys need to make up your mind, are you free market or Protectionists?
The majority of labor in the USA today is sales and service. "Made in the USA" is, basically, history of the past.
And, Romney can eliminate all taxes for the wealthy, but companies will still rather pay for cheap labor.
So, the only options are to (1) conduct covert operations in cheap labor country that sew the seeds of labor organization (higher wages, better conditions, etc.) or (2) repeal 100+ years of labor laws in the U.S.
I can imagine number two would be very popular among U.S. workers...
Changing the subject-any bets on Romney releasing his tax returns?
Nope, but a better change on the subject I see where the LOST (Laws Of the Seas Treaty) program was thrown out. The UN doesn't get to take over the laws of the seas yet.
Romney = Bain Capital. Off-shore bank accounts. Not releasing his tax returns..
= dead in the water.
In all fairness, he cites Reagan who only released 1 year of tax returns. Didn't include the years he was in bed with Bonzo. That was exempt in Article 4 of the US Constitution.
Nope, don't hold your breath on the tax returns. He's not his father.
Besides, it takes time to be able to manipulate the numbers to make you look like you're not a crook.
Why should Mitt Romney show his tax returns when he hasn't been nominated yet?
Next question: How many of Barack Obama's tax reforms have you seen and how many did he show in his 2008 campaign?
Reagan was governor of CA for years before running for President, there really wasn't a question about him stashing money offshore to evade paying taxes.
Souvenir bust of past President's at the Smithsonian Gift Shop are all made in
China. so what's the difference. The Olympic Committee picked the designer
and the price. Where these were made was probably never even considered.
Remember we're talking donated and government money, not dollars their
job and decisions depend on!
Obama has now released 11 years of his tax returns- and guess what? No off-shore accounts, no shell corporations, no Swiss bank accounts. Methinks this could be Romney's undoing- even looney Sarah said that McCain picked her because of what he saw in Romney's returns when he was being vetted for that job.
Note to yogi: he released more than two years.
Politicians are hypocritical, it's par for the course, but when you're running on a platform that essentially says I'm best able to run the country because of my business past, shouldn't the American people have full disclosure on exactly what that past entails?
Especially when Romney used the exact same tactic that Obama is using now in 1994 against Kennedy. If you aren't releasing your information, you must be hiding something.
See how this works?
That may be true, Ummm...but I've always thought that they were quick to pick Palin because they really thought Obama would tap Hilary. They gambled, didn't know who they were getting, and lost bigtime.
Well, America really lost because now we can't rid of her...
s/h/b can't get rid of her...
When your family or friends cannot explain why they voted for a Democrat, give them this list.
1. I voted for a Democrat because I believe oil companies’ profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene, but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn’t.
2. I voted for a Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.
3. I voted for a Democrat because Freedom of Speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.
4. I voted for a Democrat because I’m way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers, rapists, thugs, and thieves.
5. I voted for a Democrat because I believe that people who can’t tell us if it will rain on Friday can tell us that the polar ice caps will disappear in ten years because of Global Warming if I don’t start driving a Prius or a Chevy Volt.
6. I voted for a Democrat because I’m not concerned about millions of babies being aborted so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.
7. I voted for a Democrat because I think illegal aliens have a right to free health care, education, and Social Security benefits.
8. I voted for a Democrat because I believe that business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as the Democrats see fit.
9. I voted for a Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution regularly to suit some fringe folks who would never get their agendas past the voters.
10. I voted for a Democrat because I think that it’s better to pay billions to people who hate us for their oil, but not drill for our own because it might upset some useless endangered beetle, gopher, or fish.
11. I voted for a Democrat because while we live in the greatest, most wonderful country in the world, I was promised “HOPE AND CHANGE.”
12. I voted for a Democrat because my head is so firmly buried in the sand that it’s unlikely that I’ll ever have another point of view.
I copy and past chain emails because:
1. That was the first thing my mom taught me to do in her basement.
2. I'm so intellectually inferior I cannot sustain an intelligent conversation on my own.
3. The voices told me to do so.
4. It makes me look smart.
5. Someone told me the opposite sex likes that (though I've never actually seen a live girl before.
6. It's better than brushing my tooth.
You said it--your head is buried in the sand. Your right wing crap doesn't amuse...
gdia--good comeback. My comment was directed at the nutcase, not you!
Forget the China connection. Who approved those ugly-@$$ berets?
Ben, you'd also think that they would wear something a little cooler, it is the Summer Olympics...
Nothing says it's late July than long pants, blazer and beret...
Do they actually have summer in London?
The free enterprise system worked very well for the United States when they were the only game on the planet. ( 1945 to 1980) Now the United States has adopted a "free stuff" society for those without the will or the drive or the ambition or the brains to earn a living. As long as there are enough people with incomes high enough to support these "people" everything will be fine. Unfortunately the underclass is breeding at the same rate as a lemming. Another 20 years should be a day of reckoning for almost everyone.
There will be 1% of the Americans some wealthy and some just smart who will beat the rap, The rest will be plowed under like manure on a garden plot.
For as long as there has been civilization and humans 1% of the people have been more equal than others.
Last night the Senate Republicans (those bastions of political transparency) used the threat of filibuster once again to block passage of a bill- "the bill would have required disclosure of anyone who donates to independent groups that spent more than $10,000 on campaign ads -- or their functional equivalent -- and other election spending."
How do they justify this BS???
StephenII,,,,,,You are new to this little forum of 20 people. For your guidance the preponderance of this group is Unemployed .... Shut Ins ,,, Ner do Wells,,,.. Bitter failures... Unfortunates.....Lazy......Envious.....Unsuccessful......Underemployed....Resentful.....Noncomformists.....and last but not least.....Liberal Democrats by circumstance.
If anyone wants to know who Rasputin72 is, just look up "bigotry" in the dictionary- his picture is there.
He admitted to being a troll yesterday, so just ignore him. Nothing to see here.
Ummm: Your statement that Sarah stated she was picked because of Romney's
tax returns. That is a falsehood made up by someone and is refuted by
McCain's campaign manager of CNN just last night. He stated there was
nothing in those tax returns that was even discussed when the selection
Ummm.....Based on what I see posted on this board there is little reason to believe that we are not all bigots by definition....We all are trying to determine our share of the pie.
Gdiafante has it correctly. You should ignore anything that makes you angry. In fact anyone that disagrees with you adamantly must be a troll.
Ummm...Washington only says they want transparency. Especially in regards to campaign finance.
govskeptic, I think you're right about what Sarah has said. However, earlier this year she did say he should release his tax returns, as well as showing proof that Bain created "100,000" jobs- of course, that was before he defeated her preferences for the nomination: Perry, Gingrich and Santorum. And just because the McCain campaign didn't discuss what was in his returns doesn't mean there's nothing questionable in them.
Rasputin, you don't have the intellectual weight to make me angry. When it comes to political discourse, you're a ne'er do well.
If the goal was transparency then it would be different. What they are after though is an enemies list they they can sick their crazy Occupy army on.
Little Bennie knows what those mean old Democrats are thinking! And the Teapublicans would NEVER sic their baggers on any Democratic donors...
So you don't care who donates to a candidate, Ben? Don't you think their constituents might think differently?
If candidate A is proposing easing regulations on the auto insurance industry wouldn't you want to know if State Farm is financing their campaign?
(that's a generic example, relax)
The evidence on this site proves everyone's attitudes: I'm right and y'all are wrong. The biggest problem then comes down to: Which ones are right and which ones are wrong?
That considered, we are all trollers in the minds of others' and [us] "trollers" are gonna find out who's right in November.
Ummm......Do you think lack of intellectual weight is a characteristic of the wealthy?
Intellectual heavyweights like yourself have been scorned and spit on and admonished and ignored for years. It is time for that to stop. You need to assert yourself into politics and journalism and the pursuit of "free stuff" for intellectual heavyweights.
Yogi doens't know what a troll is...lol
A troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous messages in an online community with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal discussion.
Methinks yogi is one too...
I've always been for full disclosure of direct contributions GD.
I personally don't really care if anyone knows I'm a life member of the NRA though; but I could see a scenario where making that list public could hinder one's right to free speech and association and discourage such association. Particularly if, say, the member was a part of liberal academia or some government bureaucracy.
We know people who entertain the idea of intelligent design are often shunned in higher education so, would making public contributions to the Discovery Institute fit your definition of transparency or would it simply suppress freedom of speech and association?
As with everything there are two sides to the argument; and, as is normally the case, the public has only been substantially made privy to the case that favors the left.
"Here's a surprise for you while you're drinking your TEA, the uniforms for the olympics that Romney "saved" (during the Bush years) were made in Burma (now Myanmar). Put that in your bag and steep it."
Wrong, it doesn't surprise me a bit. It was not the right thing to do in 2002 just as it's not the right thing now or in any other Olympic year. That's my point. What's yours ??
Little Bennie said: "I've always been for full disclosure of direct contributions GD."
He makes an exception in this case because his Teapublican buddies think it's necessary to protect their oligarchic masters.
If it hinders free speech, the speech being obliterated is the normal citizen.
Personally, I don't beleive that money is speech. What we're seeing now is entire blocks of citizens being disenfranchised because they can't compete with wealthy corporations/donors. Who do you think has more pull, someone/something that donates tens of thousands of dollars or a few hundred?
I see where Sheriff Arpaio is going to present more evidence this evening that his "posse" got in Hawaii . It should be very, very interesting.
Do you think candidates should be allowed unlimited credit card contributions without having to provide the data to the election commission to analyze if anonymous and possibly foreign contributors made multiple contributions in excess of the disclosure limits?
puddycat, I really appreciate you stepping up to condemn Romney and the actions taken by his olympic committee during the Bush administration. Give 'em hell-
Do you think the NAACP is a valid interest group? Would you be for dissolving the association because the speech of other individuals is diminished because of the NAACP's collective power?