Up for Debate: China-made U.S. Olympic uniforms

Tuesday, July 17, 2012 at 1:17am

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?

 

Filed under: City Voices
Tagged: Up for Debate

95 Comments on this post:

By: dargent7 on 7/17/12 at 9:48

Romney's Anchilles heel will be his arrogant, aristocratic opinions and cavilier statements.
He's so "out-of-touch" Merriam-Webster will put that in next year's dictionary.
'My wife had 2 Caddilacs..."
"I enjoy firing people..."
" I'm not worried about the un-employed..."
"My 5 sons didn't enlist because they worked on me becoming President..."
"My wife Ann, never worked a day in her life...she spent all her time raising my 5 sons..."
And you sheep want this man to be your President?
Want another defunct idiot in the W.H. just because he has a "-R" after his name?
Wait until his Mormon religion comes up.

By: yogiman on 7/17/12 at 9:50

You're right, gdiafarte, money isn't "speech", but it sure tells the recipient what the "donor" wants.

Question: Why should anyone, and company or any corporation give to ones campaigning in our legislative offices? Shouldn't that be restricted to only the citizens being represented?

By: Ummm... on 7/17/12 at 9:51

Now, now d7- just because someone wears magic underwear and thinks that he'll be the ruler of his own planet after he dies is no reason to vote against him. (Well, not when there are so many other good reasons to vote against him...)

By: BenDover on 7/17/12 at 9:55

What we have are populist politicians spending the promise of taking my money and using it to buy favor with voters who did nothing to earn it.

But I don't have a right to spend the money I earned to counteract that message and promote founding ideals of personal responsibility and smaller government instead?

By: gdiafante on 7/17/12 at 10:01

I didn't say an Individual can't donate to a candidate, in fact, just the opposite, it should be limited to individuals. You can have organizations that endorse candidates but unlimited contributions seems to be in direct contradiction with the idea of "We the people".

I agree with Justice Stevens: legal entities are not We the people for whom our Constitution was established and therefore should not be given speech protections under the first amendment. That is designed for individual self-expression and protection.

By: BenDover on 7/17/12 at 10:04

So the NAACP, Political Unions and the NRA should be banned from politics because they are not individuals?

By: yogiman on 7/17/12 at 10:04

Isn't religion supposed to be left out of the political picture? Wasn't there quite a concern when John Kennedy was running because he was a Catholic? Yet people accepted it and Kennedy proved the Priest didn't tell him what to do.Yet I also didn't see him using it on any decisions he made.

Add the point Mitt Romney made his money honestly in businesses but John Kennedy "made" his through his father's bootlegging [skills]. Today it apparently seems to have been okay to bootleg but not to make it in legitimate businesses.

I guess it's only concern is which party you're in.

By: Ummm... on 7/17/12 at 10:04

Little Bennie said: "But I don't have a right to spend the money I earned to counteract that message and promote founding ideals of personal responsibility and smaller government instead?"

What are you talking about, Bennie? Of course you have the right to donate your hard-earned dollars to any demagogue you might choose. I thought we were talking about disclosure and transparency- are you saying you're afraid for other people to know you're donating to loonies?

By: yogiman on 7/17/12 at 10:09

They're apparently loonies only if they aren't elected, Ummm. If they're elected, they're the best man to have in office.... according to the winning party.

By: gdiafante on 7/17/12 at 10:10

Nope...didn't say banned from politics.

You can have organizations that endorse candidates but unlimited contributions seems to be in direct contradiction with the idea of "We the people".

I phrased the sentence before that badly, I apologize.

There should be limits...and yes, there should be complete transparency.

By: BenDover on 7/17/12 at 10:15

I think what you guys are saying is that a collective interest should have no political say in protecting the collective's wealth from the government.

You offer no countervailing force against populist politician who will use the promise of taking more and more of the wealth of others to buy political favor with the masses though.

By: BenDover on 7/17/12 at 10:18

When you use 'unlimited contributions' you infer that the stakes should not be limited by the task at hand but instead at some arbitrary level that will assure an outcome that favors the populist.

By: gdiafante on 7/17/12 at 10:20

I think what you guys are saying is that a collective interest should have no political say in protecting the collective's wealth from the government.

You cannot be serious. First, every individual in that "collective" can contribute whatever they want and can vote. Second, that "collective" also has the resources to lobby Congress to make laws in their favor, which is more than an individual has.

You can save the "poor pitiful corporations" have no way to protect themselves...

By: gdiafante on 7/17/12 at 10:23

A government of the people, by the people and for the people.

You can't get much more populist than that.

By: BenDover on 7/17/12 at 10:26

So to be clear... you are saying that the NAACP should not be allowed to buy ads in support of their favored presidential or congressional candidates?

By: Ummm... on 7/17/12 at 10:27

Even John McCain was once a believer in campaign finance reform. The "Citizens United" decision by the USSC is a knife in the heart of representative democracy. Although it will probably never happen (money talks, suckers walk), political campaigns should be 100% publicly financed to circumvent "influence buyers." Teapublicans wouldn't like that though, since the 1%ers they pander to are also lining their pockets and filling their campaign coffers.

By: gdiafante on 7/17/12 at 10:30

Damn Ben...I though I made it clear...endorse yes, unlimited contributions, no.

By: gdiafante on 7/17/12 at 10:31

By: BenDover on 7/17/12 at 10:35

So who's the arbiter of how much influence an organization can have over a campaign?

By: dargent7 on 7/17/12 at 10:35

What is comes down to, if we're humans, after all, is that Romney is a fake, a phoney, and a fraud. He'll lie just to get "the job".
Obama's a scrapper from inner cities, and plays ball, raises by the seat of his pants.
Doesn't have $250. million in the bank.
Reminds me of The Beatles.
4 schlubs from Liverpool. But had talent, charisma, and did win.
Real talent, character, honesty, will win every time.

By: gdiafante on 7/17/12 at 10:41

Well, like Ummm said, it isn't likely to happen...I think a constitutional amendment would be nice but Congress is inept at best and politicians aren't capable of biting the hand that feeds them.

So, in other words, it's a nice dream.

By: BenDover on 7/17/12 at 10:46

Can that influence be rightly categorized as 'meaningful' or 'meaningless'?

Should Obama's Class Warfare push have any similar restraints?

Should political attacks on evil corporations be allowed no meaningful response by the corporate interest?

By: gdiafante on 7/17/12 at 10:51

Obama's class warfare is no different than Wall Street's. Essentially, they're holding the economy hostage until they get assured that their free ride will continue. Much like a child throwing a tantrum.

And Ben, you sound more like a corporate mouthpiece every day.

By: Ummm... on 7/17/12 at 10:57

Class warfare is very real- the middle class has been under attack by the ultra-rich for a very long time. Of course, they only call it "class warfare" when the tables are turning.

By: yogiman on 7/17/12 at 11:02

dargent7,

You're saying Mitt Romney would lie "just to get the job"? Yet Barry Obama wouldn't (didn't) lie to get the same damn job?

Have you seen the latest booklet out on the 69 lies he's made in 3 years. How many will it wind up to be after four years?

By: bfra on 7/17/12 at 11:36

Nothing like trash from the board idiot to stop a good discussion.

By: yogiman on 7/17/12 at 12:09

Speak for yourself, bfra. It seems with your mental attitude; if you don't say it, it shouldn't be said if you don't agree with it.

By: brrrrk on 7/17/12 at 12:44

Rasputin72 said

"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."

Exactly, and Rasp just believes he's better than everyone else....

By: brrrrk on 7/17/12 at 12:47

BenDover said

"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?"

Ben, you do realize that the NAACP came about at a time when blacks were excluded from almost any other political group in the nation. What was their alternative? Sit around until the KKK thought it was OK to allow blacks? Oh, and by the way, there are white members of the NAACP.

By: brrrrk on 7/17/12 at 12:50

In a world where the amount of free speech a person can have is directly related the the money they can contribute to a campaign; a poor man has none.

By: Captain Nemo on 7/17/12 at 1:33

By: Ummm... on 7/17/12 at 8:37
Do they actually have summer in London?

Yes they have One Day of summer.

By: Captain Nemo on 7/17/12 at 1:37

By: gdiafante on 7/17/12 at 8:54
He admitted to being a troll yesterday, so just ignore him. Nothing to see here.

Son of yogi and bud, it has to be an insane, bigot. I wonder it the dog talks to him?

By: Captain Nemo on 7/17/12 at 1:41

By: Rasputin72 on 7/17/12 at 9:00
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.

I despise bigots; especially the phony class wants to be.

By: BenDover on 7/17/12 at 1:45

I think that's the point I'm making brrrrk.

Now do you think the NAACP as a collective interest group should have been forced to publish their membership and supporters? Particularly around the time of their founding?

Could you not make the leap to understand my point that the public disclosure can be used as a form of intimidation in hopes to deny free speech and association? How would such a requirement called for at the time by the government have been received at the time?

By: Captain Nemo on 7/17/12 at 1:50

By: yogiman on 7/17/12 at 12:09
Speak for yourself, bfra. It seems with your mental attitude; if you don't say it, it shouldn't be said if you don't agree with it.

The old trolls approach seems to have not gotten off the ground. Instead it sounds more like a fart.

By: brrrrk on 7/17/12 at 2:03

BenDover said

"Could you not make the leap to understand my point that the public disclosure can be used as a form of intimidation in hopes to deny free speech and association? How would such a requirement called for at the time by the government have been received at the time?"

Seriously, you're equating the NAACP to the protection of special interest groups that attempt to sway elections through the sheer force of accumulated wealth?

By: BenDover on 7/17/12 at 2:08

Well obviously there's a line for you brrrrk. Where, oh master, are we allowed to voice our interests through voluntary collective action and where are we not?

By: dargent7 on 7/17/12 at 2:29

Barry, aka, Barack, didn't have to lie or cover his tracks.
He was only 47 when elected.
Uncle Mitty is 65. Lot more history there.
Republicans, Teapublicans are just besides themselves a black man could beat a white man at his own game.
But, that's what America needed after 8 years of a moron called Bush.
Name ONE country that has asked GW Bush to speak to "their people" in the past 4 years. Name one.
Clinton, who was hounded, impeached, and scandalized, has 10 engagements a week.

By: brrrrk on 7/17/12 at 2:57

BenDover said

"Well obviously there's a line for you brrrrk. Where, oh master, are we allowed to voice our interests through voluntary collective action and where are we not?"

When are people like Sheldon Adelson, who came right out and said that contributing to campaigns is an investment, a collective? And what about corporations that make huge contributions? Don't we have a even have a right to know if a foreign corporation is trying to influence our elections?

By: brrrrk on 7/17/12 at 3:04

And while we're at it Ben, where's the line for you? Can't we a least agree that any organization or individual that contributes to campaigns must be "American"; lock, stock and barrel?

By: BenDover on 7/17/12 at 3:46

Would that mean membership and support of the NAACP should be limited to US citizens brrrrk?

By: brrrrk on 7/17/12 at 3:58

BenDover said

"Would that mean membership and support of the NAACP should be limited to US citizens brrrrk?"

No problems

By: brrrrk on 7/17/12 at 4:03

BenDover said

"Would that mean membership and support of the NAACP should be limited to US citizens brrrrk?"

In addition, I would wager that this isn't that much of an issue given that the NAACP is primarily an American association to begin with..... after all, "N" stands for National...

By: BenDover on 7/17/12 at 4:43

I'm sure it's not much of an issue, brrrrk.

I just wondered if you were making an absolutist point where a foreigner could disqualify the participation of a group in the political process by making a contribution.

So in that vane, La Raza should not voice support a US political candidate unless all of its members and supporters are U.S. citizens.

And would the same thing apply to U.S. labor unions?

By: puddycat on 7/17/12 at 11:07

Ho Hummmmm ,

"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-"

I'm more than happy to. However, more reasonably to me, this is not about blame game politics of the past or the current day but about 2014 and beyond.
I'm missing your thoughts on the original question which was regarding the 2012 Olympics, not who did what when in past administrations and Olympic Committees.

Politicians look backward for someone to blame for failures; patriots look forward for someone to praise for the gains. But we need term limits to prevent all from trying to do both.