Change Trade Policy AIEEEE!

[Doyle Srader <DSRADER@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU>]

Talk about a phrase that means _nothing_, or close to it.

C'mon, folks. Little to nothing was non-topical on the trade topic. We
subsidized the sale of a single commodity to China and never heard T
extended past the block. And no, we didn't have contextual cards. If it
was a policy, and if it affected trade, it passed. It's notable that
Hester chose to go for "substantially change" against us rather than
"trade policy" -- if the notorious verbal charade looked like a better
limit than "trade policy," then that says something.

If having the constraints on affirmative plans devolve to absurdity is
something we don't want to see, then it is **urgent** that we dig out
wordings that actually forbid affirmatives from doing certain things,
instead of just making them scratch their heads for fifteen seconds
while wording out a plausible T defense.

Any of the areas are fine with me, but a topic made of verbal mush is a
nightmare waiting to happen.

Doyle Srader
University of Georgia
<706> 548-9938

---

• Prev by Date: Topic wording..
• Next by Date: topic papers
• Prev by thread: Topic wording..
• Next by thread: topic papers
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page