# More proof that the Republicans are idiots



## noodles (Aug 29, 2006)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14535192/site/newsweek/


----------



## Shannon (Aug 29, 2006)

See your current president. Enough said.


----------



## Leon (Aug 30, 2006)

"your"? he came from your state!


----------



## zimbloth (Aug 30, 2006)

America gets what it deserves. He got elected, TWICE. It never should have even been so close. Sure the democrat candidates werent brilliant either, but you could have assumed the regime they would have brought along with them wouldnt have been THIS bad.

Boooooo using fear, religion and "values" to confuse dumbass Americans. [/Red Stripe guy]


----------



## ChrisPcritter (Sep 2, 2006)

I will have to disagree. The article said nothing about the republicans starting this and if I recall correctly pres clinton opened up trades and lowered tarrifs on china. As well as pushing NAFTA through which took a lot of jobs south of the border. Look at fender, most of there guitars and amps seem to come from mexico now. I wish we could find someone in the middle. And not a Ross Perot type either. He wanted to raise the tax on gas fifty cents. who would that hurt, not the rich just the working class and poor folks.


----------



## Azyiu (Sep 2, 2006)

This T-shirt says it all!   

http://www.tshirthell.com/store/product.php?productid=704


----------



## Leon (Sep 2, 2006)

^ LOL

that's kinda wrong


----------



## cadenhead (Sep 2, 2006)

ChrisPcritter said:


> I will have to disagree. The article said nothing about the republicans starting this and if I recall correctly pres clinton opened up trades and lowered tarrifs on china. As well as pushing NAFTA through which took a lot of jobs south of the border. Look at fender, most of there guitars and amps seem to come from mexico now. I wish we could find someone in the middle. And not a Ross Perot type either. He wanted to raise the tax on gas fifty cents. who would that hurt, not the rich just the working class and poor folks.




True. The article aslo stated that this problem sems from the Chinese government allowing international trade within manufacturing, but not it's banking system. 

They got themselvs into that mess. Though, that doesn't mean that the US is completly without blame as well.


----------



## noodles (Sep 2, 2006)

ChrisPcritter said:


> I will have to disagree. The article said nothing about the republicans starting this and if I recall correctly pres clinton opened up trades and lowered tarrifs on china. As well as pushing NAFTA through which took a lot of jobs south of the border. Look at fender, most of there guitars and amps seem to come from mexico now. I wish we could find someone in the middle. And not a Ross Perot type either. He wanted to raise the tax on gas fifty cents. who would that hurt, not the rich just the working class and poor folks.



I wasn't referring to the trade agreements as much as I was referring to the Republican's practice of borrowing money from Chinese banks to pay for the government's operating expenses. That is just about the most tactically stupid idea I could ever think of. Never borrow money from a hostile nation, and anyone who thinks China is not hostile towards us obviously hasn't been paying attention to the last fifty years of world history.


----------



## ChrisPcritter (Sep 4, 2006)

noodles said:


> I wasn't referring to the trade agreements as much as I was referring to the Republican's practice of borrowing money from Chinese banks to pay for the government's operating expenses. That is just about the most tactically stupid idea I could ever think of. Never borrow money from a hostile nation, and anyone who thinks China is not hostile towards us obviously hasn't been paying attention to the last fifty years of world history.


The article actually says it's been an ongoing problem for 25 years and I actually read it a little more carefully this time and found no reference to the republicans borrowing money from china. Only saying that china held US treasury bonds. I believe a lot of those years we had a democrat in the white house and controlling things and was even sharing classified info with china in exchange for campaign contributions. 

I don't believe it was just the republicans. It kind of reminds me of the Iraq sitiuation and the news which kept reporting no weapons of mass destruction were found and then right before the re election time came out and said a bunch of weapons of mass destruction were missing. It's about like dealing with my kids most of the time. One comes to tell me that the other one hit her and after checking its because "well she was pulling my hair" Sorry back on topic. The trade agreement is at the center of the issue. If you lower taxes or tarrifs on a countries incoming products and cause an imbalance of funds over comerce then you have pretty much screwed yourself from the 
get go. So do I think it's a dumb idea to borrow money from china HELL YES bad republicans, but remember the democrats started the ball rolling on this stupid thing. 
While I am very open minded about things concerning music and art (as long as it doesn't involve desicrating a flag) I think our country and our youth are better served to keep things more conservative in our morals, values, and attitude toward others. So I am neither a devout conservative nor a democrat hater, actually I think the best person to hold the office of president in my life time was Jimmy Carter who has gone on to do great things with habitat for humanity and other worthy organizations. Not trying to diss your opinion, just throwing in my two cents...


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Sep 4, 2006)

I'm all for conservative morals, as long as they aren't legislatively forced on people. I have pretty conservative morals, my own self. And ultimately, real morals are just about the golden rule - how we treat others. But conservative *attitudes towards others*? Hello, Alabama, 1955, anyone? 

Much better to be liberal, there. Vis a vis, your Jimmy Carter example. A fine humanitarian, no doubt. 


And isn't Conservative Values an oxymoron?


----------



## ChrisPcritter (Sep 4, 2006)

That's funny.. But you're poking fun at a news personality. What about bill clinton and Gary Condit. Both involved in not only scandlous but illegal acts. If you or I did what slick willy did we'd still be in prison and I'm not talking about anything sexual I'm talking about lying about it to the grand jury. Condit also was cheating on his wife and the girl just happened to end up dead. Also liberal and morals & values are almost opposite terms.


----------



## noodles (Sep 4, 2006)

ChrisPcritter said:


> If you or I did what slick willy did we'd still be in prison and I'm not talking about anything sexual I'm talking about lying about it to the grand jury.



If you or I did what slick willy did, it would have never come before a court of law, unless it was divorce court. He was standing before the grand jury because the Repulicans needed something to try and hang him out to dry with. What Bush did to get us into Iraq is the real case that needs to be brought to trial.

I respect the fuck out of Jimmy Carter the man. The presidency was a black spot on an otherwise stellar career. He was just too nice of a guy to be able to play the game, and it really is sad that there is a game that needs to be played. Bipartisan politics is killing this country. If we had more viable choices, then there would be no way for any one party to get total control like the Republicans have had. Look at Canada, where the conservative party has a majorty without control, because they don't have over 50%. More political diversity in the government forces the different parties to work together. Currently, it is all or nothing in the US, and I usually don't agree with even half the platform of either party. I tire of picking between the lesser of two evils.


----------



## ChrisPcritter (Sep 4, 2006)

Actually it stemmed from a sexual harrasment case which anyone from a executice of a company to a manager at mickey D's would ave to go through if they did the same thing. The fact that he lied under oath pretty much one 2time after another is what brought it to the republicans attention and put them in a feeding frenzy. I would actually hope that any political party would do the same to their own person although I know that's never the case, they always try to pass the buck or claim conspiracy just because they got caught.


----------



## Azyiu (Sep 4, 2006)

noodles said:


> I respect the fuck out of Jimmy Carter the man. The presidency was a black spot on an otherwise stellar career. He was just too nice of a guy to be able to play the game, and it really is sad that there is a game that needs to be played.


Well said.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Sep 4, 2006)

ChrisPcritter said:


> Also liberal and morals & values are almost opposite terms.


I disagree emphatically with that statement. That sounds like something my aforementioned "news personality" would have drummed up.



From the Heritage American online dictionary -

Liberal

1a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; *free from bigotry*. b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and *tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded*. c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism. d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States. 2a. Tending to give freely; *generous: a liberal benefactor*. b. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.

Sorry, pal... those are wonderfully moral values, and ideals I cherish. I'm pretty tired of so-called conservatives (I consider myself a conservative in many respects) claiming to have the monopoly on morals. To use your example again, Jimmy Carter. A personal hero, and a wonderful liberal. Forget the Rush cool-aid demagoguery, and remember what liberal really stands for.


----------



## ChrisPcritter (Sep 5, 2006)

I do understand the definition of liberal in that term but you can also have a liberal portion of food every meal and be a fat slob if you are not conservative enough and show enough self control to limit the amount of change in your diet at any given time. I do agree with many Ideals most of my family and friends that consistantly vote democrat believe in, but I also have had prejudice thrust upon me as a US Air Force member, dirt bike rider, hunter, fisherman and in almost every aspect of my life except musically. I personally would rather not vote than vote for the likes of Rush limbough for president and I will also agree with what was said about jimmy carter. He either didn't know how to play the game or didn't want to play the game, either way it showed for a fact that he is a good man, and good person above all else. I think to say that because someone votes democrat means they meet the guidelines listed in the definition is a false assumption. Most people pick the thing that is of most importance in their lives and go with that. I've asked people I know that are devout democrats a few questions regarding gay marriage and adoptions they ALL answered the same saying they would not support either, but think the democrats are for the little guy and the enviroment. So then I ask what happens to the hybrid and battery powered cars batteries when they don't work any more. If there is a safe and enviromentally friendly way to dispose or recycle them, then i am for their use. So to say you are a friend to the enviroment because you have a hybrid car may all be another ploy by the auto makers to get you into a new car. I am what I would call a liberal conservative. I do believe things need to be changed but not that we need to start changing things without thinking and call it progress. I think if we got rid of all our government officials and put in people that actually care about the working man and the less fortunate, like President Carter did, our country would move ahead and have less conflict on political ideals that I believe are actually part of the political party's and media's way of keeping us from demanding more bang for our buck. If they keep us focused on being angry at the other party for slowing progress, guess what, they don't have to shoulder the responibility they are paid and paid and paid to perform.. I will say that I respect all your opinions and wouldn't ever want everyone to say they agree with me if they don't, I just don't believe long term problems can be blamed on one person or party unless they instagated it.


----------



## Leon (Sep 5, 2006)

when Clinton lied nobody died!


----------



## ChrisPcritter (Sep 5, 2006)

Also I didn't mean that someone who considers themself liberal has no morals and values but by nature morals and values come from the conservative side of your soul. I see being liberal as more two sided than being conservative. One side is a desire for change for the better and the other side supports porn, the rights of child molesters and the likes. And of course a mix of things in between. But it doesn't mean that I think because you vote democrat or consider yourself liberal that I think you automatically have to be a bad person it just means that I think your conservative side kicks in. Not trying to ruffle feathers but I think every one has liberal and conservative morals and values whether it is the golden rule or anything else. I would consider those to be conservative morals and values and siting the definition of " being open to change " those are things that cannot be open to change. You can't be a moral person and pick and choose when it's ok to lie cheat and steal so I would say that is not open to change and that would indeed make it a conservative moral or value. I don't think I have the "market" on being moral or having values. I also don't think it's limited to republican or democrat or their supporters. I think what you do defines who and what you are and who and what you choose to be.



Leon said:


> when Clinton lied nobody died!



You are correct, he just proved that if you have enough power and influence you can get away with ANYTHING.


----------



## Leon (Sep 5, 2006)

ChrisPcritter said:


> You are correct, he just proved that if you have enough power and influence you can get away with ANYTHING.


i think our current Doink In Office has proved that beyond anyone else in history. right behind Hitler


----------



## Metal Ken (Sep 5, 2006)

ChrisPcritter said:


> You are correct, he just proved that if you have enough power and influence you can get away with ANYTHING.



Which the current administration is doing ;p


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Sep 5, 2006)

ChrisPcritter said:


> by nature morals and values come from the conservative side of your soul


Soul? What proof do you offer for this assertion? Sounds like just an opinion. I do not see it this way at all, unfortunately. Conservative and liberal as terms have noting to do with it. Rather, it's 1) evolved traits in humans, the 2 dominant being a. the need to assert self, b. the need to assert community, and then 2) traditions and mores we learn growing up. I fail to see what a so-called "soul" has to do with the issue. Your point is almost like a Straw Man. 


Oh, and paragraphs? A good idea. 



Metal Ken said:


> Which the current administration is doing ;p


Hear hear.


----------



## ChrisPcritter (Sep 5, 2006)

Leon said:


> i think our current Doink In Office has proved that beyond anyone else in history. right behind Hitler



Comparing bush to hitler... That's a new one on me. I guess I can respect that. well not really as it's not even close. Trying to end terrorism in the world and keep our reputation and integrity in tact is a lot different than the holocost that happened in Gemany. My ancestors are welsh english french indian, and Geman (Jewish). They left gemany in the early 1900's. Every one cheered when the people of Iraq were celebrating in the streets and tearing down the statue of their ex dictator but when it wasn't as quick and easy as we all thought we hear about bringing our troops home. How do we do that without totally screwing the Iraq people and loosing all integrity? Answer that and I will bow to your inteligence. Don't answer and you'll be just like the rest of us. Wishing it would end quickly without the loss of any more lives. But not really having a clue how to do it.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Sep 5, 2006)

ChrisPcritter said:


> keep our reputation and integrity in tact


This is Bush you're talking about, right?  Speaking of new ones, that's a new one to me. He's made us an international laughing stock, and routinely feared and hated around the world.



ChrisPcritter said:


> Every one cheered when the people of Iraq were celebrating in the streets and tearing down the statue of their ex dictator but when it wasn't as quick and easy as we all thought we hear about bringing our troops home.


Next you'll be telling us how they actually DID greet us with flowers. Dick Cheney wants his memos back. Can you say PR stunt? If they were so happy about our presence in their country, them how come we have over 2500 dead soldiers, never coming home, lost in that hell hole? It's certainly not because we're winning a popularity contest there, in spite of the earnest efforts of the guy you claim to be trying to keep our "reputation intact." That's laughable. Iraq had jack shit to do with terrorists, at least until we got there. This is not debateable. This is a simple fact.

Oh, wait. I know. They're all "Islami-fascists."


----------



## ChrisPcritter (Sep 5, 2006)

The Dark Wolf said:


> Soul? What proof do you offer for this assertion? Sounds like just an opinion. I do not see it this way at all, unfortunately. Conservative and liberal as terms have noting to do with it. Rather, it's 1) evolved traits in humans, the 2 dominant being a. the need to assert self, b. the need to assert community, and then 2) traditions and mores we learn growing up. I fail to see what a so-called "soul" has to do with the issue. Your point is almost like a Straw Man.
> 
> 
> Oh, and paragraphs? A good idea.
> ...



You are correct it is my opinion. I thought that's what this was about. Show proof of your statements without just quoting something or someone else which would make it their opinion that you agree with. Even history (text) books and other such learning instruments have books that directly contradict them. I would say that means each writer has a different opinion about what actually happened or is correct. 

The soul comment I made was reffering to the inner being that makes up the mental and pshycological part of your being not the part of you that goes to hell when you play too much heavy metal...that last part was a joke.. not trying to start something new here.

And I took your advice on the paragraphs.. Thanks..


----------



## Leon (Sep 5, 2006)

i guess i could hand it to Bush for not slaughtering the hard working poor of our country. although, he has done the equivilant of electric ball torture to them for the past 6 years. but then, Hitler brought Germany out of an incredible financial fiasco. ...and, Hitler was charasmatic and well spoken. entertain the thought, i dare ya 

and Iraq? drop books, not bombs. education has been, is, and always will be the non-short-term-rewarding answer that no one wants to hear. i also like, "hand-ups, not hand-outs," and, "give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he will never go hungry."


----------



## ChrisPcritter (Sep 5, 2006)

The Dark Wolf said:


> This is Bush you're talking about, right?  Speaking of new ones, that's a new one to me. He's made us an international laughing stock, and routinely feared and hated around the world.
> 
> 
> Next you'll be telling us how they actually DID greet us with flowers. Dick Cheney wants his memos back. Can you say PR stunt? If they were so happy about our presence in their country, them how come we have over 2500 dead soldiers, never coming home, lost in that hell hole? It's certainly not because we're winning a popularity contest there, in spite of the earnest efforts of the guy you claim to be trying to keep our "reputation intact." That's laughable. Iraq had jack shit to do with terrorists, at least until we got there. This is not debateable. This is a simple fact.
> ...



I will have to take it from your comments that you only watch one sided news programs and believe that all Iraqi people just want to kill our troops and that we aren't actually training their police and security and that it's all a hoax. I try to get all the facts I can before making statements not just what fox news has to say but all of the networks and what I can find online. 

Also I would have to say that from your comments you are saying that the soldiers that have come back with stories about the people there thanking them, are all lying. I thought one of the definitions of liberal was open minded


----------



## Leon (Sep 5, 2006)

i think you're putting words in TDW's mouth. i hate when people do that to me 

try not to jump to any conclusions


----------



## ChrisPcritter (Sep 5, 2006)

Leon said:


> and Iraq? drop books, not bombs. education has been, is, and always will be the non-short-term-rewarding answer that no one wants to hear. i also like, "hand-ups, not hand-outs," and, "give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he will never go hungry."



You're right we should have sent books to sadam huesain instead. Maybe we could have got him some counseling as well. I can see it now.... 

Doctor: Tell me sadaam why do you feel the need to torture your subjects and defy the UN agreements you made after you invaded Kuwait and why did you announce that any terrorists are welcome to seek sanctuary in your country.

Sadaam: My mother didn't hold me enough as a child which has led to repressed anger and a feeling of inadequacy.. Well either that or I'm just a sadistic bastard..



Leon said:


> i think you're putting words in TDW's mouth. i hate when people do that to me
> 
> try not to jump to any conclusions



Not trying to put words in anyones mout but feel like this is becoming a little skewed with a couple of you giving opinions as facts. 
Also the doctor thing was meant to be a joke and let you know that while I do take world issues seriously I don't take myself too seriously and understand others opinions even if I make light of them.


----------



## noodles (Sep 5, 2006)

ChrisPcritter said:


> Comparing bush to hitler... That's a new one on me. I guess I can respect that. well not really as it's not even close. Trying to end terrorism in the world and keep our reputation and integrity in tact is a lot different than the holocost that happened in Gemany. My ancestors are welsh english french indian, and Geman (Jewish). They left gemany in the early 1900's. Every one cheered when the people of Iraq were celebrating in the streets and tearing down the statue of their ex dictator but when it wasn't as quick and easy as we all thought we hear about bringing our troops home. How do we do that without totally screwing the Iraq people and loosing all integrity? Answer that and I will bow to your inteligence. Don't answer and you'll be just like the rest of us. Wishing it would end quickly without the loss of any more lives. But not really having a clue how to do it.



OK, you seem to be forgeting that most of us bitching about Iraq believe that *we should never have gone in in the first place*. Not one single "weapon of mass destruction" was found, no terrorist training camps existed, and the Saddam regime posed no threat to us. Bush and his group of neocon assholes succeeded in pushing Iraq to the edge of civil war, overcommitting us by hundreds of billions of dollars, creating hatred of America that has directly translated into support for violent Muslim extremists, and unbalancing the entire Middle East region. The threat of terrorist actions against the USA is worse than it was before we invaded. Bush Sr didn't invade Iraq for all of these reasons, just as GW was advised to leave Iraq alone.

Stop buying into the stupid T-word, because it is no different than the C-word used by Senator McCarthy back in the 50's. Saddam may have been the biggest asshole in the world to his own people, but he posed us no threat. It isn't America's job to go into other countries and tell them how to run the place. I seem to recall a Governor Bush from Texas saying the exact same thing. 



ChrisPcritter said:


> You are correct it is my opinion. I thought that's what this was about. Show proof of your statements without just quoting something or someone else which would make it their opinion that you agree with. Even history (text) books and other such learning instruments have books that directly contradict them. I would say that means each writer has a different opinion about what actually happened or is correct.



I could say the same about your comments on the "soul". Show me scientific proof for the human soul, or come up with a new definition of liberal and conservative. In the world of government, liberal and conservative apply to fiscal and political viewpoints, not stances on morality, no matter what this "moral majority" wants you to believe. Legislating moralality is a disgusting practice that has no basis in a sane government. That's why it isn't in the Constitution.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Sep 5, 2006)

ChrisPcritter said:


> I will have to take it from your comments that you only watch one sided news programs and believe that all Iraqi people just want to kill our troops and that we aren't actually training their police and security and that it's all a hoax.


This is a good one. 

Here' something from a so-called "one-sided" news source. Training them, eh? 1 Iraqi battalion, and even that one is incapable of being completely self-reliant? Judge for yourself.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/24/iraq.security/index.html?section=cnn_topstories


1. Nobody is saying Saddam was a good guy. But I seem to remember a certain picture of Rummy shaking the ol' Dictator's hand. His control over Iraq came largely from realistic US foreign policy, not from dreamy scenarios of making the world safe for democracy.
2. Nobody thinks the troops are bad guys, or that there isn't good being done in Iraq. Don't put words in our mouths. But over 3 years later, over 2500 US dead, God knows how many wounded, over 30,000 dead Iraqis, and not to mention the whole point Noodles made, that we shoudln't have even went there in the first place if the goal was to fight TERRORISM, well, enough is enough. Time to question this neo-con insanity.
3. As far as philosophical questions regarding "the soul", that sorta stuff is endlessly debateable. But you can't frame your assertions as facts, when it's pretty much speculation.


----------



## noodles (Sep 5, 2006)

The Dark Wolf said:


> This is a good one.



Considering that the "only" news show you are allegedly watching is Fox News, which has completely the opposite viewpoint from you...yeah, I found it pretty funny.


----------



## eaeolian (Sep 5, 2006)

noodles said:


> It isn't America's job to go into other countries and tell them how to run the place.



This is the part that drives me nuts about the whole thing - so-called "conservatives" have fallen for this bait-and-switch hook, line, and sinker. I don't care how bad Saddam was, he was no threat to the United States. 

Intelligence was manipulated, people were lied to, and this policy has now weakened the U.S.'s world position, and ability to deal with REAL threats. Pundits and the administration can try and dispute this all they want, but the reality is, this was a horrid move for U.S. security.

Best of all, we actually now have to deal with the irony of having taken out the only secular Arab government in the entire region - and we'll probably be replacing it with a Shi'a theocracy that will be an Iranian puppet state. Great.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Sep 5, 2006)

^  100% You could almost say Saddam was an experiment. A bad experiment, but you didn't see a religious civil war when he was in control. Who would dare? Hence, the whole point of it being a 'realistic' foreign policy decision by the US to support him.

We'll be greeted as liberators, with flowers strewn at our feet, as everyone rejoices about the new democracy we've brought! What a fantasy.


----------



## jim777 (Sep 5, 2006)

Not to try and drag this back on topic or anything, but treasury bonds are sold at auction.


----------



## ChrisPcritter (Sep 5, 2006)

The Dark Wolf said:


> This is a good one.
> 
> Here' something from a so-called "one-sided" news source. Training them, eh? 1 Iraqi battalion, and even that one is incapable of being completely self-reliant? Judge for yourself.
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/24/iraq.security/index.html?section=cnn_topstories


I went through the article and links and if you follow up with all it says it actually says that 125 battalions of Iraqi troops have been trained and are in place and the only one that was capable of fighting on it's own has been downgraded. 

Also as to other comments if you want to be specifice I said that it seems some folks only get their point of veiw from liberal media sources and meant to say that it was clear they didn't watch fox as well as cnn, nbc, cbs, etc.. Not that I think anyone is not intellegent. 

And lastly I don't "frame" my beliefs as fact but as someone that has been in the military and been calledf upon to do stuff I didn't want to.

Back on subjeck. I was just originally trying to say that I don't understand the claim that the a0rti0cl0e listed is proof that republicans are idiots when it doesn't even say anything about republicans in the article.


----------



## eaeolian (Sep 5, 2006)

jim777 said:


> Not to try and drag this back on topic or anything, but treasury bonds are sold at auction.



Yes, but there's a certain amount of political manuvering involved in subsidising another country's debt. China has a large trade surplus of dollars to spend, so it's no suprise they're using it to "invest" in their biggest trading partner - it puts them in a very good position to apply political pressure (or turn it aside, as the Chinese are doing with demands to devalue the yuan).

T-bonds are sold at open auction, but one must have the funds to buy them, and China has that aplenty with the current trade surplus. While this doesn't prove that Republicans are idiots, running very large deficits under these circumstances doesn't strike me as being, uh, especially conservative.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Sep 5, 2006)

ChrisPcritter said:


> I went through the article and links and if you follow up with all it says it actually says that 125 battalions of Iraqi troops have been trained and are in place and the only one that was capable of fighting on it's own has been downgraded.


Exactly! That's the point. No one claims the soldiers aren't trying. It's the policy decisions from the top that are driving the conflict. After all this time, all these Iraqi battalions supposedly 'trained', and yet the only *one* capable of fighting on its own can't even do that?

That proves my whole contention, my friend. The efforts of the troops aren't being questioned - the effectiveness of the POLICY you claim is being promoted to end terrorism and maintain the US's global position IS.

As for the whole trade issue, the phenomenon seems to be largely driven by corporate interests, as opposed to sound fiscal policy that protects American interests. For example, Walmart is a larger trading partner in terms of overall dollars than the whole nation of Russia! Who benefits from cheap goods from China, even though they're precisely what's driving the trade imbalance? Corporations like Walmart. Newsflash. The Chinese have a ridiculously under-valued currency, and they aren't buying many US produced goods.


----------



## jim777 (Sep 5, 2006)

One must have the funds to buy anything one wants to buy, that's obvious. It should also be put out there that these sales are underwritten by investment banks, so the government doesn't have a say in who buys them unless through law. Brokerage firms sell these bonds to foreign countires, and it has ALWAYS been that way. Any maneuvering that goes on has to go on through the investment banks, not the fed or the treasury. Countries are very agressively courted to buy these things up, so that commisions can be made for the banks and the bond traders (typically 35% of the commision goes to the trader, and 65% back into the house). It doesn't matter whether it's China, Japan, or Ethiopia. There is absolutely nothing new here, unless it's new to you. Every government at war will need to raise money through these types of sales to fund that war.


----------



## Drew (Sep 5, 2006)

My sole contribution to this debate will be as follows:



ChrisPcritter said:


> I do understand the definition of liberal in that term but you can also have a liberal portion of food every meal and be a fat slob if you are not conservative enough and show enough self control to limit the amount of change in your diet at any given time.



As a linguist, I have to call bullshit here. "Liberal" and "conservative" when used in political contexts have very specific meanings, and your example above uses very general, non-polical ones. Now, if you WANT us to define "liberal" as "generous" and "conservative" as "stingy" then go right ahead, but your comment here is based on lexiconal sleight-of-hand and not political fact.




ChrisPcritter said:


> I see being liberal as more two sided than being conservative. One side is a desire for change for the better and the other side supports porn, the rights of child molesters and the likes. And of course a mix of things in between. But it doesn't mean that I think because you vote democrat or consider yourself liberal that I think you automatically have to be a bad person it just means that I think your conservative side kicks in. .



I think your understanding of liberal policies has been skewed a bit by the conservative media. Your prognosis of liberalism is no more accurate than saying "conservativism is two sided; on one hand is the desire to preserve the history of this country, while the other side supports bankrupting the poor, destabilizing America's school system, and raping the environment for short-term economic profit for the few. But don't worry, I don't consider anyone who considers themselves a conservative a bad person, because every once in a while their liberal side kicks in." Sure, neither picture is ENTIRELY wrong... But both are very carefully constructed to push forward a specific agenda rather than to actually show a nuanced understanding of the party platform.




eaeolian said:


> T-bonds are sold at open auction, but one must have the funds to buy them, and China has that aplenty with the current trade surplus. While this doesn't prove that Republicans are idiots, running very large deficits under these circumstances doesn't strike me as being, uh, especially conservative.




...and this is the gist of the article and the original topic. The original trade deficit and national debt is something that we as both liberals and conservatives share an equal debt for. It's been the product of 50 years of tolerance towards deficit spending. 

However, I think what noodles had in mind here was Bill Clinton was the first president in god knows how many years to pull the budget back into the black - we were taking in more money each year than we were spending, and we were on target to work off the national deficit by, IIRC, 2010. This is pretty remarkable. Just as remarkable is the fact that Bush then came into office, and undid Clinton's progress by first giving a massive tax cut to the wealthiest american citizens and then launching into two wars, one (Afghanistan) at least somewhat justified if badly bungled, and the other (Iraq) on trumped up charges and with no clear exit strategy or even much of a well-thought-out offensive strategy (our early planning seems to have been for a quick war where the Iraqis would greet us with open arms and then quickly take over their self government, which three years later seems absolutely laughable). The result is that while six years ago we were running a budget in the black, now we've run up a record fiscal deficit, badly devaluing the dollar in the process. 

Reading this article, it's very difficult to NOT see how the current administration's policies of nation-building, large tax cuts without corresponding increases in revinue, voodoo economics in the Reaganian sense, and "deficit spending is good for the country" have badly exasperated an existing fiscal problem that's quickly building to crisis-like proportions.

And, two definitions: 

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/liberal


Merriam-Webster said:


> Main Entry: 1lib·er·al
> Pronunciation: 'li-b(&-)r&l
> Function: adjective
> Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free; perhaps akin to Old English lEodan to grow, Greek eleutheros free
> ...



http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/conservative


Merriam-Webster said:


> Main Entry: 1con·ser·va·tive
> Pronunciation: k&n-'s&r-v&-tiv
> Function: adjective
> 1 : PRESERVATIVE
> ...



The bolded are the political definitions of the terms - you should have no problems picking out the non-political definitions you were trying to use interchangeably.


----------



## eaeolian (Sep 5, 2006)

jim777 said:


> One must have the funds to buy anything one wants to buy, that's obvious. It should also be put out there that these sales are underwritten by investment banks, so the government doesn't have a say in who buys them unless through law. Brokerage firms sell these bonds to foreign countires, and it has ALWAYS been that way. Any maneuvering that goes on has to go on through the investment banks, not the fed or the treasury. Countries are very agressively courted to buy these things up, so that commisions can be made for the banks and the bond traders (typically 35% of the commision goes to the trader, and 65% back into the house). It doesn't matter whether it's China, Japan, or Ethiopia. There is absolutely nothing new here, unless it's new to you. Every government at war will need to raise money through these types of sales to fund that war.



Remember, though, that China is NOT like other countries - their investment banks are only partially privatized. I read an excellent article on this that I can't find at the moment, but the gist of this is that the Chinese investment banks are quite probably acting at the behest of the Chinese gov't.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Sep 5, 2006)

eaeolian said:


> Remember, though, that China is NOT like other countries - their investment banks are only partially privatized. I read an excellent article on this that I can't find at the moment, but the gist of this is that the Chinese investment banks are quite probably acting at the behest of the Chinese gov't.


Abolsutely correct. Add to that, many Chinese corporations supplying these cheap, basically US debt subsidized goods, are military owned Consortiums that are only loosley "private". Much of their business is sponsored and sanctioned by the Chinese government, and the largest shareholders/partners/associates are often big wigs in the Party, i.e., Generals, Party officials, and their oligarch backers.

Don't often hear these little tidbits in the conservative media.


----------



## noodles (Sep 5, 2006)

eaeolian said:


> Remember, though, that China is NOT like other countries - their investment banks are only partially privatized. I read an excellent article on this that I can't find at the moment, but the gist of this is that the Chinese investment banks are quite probably acting at the behest of the Chinese gov't.



In other words, letting China play the game designed by Capitalists, for Capitalists, is a pretty stupid move. We may already be at the point of no return, because it is pretty hard to effect change when the creditor can come calling for payment of that debt at any point. It's like trying to tell the bank what to do when they hold the deed to your house.



Drew said:


> However, I think what noodles had in mind here was Bill Clinton was the first president in god knows how many years to pull the budget back into the black - we were taking in more money each year than we were spending, and we were on target to work off the national deficit by, IIRC, 2010. This is pretty remarkable. Just as remarkable is the fact that Bush then came into office, and undid Clinton's progress by first giving a massive tax cut to the wealthiest american citizens and then launching into two wars, one (Afghanistan) at least somewhat justified if badly bungled, and the other (Iraq) on trumped up charges and with no clear exit strategy or even much of a well-thought-out offensive strategy (our early planning seems to have been for a quick war where the Iraqis would greet us with open arms and then quickly take over their self government, which three years later seems absolutely laughable). The result is that while six years ago we were running a budget in the black, now we've run up a record fiscal deficit, badly devaluing the dollar in the process.



This is exactly what I was getting at. Having a government that ran completely in the black gave us a tremendous amount of economic power. Lots of economic sanctions against China, often in reponse to their inhumane treatment of their citizens, popped up during this period. This is the sort of thing you can do when you don't need funding to keep the government operating. Elimination of the national debt would have made us absolutely untouchable as a nation: we would owe nothing to anyone, and the value of the dollar would have crushed any challengers. Financial power of this sort would allow us to weild influence through aggressive sanctioning of troublesome nations, by simple virtue of controling the world economy. Why fight a war when you can bankrupt a country? Why send in troops when you can simply cut a nation out of the market, in much the same way a doctor cuts out a cancerous tumor?

Oh well, it was a nice dream. I find it sadly ironic that "conservatives" support the view of shipping manufacturing out of the country, and borrowing money to fund big government.


----------



## Drew (Sep 5, 2006)

Noodles, I'm thinking of changing my user title to "I agree with everything noodles says, except Nirvana."  

I'm not sure if we're at the point of no return yet - it's certainly possible to wash our hands in Iraq on the grounds that any anti-US fallout that might stem from a civil war may be less than the growing resentment our continued presence is creating, thus saving us a tidy $80B a year, and increase the taxes back to their healthier Clinton-era levels while doing our best to keep non-military (which, like I said, will falld rastically once we're out of Iraq) spending level. Get the budget back in the black, and sit tight for 10 or 20 years until we've got the national debt either eliminated or reduced to the point were it's no longer a giant, gaping Achilles' heel. 

The complication of course is the value of the dollar has plummeted 40% under the Bush Administration, relative to the Euro anyway (which I've taken as a benchmark, as it's probably the stablest, strongest currency on the international market, with the possible exception of the pound sterling - the Euro seems more international, so I erred that wya). It's possible that the gradual decrease in American debt, coupled with international goodwill gained from a less unilateral military policy, will help return the dollar to pre-Iraqi Invasion levels (the approximate point at which the dollar first dipped below the euro) and above, but the fact remains that the dollar is worth a _hell_ of a lot less than it was under Clinton.

Either way, it's arguable which is going to bring down the States first, if we continue our current course of action - depleting the world's oil reserves or the collapse of the US Dollar under economic pressue from China. I give us 50 years tops on each.


----------



## noodles (Sep 5, 2006)

Drew said:


> The complication of course is the value of the dollar has plummeted 40% under the Clinton Administration, relative to the Euro anyway (which I've taken as a benchmark, as it's probably the stablest, strongest currency on the international market, with the possible exception of the pound sterling - the Euro seems more international, so I erred that wya). It's possible that the gradual decrease in American debt, coupled with international goodwill gained from a less unilateral military policy, will help return the dollar to pre-Iraqi Invasion levels (the approximate point at which the dollar first dipped below the euro) and above, but the fact remains that the dollar is worth a _hell_ of a lot less than it was under Clinton.



I think the value of the Euro has a lot more to do with the strengthening of the European economy than anything else. It appeared to us that the dollar dipped below the Euro, since we were looking at the Euro as "fixed", with everything else moving around it. Take it this way, and you'll notice that *everything* was dropping, except the Euro. Remember, during the 90's, we were pounding the Yen into dust. The Japanese economy took a big hit from the stregthening of the dollar, because Japanese goods weren't inexpensive any more. I believe this started the trend towards the Japanese manufacturing much higher quality items, while the "cheap" stuff was shipped off to places like Korea, China, and Indonesia.

No, I think the 40% "drop" in the dollar had a lot more to do with the Berlin Wall coming down in the early nineties. As Germany merged into one country, and formerly communist puppet states began to settle down into self-sufficient nations, the entire economy of Europe improved.


----------



## Drew (Sep 5, 2006)

I was thinking more specifically of the period from 2000-2004, where the dollar was trading about 1 USD to 1.20 EUR, and by 2004 1.20 USD was worth 1 EUR. 

I'd check to see what the pound was doing against the dollar at this point, but I'm no longer in an accounting group and have no idea how to look up historical spot rates on my new company's accounting system.  

Interesting point on the dollar and the quality of Japanese merchandise - for a guitarist, it's hard NOT to notice how within two years of the dollar plummeting to below the Euro that the quality of Korean guitars seems to have taken a dramatic upswing...


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Sep 5, 2006)

noodles said:


> I think the value of the Euro has a lot more to do with the strengthening of the European economy than anything else.



^ 

A great book about this very phenomenon.

The Emerging European Union


----------



## noodles (Sep 5, 2006)

Drew said:


> The complication of course is the value of the dollar has plummeted 40% under the Clinton Administration, relative to the Euro anyway.





Drew said:


> I was thinking more specifically of the period from 2000-2004, where the dollar was trading about 1 USD to 1.20 EUR, and by 2004 1.20 USD was worth 1 EUR.



OK, now I'm confused. Which period are we talking about? If it is 2000-2004, then that drop can be easily attributed to GW destroying everything that Clinton worked hard to achieve.


----------



## Drew (Sep 5, 2006)

I totally mis-spoke. I was thinking either "under the Bush Administration," or after the Clinton Administration," and sort of fused the two, accidentally. I'll go correct the original in the interest of future clarity, but I meant under Bush.

EDIT - and to be fair, a devaluation from $1.20 to $.80 on the euro means the dollar has devalued by 1/3 under Bush, and not 40%. Still, the fact that a dollar today is worth 2/3 of what it was under the peak of the Clinton administration is pretty clear evidence that the republicans are doing SOMETHING wrong here with regards to international fiscal policy (and yes, the dot-com collapse of '99 or so was at the right time table to be involved here, and the states would undoubtably be hit harder than many EU countries, but my gut feeling is that the impact on the price of foriegn exchange rates would be slight, if not outright negligable)


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Sep 5, 2006)

Drew said:


> I totally mis-spoke. I was thinking either "under the Bush Administration," or after the Clinton Administration," and sort of fused the two, accidentally. I'll go correct the original in the interest of future clarity, but I meant under Bush.


I was wondering about that, too.


----------



## Metal Ken (Sep 6, 2006)

ChrisPcritter said:


> I will have to take it from your comments that you only watch one sided news programs and believe that all Iraqi people just want to kill our troops and that we aren't actually training their police and security and that it's all a hoax.




I hate to dive back into this thread, but i hate this argument. when i was at work one day, i was between students and sitting and having another discussion with the piano teacher, who was also waiting. We were talking about the Lebanon issue. 

One of the mothers came over and started talking to me, and i have a bit of a 'liberal' view on the whole thing. So she was telling me "oh, you only read the liberal media," And trying to compare it to other situations which had no bearing at the one at hand. i had to laugh when she said i only get 'liberal media'. All that i listen to is talk radio. thats 90% conservative. Check this out -- 9 am Glenn Beck, Conservative. noon Rush Limbaugh, Neo-Conservative, 3-6 Todd Schnitt, slightly conservative, mostly middle of the road, 6-8, some new guy who is a rush limbaugh worshipper... i cant remember his name. the station is part of "Fox news". There's 3 Liberal shows on the whole network, and two are on saturday, the ohter is sunday night. the rest of the scheduling block is pretty much strictly conservative. So just cause i have a liberal opinion doesnt mean i sit at home and read the New York Times and watch CBS. (I call it the "Know Your Fuckin' Enemy" Tactic ;p ) 

The lady who i was arguing with was telling me i didnt know what i was talking about even though she didnt even know anything about the Hezbollah party except "Oh, they're terrorists". Which i explained to her, they're only considered terrorists by america and a few other countries, she just went on saying i should support the president, essentially. So basically, the only things she kept falling back on was the "Liberal Media is brainwashing you and since they dont like our country, they're terrorists". 

As a generalization, people who make those comments are "Us or them" Conservatives who think you have to agree with everything the administration does or GTFO out of the coutnry.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Sep 6, 2006)

^ BOOO, one-sided, brainwashed right-wing fanatics!










Dare I say... hooray, beer?


----------



## Drew (Sep 6, 2006)

The Dark Wolf said:


> Dare I say... hooray, beer?



I'd support you there, bro.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Sep 6, 2006)

Drew said:


> I'd support you there, bro.


You don't support my Booing one-sided, right wing fanatics?


----------



## Leon (Sep 6, 2006)

Ken, you have to remember, half of all people have below average intelligence 

...and i'm willing to bet that those in the extreme bottom of the intelligence pool are those who still, "just support the president because he's the president."


----------



## noodles (Sep 6, 2006)

Metal Ken said:


> The lady who i was arguing with was telling me i didnt know what i was talking about even though she didnt even know anything about the Hezbollah party except "Oh, they're terrorists". Which i explained to her, they're only considered terrorists by america and a few other countries, she just went on saying i should support the president, essentially. So basically, the only things she kept falling back on was the "Liberal Media is brainwashing you and since they dont like our country, they're terrorists".



I tend to be very cold to people like this, because they really need to have someone throw it back in their face, the way they throw it in people's faces. "Oh, so you support invading countries that didn't attack us, sacrificing the lives of American soldiers in the interest of making defense contractors rich, starting civil wars, bankrupting the government, leaving thousands of American citizens helpless during national disasters, gutting education and social programs that help the average American, and handing off large sums of cash to the rich? Wow, you're even dumber than our president, and I don't think I'll allow you to talk to me anymore."

I did this to some dumb lady in a doctor's office, in front of her five ill-behaved children. In my opinion, if you're going to stick your nose into the middle of a private conversation, prepare to have it bit off. I don't go looking for neocons to rip on, and I generally mind my own business. I'd appreciate it if others would learn to mind theirs.


----------



## Metal Ken (Sep 6, 2006)

noodles said:


> I tend to be very cold to people like this, because they really need to have someone throw it back in their face, the way they throw it in people's faces. "Oh, so you support invading countries that didn't attack us, sacrificing the lives of American soldiers in the interest of making defense contractors rich, starting civil wars, bankrupting the government, leaving thousands of American citizens helpless during national disasters, gutting education and social programs that help the average American, and handing off large sums of cash to the rich? Wow, you're even dumber than our president, and I don't think I'll allow you to talk to me anymore."
> 
> I did this to some dumb lady in a doctor's office, in front of her five ill-behaved children. In my opinion, if you're going to stick your nose into the middle of a private conversation, prepare to have it bit off. I don't go looking for neocons to rip on, and I generally mind my own business. I'd appreciate it if others would learn to mind theirs.




I would have loved to but there's the chance they would have fired me (They wouldnt, i have more students than either of the other guitar teachers) or that lady would have taken her kids out (also not good for them). So i tried to be polite as possible and just shot down all her points.


----------



## ChrisPcritter (Sep 7, 2006)

It's kind of sad that anyone feels the need to put others down for their political beliefs and points of view. Especially people who claim to be liberal since I was told earlier, two of the definitions of liberal were tolerant and open minded. I was trying to be respectful of others and still have a little fun sharing points of veiw even though I found the topic personally offensive as well as completely incorrect. There are too many closed minded people making up facts to try to prove their points.(One example was the only one battalion has been trained statement)
Until now I guess I was under the assumption that ss.org was a place for people to share their views in a friendly enviroment. Also just for the record at no point did I say I thought democrats or their supporters are idiots and even said that I think all people are basically the same with the same morals and values for the most part, some of which I see as conservative values and morals and some as being liberal ideals at which point I was again chastized for the wording I used. 
Also Metal Ken I didn't know that democrats and republicans were enemies, thanks for the tip. When I see someone quoting only the parts of the news that I find exclusively on the more liberal programs it makes me think that they only watch liberal programs. 
Just like the weapons of mass destruction comment that was made earlier. "Not one was found" Does anyone remember the media coming out to say a bunch of confiscated weapons of mass destruction came up missing. If not one was found how could any be missing? 
I have my own opinions and points of view based on my own experiences and education so when someone tells me theirs (point of view) I actually look up the actual facts usually in a few different places before I come to an opinion because even when you look things up the sources are often skewed based on the writers pesonal beliefs.


----------



## Drew (Sep 7, 2006)

ChrisPcritter said:


> It's kind of sad that anyone feels the need to put others down for their political beliefs and points of view. Especially people who claim to be liberal since I was told earlier, two of the definitions of liberal were tolerant and open minded. I was trying to be respectful of others and still have a little fun sharing points of veiw even though I found the topic personally offensive as well as completely incorrect. There are too many closed minded people making up facts to try to prove their points.(One example was the only one battalion has been trained statement)
> Until now I guess I was under the assumption that ss.org was a place for people to share their views in a friendly enviroment. Also just for the record at no point did I say I thought democrats or their supporters are idiots and even said that I think all people are basically the same with the same morals and values for the most part, some of which I see as conservative values and morals and some as being liberal ideals at which point I was again chastized for the wording I used.
> Also Metal Ken I didn't know that democrats and republicans were enemies, thanks for the tip. When I see someone quoting only the parts of the news that I find exclusively on the more liberal programs it makes me think that they only watch liberal programs.
> Just like the weapons of mass destruction comment that was made earlier. "Not one was found" Does anyone remember the media coming out to say a bunch of confiscated weapons of mass destruction came up missing. If not one was found how could any be missing?
> I have my own opinions and points of view based on my own experiences and education so when someone tells me theirs (point of view) I actually look up the actual facts usually in a few different places before I come to an opinion because even when you look things up the sources are often skewed based on the writers pesonal beliefs.



You're kidding me, right? 

Again, you're trying to apply a broad definition of "liberal" to a place where only a very specific definition is appropriate. In doing so you're obviously out for political gain, with your implication that liberals are gluttanous and have no self control, whereas conservatives are responsible. 

And then you flat-out called liberals the party supporting the rights of rapists and terrorists and said that their only redeeming moments are when their conservative streaks came out. 

And now you're saying it's "sad" that political discourse has to deteriorate like this? Take a look in the mirror, bro, faking the moral high road only works if you're actually walking it. 

And yes, I can state with 110% certainty that if any weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, the Administration is lying through their teeth. Even Bush has been forced to admit that they found nothing.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Sep 7, 2006)

To address your issue with the Iraqi battalion article - 

Would we call half-trained troops "trained", i.e., fully ready to be sent into battle?

Of course not. Therefore, it is no stretch to call only one Iraqi battalion, if that is the ONLY one capable of military action, "trained." The rest would be said to be in trainING.  After 3 years, billions of dollars, thousands of dead, hardly a stunning success. My whole point. But I see you prefer to selectively overlook parts of the argument that you don't care to address, ChrisPCritter. 


Also, FTR, I see no one here personally attacking you. No need to play the martyr. Talk to one of us in a different thread, and we'll treat you no different than any other ss.org brother. I personally take great exception to your portrayal of ss.org as a a place of intolerance. This is a very friendly forum, but people enjoy real debate. As such, idividuals should approach with an open mind, and a willingness to back up their assertions. Putting someone down for political inclination? No. But putting someone down for erroneous beliefs, i.e., like Iraq had WMD, or that Saddam was a part of a 9/11 conspiracy? You had better believe that you will get called out for nonsense like that here. People are generally too-well informed for that sort of Faux news chicanery to pass by unnoticed.

For myself, personally, I am not a liberal. Neither am I a conservative. I am a firm supporter of the 2nd amendment. I believe in fiscal responsibility and the limited role of government. I believe in the conservation of natural resources and wildlife. I believe in a robust defense of the first amendment. I believe in a comprehensive public welfare system, i.e., universal healthcare. I hardly fit a single label. Please quit trying to pigeon-hole us, either collectively or individually, to benefit your ill-formed arguments.

Thanks.


----------



## Popsyche (Sep 7, 2006)

The Dark Wolf said:


> To address your issue with the Iraqi battalion article -
> 
> Would we call half-trained troops "trained", i.e., fully ready to be sent into battle?
> 
> ...




+1!


----------



## Metal Ken (Sep 7, 2006)

ChrisPcritter said:


> I
> Also Metal Ken I didn't know that democrats and republicans were enemies, thanks for the tip. When I see someone quoting only the parts of the news that I find exclusively on the more liberal programs it makes me think that they only watch liberal programs. .



Hell Yeah they're enemies. According to Rush limbaugh, Liberals are whats wrong with this country. Most neo-con pundits just rag on liberals all day as a scapegoat for all the problems in the government. Liberals are "Spineless Hippies" if you listen to Rush. Ann Coulter pretty much says their insane. Mark Lebin Says that "Libs" are the scum of the earth. Its funny cause the Liberal radio shows i listen to (All 3 of them lol) dont spend any time blaming anybody except the president and his cabinet. the conservatives pundits blame half the country. 



> Just like the weapons of mass destruction comment that was made earlier. "Not one was found" Does anyone remember the media coming out to say a bunch of confiscated weapons of mass destruction came up missing. If not one was found how could any be missing?



Remember when donald rumsfeld said he knew exactly where they were at? and then remember a few months later when Donald Rumsfeld said he never said he knew where they were at?


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Sep 7, 2006)

Metal Ken said:


> Remember when donald rumsfeld said he knew exactly where they were at? and then remember a few months later when Donald Rumsfeld said he never said he knew where they were at?


 Yeah. They were "north, east, south, and west of Tikrit."


----------



## Drew (Sep 7, 2006)

The Dark Wolf said:


> Yeah. They were "north, east, south, and west of Tikrit."



"By golly, they're around here somewhere... I guess Saddam DOES have weapons of mass destruction, but we just lost them before we could find them."


----------



## Metal Ken (Sep 7, 2006)

Or like they say on The Boondocks.. "The Absense of Evidence is not the Evidence of Absence!"


----------



## ChrisPcritter (Sep 10, 2006)

All I was trying to say is that I have been mis interpreted here on some key points.
Number 1: 
I don't believe all liberal minded people support criminals and their rights or the porn industry and theirs, actually "I Believe" (meaning it's my opinion) that there are a small number of left wing liberal groups (meaning extreme liberal groups) that do. And that the rest of the groups and people want to make things better in our country and protect the rights and future of the people..
Number 2: 
I didn't say that SS.org was a bad enviroment, I said that until this, every thing I had seen has been positive. (If that isn't how it came out I apologize as that was what I meant) It seemed like people were just waiting for me to make a comment so they could point out how stupid I am since my opinions don't match theirs and it was said that I was brainwashed. I do understand that I also said that it seemed some only paid attention to media that was liberal and was not meant to be derogotory although I understand it probably seemed thatway, but when I look at all the so called facts the media puts out there seems to be a large gap between more liberal and more conservative stations. To say that one is right and one is wrong is an opinion so it's difficult to have someone tell you that you are obviously brainwashed because of what you choose to believe. If you believe that Iraq was no threat then I can totally understand not wanting us there, but that is not my opinion so all I am saying is we are not political enemies just people with different beliefs. Trying to put each other down or make each other feel ignorant won't change the beliefs. 
Number 3: 
At no point was I trying to imply that anyone here was ignorant, immoral or anything else negative but it began to seem a little like five on one when I made a comment about believing that people had both liberal ideals and conservative morals and values inside their soul (which I meant as there personality, conscience or what ever you want to call what make you, you ). It was just my opinion and I did not intend it to be offensive to anyone. I am by no means a Right wing (extreme consevative) as I find them a bit offensive as well, like Rush Limbough for example. I also don't want their political or religious beliefs shoved down my throat. I also do not feel I have the market on some sort of moral superiority as has been stated.
Number 4: 
When I spoke of conservative and liberal traits in people I was speaking in the broader sense of the words not the political sense. I was not saying, or trying to at least, that people only act responsibly when a conservative side kicks in but that it's the conservative traits that keep us balanced with our liberal ones and used the analogy of eating too much to try to get my non politcal understanding across, meaning that everyone in my opinion has both liberal and conservative traits but controlling the amount of each that comes out in our lives is what makes us who we are. 
Number 5: 
I do understand that running a deficit government is "BAD" for our country and makes other countries economically stronger while ours gets weaker but we used to have higher tarriffs with the chinese as well as mexico to help offset that problem. I do believe a lot of the tarrifs were lowered if I remember correctly under president Clinton. I know NAFTA was signed then. I thought the tax breaks were a bad idea across the board but I still went and cashed my refund so I can't complain too much without being a hypocrit. 
Number 6: 
While I understand the people who don't believe we should be in Iraq, I never actually thought the weapons of mass destruction issue was the main reason we were there. From the start I thought it was because Saddam had spent ten years kicking out the inspectors in what was believed an attempt to hide what he had from the United Nations and then invited terrorists to seek sanctuary in his country after 9 11. I thought the whole weapons of mass destruction issue to be something that the democrats were trying to make a big deal of after the fact to make voters distrust the current regime, so either I am incorrect or it worked pretty well, that's an opinion we each have to decide on our own...


----------



## Chris (Sep 11, 2006)

> I didn't say that SS.org was a bad enviroment, I said that until this, every thing I had seen has been positive.



I'm not part of this thread, but I want to chime in here with one point. I was very much against making this subforum since people's political views, especially when you have American and non-US folks in the same place, differ quite a bit. I don't want to see arguments between members and when discussing politics, it's inevitable that people are going to disagree.

So please look at it this way. This is a politics forum on a (for lack of a better term) "international" website. People's views are going to differ, because the places that we live are all very different. If you're at ss.org to discuss music, the music forums are moderated enough (and the members are cool enough) to where heated arguments/debates are few and far between. If you're going to click on the Politics forum however, you have to understand that there is going to be tension. My only hope is that people be civil to one another in here and whatever differences there are in THIS forum stay in here and don't spill over into the music forums, which are the heart and soul of this community.

So please, no offense meant here, don't judge ss.org based on the posts in this forum. Sevenstring.org is a music forum and this one subforum is a very small part of it. If you (or anyone else reading this, I don't mean to single you out) are strongly politically-biased one way or another, treat this as any other politics forum on the internet. People will disagree and the veil of anonymity granted by the internet will tend to bring out the worst in people at times. If it pisses you off, no worries, just bow out of this forum and stick to the music forums - that's what I do for the most part, and politics aside it's why most of us are here.

There are many hot issues that people are passionate about one way or another, and sometimes it can get personal. Just don't judge the rest of this site or it's community based on the political views of the people who choose to express them here. 

Again I really don't like this forum and I hope it all stays civil. People are different. Opinions are different. I hope everyone can agree to disagree when the situation presents itself instead of resorting to flaming and namecalling that's so common on other forums. We may not all agree on forums, but we do all have music in common and that's what makes the ss.org community so special.


----------



## noodles (Sep 11, 2006)

^ Good post.


----------



## Drew (Sep 11, 2006)

ChrisPcritter said:


> I do understand that running a deficit government is "BAD" for our country and makes other countries economically stronger while ours gets weaker but we used to have higher tarriffs with the chinese as well as mexico to help offset that problem. I do believe a lot of the tarrifs were lowered if I remember correctly under president Clinton. I know NAFTA was signed then. I thought the tax breaks were a bad idea across the board but I still went and cashed my refund so I can't complain too much without being a hypocrite.



I'm just going to interject in passing that even as a liberal Clinton-supporter, I too think Nafta was a pretty bad idea. On paper, sure, free trade rocks. But to really maximize the benefits for all related parties in a free trade zone, you need to have aproximate economic parity between all parties. Considering the wide economic disparity between the Mexican working and upper classes, production costs are so much lower in Mexico than they are in the states or canada that there's no way in hell american companies can compete with Mexican production without economic terrifs in place. 

Free trade's a great idea and all, but with the current state of Mexico's economy, it's just an economic drain on the US.


----------



## noodles (Sep 11, 2006)

Drew said:


> Free trade's a great idea and all, but with the current state of Mexico's economy, it's just an economic drain on the US.



Who do you think keeps Mexico that way? The Mexican government would change it's tune if the US decided it would no longer allow American companies to do business with any country that did not meet the labor law requirements as US companies. Mexico has no middle class, and we take advantage of that cheap labor force, making the Mexican upper class shitloads of money in the process. NAFTA would work if Mexico had to pay minimum wage, health care, social security, worker's comp, etc.

Currently, it's an economic drain on the middle and lower class. The upper class and government officials--every last one of them has a (most likely illegal) immigrant mowing their lawn and cleaning their house--make a fortune by shipping manufacturing off to Mexico. Just ask the CEOs of Ford, GM, Fender...


----------



## garcia3441 (Sep 11, 2006)

noodles said:


> Mexico had to pay minimum wage,



Mexico's minimum wage is $4.25 *per day.*


----------



## Drew (Sep 11, 2006)

noodles said:


> Who do you think keeps Mexico that way? The Mexican government would change it's tune if the US decided it would no longer allow American companies to do business with any country that did not meet the labor law requirements as US companies. Mexico has no middle class, and we take advantage of that cheap labor force, making the Mexican upper class shitloads of money in the process. NAFTA would work if Mexico had to pay minimum wage, health care, social security, worker's comp, etc.
> 
> Currently, it's an economic drain on the middle and lower class. The upper class and government officials--every last one of them has a (most likely illegal) immigrant mowing their lawn and cleaning their house--make a fortune by shipping manufacturing off to Mexico. Just ask the CEOs of Ford, GM, Fender...



Preach it, Brother Noodles. The irony is that this policy of encouraging Mexico to preserve the status quo ispretty much also the driving force behind illegal immigration from south of the border.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Sep 11, 2006)

^ Which supplies US companies with a further pool of cheap domestic labor, and has the added benefit of driving down US wages.

Yay! A corporate win-win.


----------



## noodles (Sep 11, 2006)

Yes to Drew, and yes to TDW. Unfortunately, as long as the system is run by people who have the money to get themselves there, this will never change.


----------



## eaeolian (Sep 11, 2006)

You know, it's funny, I get strange looks every time I throw out my solution for handling illegal immigrants being employed by U.S companies - so let me try it out on you gys:

Swift and brutal penalties to be paid by any company that employs an illegal. Say about 1/4 of their gross revenue for the previous FY. Think that would solve the problem?


----------



## noodles (Sep 11, 2006)

Like that would ever happen, with corporate lobbyists so entrenched into our legislative branch. However, as I've said before, it's a great idea.


----------



## Drew (Sep 11, 2006)

eaeolian said:


> You know, it's funny, I get strange looks every time I throw out my solution for handling illegal immigrants being employed by U.S companies - so let me try it out on you gys:
> 
> Swift and brutal penalties to be paid by any company that employs an illegal. Say about 1/4 of their gross revenue for the previous FY. Think that would solve the problem?



I like the gist of it - I'd personally say make it slightly more flexible and tie it to the number of employees - say, a flat $10,000 fee per illegal alien hired per year of employment. 

That'd sort of walk the line between not totally ass-raping a company who accidently hired one illegal with forged documents in an otherwise legit operation on one hand, and putting Wal-Mart out of business on the other (which would have the other unintended benefit of giving local mom-and-pop stores a boost. )


----------



## eaeolian (Sep 11, 2006)

Drew said:


> I like the gist of it - I'd personally say make it slightly more flexible and tie it to the number of employees - say, a flat $10,000 fee per illegal alien hired per year of employment.
> 
> That'd sort of walk the line between not totally ass-raping a company who accidently hired one illegal with forged documents in an otherwise legit operation on one hand, and putting Wal-Mart out of business on the other (which would have the other unintended benefit of giving local mom-and-pop stores a boost. )



$10,000 won't cut it for Wal-Mart - that's why it needs to be tied to the overall company revenue, or they'll just lauhg it off, since the current system has that kind of penalty. Maybe slide the scale increasingly for the number of employees?


----------



## Drew (Sep 11, 2006)

$10,000 per employee? Let's say that conservatively they've got a thousand illegal immigrants employed, and eqyually conservatively that none of 'em have been there longer than one year. Even then, we're looking at a ten million dollar fee - not a huge chunk of change for a multi-billion dollar international company, but enough to shave a couple percentage points off company earnings and growth in a marketplace where those few percentage points are having an increasingly large impact on stock price. And like I said, that's a pretty conservative estimation for a company that probably employs upwards of 50,000 people nationally. 

Ok, I just did a net search - there's 1.3 million US employees as of presumably this year. Say even 1% of 'em are illegals - that's 13,000 violations per year, representing a fee of $130M a year. Wal-Mart's doing well but not THAT well where it can swallow $130M as the cost of doing business, especially when you consider that average pay for a legal employee is just shy of $10/hr or $17k/year, and that it's FAR more cost-effective to just hire americans and pay them a legal salary than to hire illegals and pay them less and pay an additional penalty worth approcimately 60% of what it'd cost them to hire a legal full-time in their place. 

Though, to make it interesting, we could up it to $25k/worker/year, at which point your penalty goes through the roof - $325M assuming 1% of tyhe workforce are illegal aliens.


----------



## noodles (Sep 11, 2006)

Drew said:


> $10,000 per employee? Let's say that conservatively they've got a thousand illegal immigrants employed, and eqyually conservatively that none of 'em have been there longer than one year. Even then, we're looking at a ten million dollar fee - not a huge chunk of change for a multi-billion dollar international company, but enough to shave a couple percentage points off company earnings and growth in a marketplace where those few percentage points are having an increasingly large impact on stock price. And like I said, that's a pretty conservative estimation for a company that probably employs upwards of 50,000 people nationally.



You're assuming the government takes the time to identify, document, and prosecute every incedent. That will *never* happen, because it is not cost effective. The pricetag on one investigator is higher than the penalty you are proposing, let alone the manpowere needed to find one thousand individual infractions. Mike's method makes the consequences for even a single infraction so severe, that companies won't take the risk.


----------



## eaeolian (Sep 11, 2006)

noodles said:


> You're assuming the government takes the time to identify, document, and prosecute every incedent. That will *never* happen, because it is not cost effective. The pricetag on one investigator is higher than the penalty you are proposing, let alone the manpowere needed to find one thousand individual infractions. Mike's method makes the consequences for even a single infraction so severe, that companies won't take the risk.



Hey, he gets it. The option is somewhat nuclear, but it DOES solve the problem - especially if you route the fine money back into enforcement...


----------



## noodles (Sep 11, 2006)

eaeolian said:


> Hey, he gets it. The option is somewhat nuclear, but it DOES solve the problem - especially if you route the fine money back into enforcement...



Unlike the war on drugs, this method would work.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Sep 11, 2006)

eaeolian said:


> Hey, he gets it. The option is somewhat nuclear, but it DOES solve the problem - especially if you route the fine money back into enforcement...


Great idea, but I say don't stop there.

Criminal penalties for the executives responsible.  Nothing like the klink to get ya to find religion.


----------

