|
On Thu, 26 May 2005 07:32:30 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in : On Wed, 25 May 2005 20:15:04 GMT, james wrote: On Wed, 25 May 2005 12:23:42 -0400, Dave Hall wrote: Son I have a great deal of intreped feelings when a President says to me trust me I am keeping the best interests of the American People at heart and then proceeds to beat around the bush, no pun intended, trying to justify a preemptive invasion. There is a reason why we have a representative democracy and not a direct democracy. We elect people who are supposedly trained in the skills necessary to carry out our business. ***** Go ahead and just believe that those elected have y our best interests in mind. I hear the shears are being prepared for y ou sheep. Yea I know, our government has pledged it's true allegiance to the "corporate machine", the free masons, Skull and bones, a "shadow government" consisting of the descendants of Howard Hughes and the "Old money" cronies of the industrial age and maybe even gray aliens from Zeti-Reticuli. Dave, you're a friggin' loon. You complain about the motives of our elected officials, yet insist that our form of government is the only way to go. That seems to be an inconsistent position to take. If you don't like your elected officials, then vote them out next term. But don't complain if the majority of voters differ from your opinion and override your selection. That's what majority rule is all about. For every one who gets what they want, someone else will be unhappy. That's life. Even after -MONTHS- of discussion on the topic you -STILL- don't get it. I'll make this -really- simple so even -you- can understand it: This is not a "majority rule" country -- it's a country based on the recognition of individual rights and freedoms. You have the right to think freely, to speak your opinions openly, to exercise religion as you see fit, to make your own decisions without government influence, etc, etc; and these rights and freedoms are guaranteed -REGARDLESS- of the opinions of any special-interest group, EVEN IF they represent the majority, and EVEN IF you are a member of that "majority". The USA is NOT a democracy -- it's a country based on EQUAL RIGHTS and FREEDOMS for EVERY citizen, the "Moral Majority" be damned. If you don't like it, leave -- hell, I'll even buy your plane ticket! But if you decide to stay, shut the **** up because you are effectively undermining the integrity of this country with your lies, propoganda, and warped interpretations of the Constitution; and I won't sit by and let that happen because I took an oath to defend both the Constitution and the country. Either you are for the Constitution or you are against it. So it's time for you to make a choice, Dave -- are you an American or not? ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
On Thu, 26 May 2005 07:57:10 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in : snip So, here we have a double edged sword. We live in a world economy, with companies from all over the world competing for market share. So, what's a U.S. based corporation to do? Should it: A. Keep its U.S. work force in order to altruistically keep the American work force employed? B. Outsource to a foreign country where labor and overhead is much cheaper? The answer is A because loyalty must be earned, and American's have a very good long-term memory. Considering that other countries have no objection to using cheap foreign labor, and producing products cheaper, the U.S. company is now at a competitive disadvantage with those products which they are in direct competition from foreign companies. American workers could be easily protected with import tariffs; but Bush's butt has been kissed (and licked, sucked, wiped and powdered) by corporations seeking cheap labor, so he is pushing for open-border trade agreements with third-world countries. Tell me, would you pay 50 - 100% more for a TV or some other product just to keep the U.S. company here? Considering that the government is squeezing more and more money out of us in the form of taxes, and the costs of things like fuel are skyrocketing, we look for the best bargains in everything we buy. Because the taxes are on the Americans, not on the import corporations (e.g, Walmart, aka 'China Inc.') where they should be. And that doesn't cover the foreign market. Would a European pay more for a U.S. made product over a foreign made product? Depends on where that 'foreign' product was made. What ultimately happens to a U.S. corporation who loses a competitive edge? Any US corp that chooses to cut American jobs instead of lobbying for import tariffs against foreign competitors is, in the most tactful of terms, economically nearsighted. What happens when there are no more cheap labor countries like China? Can you spell double digit inflation??? How about 20% per yr for about ten yrs. Maybe even longer or higher inflation rates. Yes, inflation is a very real fear. No, it's not. It's a hope. Inflation, in a free market economy, is an 'equalizer' -- it's an effect of a surplus of cash in circulation, which usually ends up in the hands of those who need it the most. Historically, inflation hurts the rich and benefits the poor, which is something you never hear from the "left-wing, liberally biased media". But when the standard of living equalizes, then there will be no further incentive to manufacture overseas. Then factors such as shipping costs will make domestic manufacturing attractive again for the U.S. market. Inflation may also be mitigated by market pressures. If people cannot afford to buy as much, demand goes down. When demand goes down, so does the price. That's free market 101. You obviously failed Economics 101, and probably never took Macro- or Micro-Economics. Yes as the world's standard of living increases, so will inflation. I forsee 10 to 20% annual inflation rates somewhere in the 2030 to 2040 time frame. By then the world will dream of 4% inflation rates. Out sourcing is eventually going to drag the US' standard of living down to the rest of the world's as their's rises towards. That's what I meant when I said equalize the world's standard of living. Not only will the 3rd world catch up, but we will fall somewhat. That is the price we pay for living in a world market. 50 years ago, when most of our goods were made here, we controlled the market. Now we're just one of many players. Cheap labor will always be available in any country that's poor in natural resources. There are many, and that's not going to change anytime soon. The fact that Iraq's new "government" refused to allow labor unions (a law imposed by Saddam) should be a good indication as to where the next market for cheap labor will be found. You can't get something for nothing. You don't know just how much truth there is in that statement. Damn straight. Freedom isn't free. Other people paid for your freedoms, Dave. Maybe you should take the time to try and understand why. In time the US will suffer. Prepare for China owning more an dmore of teh US debt and consequently the US' economy . Ok, We pretty much agree that the road ahead will be a bit bumpy. So what do we do about it? Can we do anything about it? Push your elected officials to do their job -- make them understand that they are lobbyists for their constituents, not the constituents of lobbyists for special interest groups or corporations. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
On Wed, 25 May 2005 07:45:33 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote: On Tue, 24 May 2005 18:30:56 GMT, james wrote: There are more links. You can also start at www.fas.org. Look not for just what supports ones belief but look at all the facts presented. In between the two extremes will really lie the truth. IF you start to dig further into the past, you may starrtt to derive some other conclusions. I came to an understanding in late 2002 that Iraq and any invasion was not about WMD or OIL. It is far more deeper. The true paranoia that this administration has is a great fear of a large Islamic state existing from Pakistan to Syria. Including Iran, Iraq, Saudia Arabia and a few others. That would not be a good thing, and our efforts in trying to prevent it from happening is probably a good thing. Just think what if Radical Islam controlled over half the oil production in the world? So if that is the case, are we not justified in trying to prevent it from happening? ***** No I think Iraq is means of gaining bases in a region that we can better monitor and track the goings on of the Radical Islamic Fundamentalist, both Shia and Suni. Do we have to wait until the "west" (Which includes more than just the U.S,) is brought to its knees economically before we act? **** That is a tough decision. If you act to early on intelligence and it is bad then you done things in bad faith. Wait to long and you have dead people. The better question and also the most difficult to answer is how many lives are expendable? If none is your answer then Bush did well. How much bloodshed could have been averted if Hitler had been taken out of the picture in the 1920's? ***** We can play that game back to Babylonian Kings of the third millenium BC. That is really a poor argument. The case for preemption is just that. In 2002 Bush never made a good case for preemption. Most of what I conclude was never presented to teh world population. Yes the Senate and the House knew of it, but the average American Public per se was not kept informed of these potentials. Does the average citizen need to know, or have the capacity to understand, the complete truth assuming we can definitively identify it amongst all the free flowing propaganda? ******** Duh! Last time I reviewed my civics and political science notes, I thought the American People were the government. You may find it acceptable to blindly follow your elected officials like those in Hitler Germany! Son I have a great deal of intreped feelings when a President says to me trust me I am keeping the best interests of the American People at heart and then proceeds to beat around the bush, no pun intended, trying to justify a preemptive invasion. Hell yes the American People need to know. Secrecy is the death toll of a democracy and a republican form of government. This administrtation has been the most secret since Reagan's first term. Then I look and see who is advising GW Bush and then it all become to clearly now. Bush's advisors are out of the Cold War Era and need an enemy. I wonder if there is not one then have they created one? james |
Let's get real, there are two of our VERY LARGE, VERY expensive buildings
missing in New York. Thousands of Americans died in those buildings. There was a large hole in our pentagon, site of our most holy protection for this land. One plane was headed towards the Whitehouse, another of our most holy political sites--before it was downed. There are a few airplanes of ours which were destroyed in these attacts--and American lives lost on each and everyone of these aircraft. Anyone who does not want to go after those who did THAT, with every resource at our disposal, is either a coward, terrorist themselves, or an idiot. And, the radical muslims will point blank tell you that you have three choices--join them, be enslaved by them or die. Any rational person would choose a fourth--they die! We simply don't have a choice in this matter... Warmest regards, John "I AmnotGeorgeBush" wrote in message ... How many links do you need, Dave? Here are a few more, just to keep you entertained. From the Times wires: Before the Iraq invasion, the Bush administration asserted that Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons and was developing nuclear weapons. Officials also allege Iraq was working on prohibited long-range missiles and drones that could disperse biological agents. The presidential intelligene commison examined each of the US intelligence community's prewar assertions on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and reached these conclusions: Nuclear Weapons: Wrong Analysts wrongly interpreted the purpose of some metal tubes Iraq tried to import, arguing they were for centrifuges to enrich uranium when they were for conventional artillery rockets. Other imports of materials with more than one potential use were also similarily misinterpreted. Biological Weapons: Wrong Agencies trusted several Iraqi defectors who were lying, ignoring inconsistencies in their statements and other warning signs that these defectors were providing false information. Chemical Weapons: WRONG The intelligence committe drew its conclusions from satellite photos of trucks and buildings and other sources that were suspicious but ultimately ambiguous, and trusted human sources who made claims that Hussein had accomplished things that are technically impossiible. WMD-Armed Drones: Wrong Analysts concluded the drones were for WMD based on limited information; Iraq;s drones turned out to be for reconnaissance. Hussein's Intentions: Wrong Intelligence agencies did not seriously consider Hussein could have given up his WMD ambitions and destroyed his stockpiles. Although several intel sources asserted before the war that Iraq did not have any WMD, US analysts have regarded this as disinformation. End of Times wire report. -- Want more, Dave? The list is endless but these should have you spinning your wheels a bit more than usual since your first knee-jerk reaction was to deny any Bush failures, then beg for examples. |
On Wed, 25 May 2005 15:37:52 GMT, james wrote:
The true paranoia that this administration has is a great fear of a large Islamic state existing from Pakistan to Syria. Including Iran, Iraq, Saudia Arabia and a few others. That would not be a good thing, and our efforts in trying to prevent it from happening is probably a good thing. Just think what if Radical Islam controlled over half the oil production in the world? So if that is the case, are we not justified in trying to prevent it from happening? ***** No I think Iraq is means of gaining bases in a region that we can better monitor and track the goings on of the Radical Islamic Fundamentalist, both Shia and Suni. I would not disagree with that assessment. It is one that I also share to some extent. It's also consistent with the Project for a new American Century plan. Do we have to wait until the "west" (Which includes more than just the U.S,) is brought to its knees economically before we act? **** That is a tough decision. If you act to early on intelligence and it is bad then you done things in bad faith. Wait too long and you have dead people. The better question and also the most difficult to answer is how many lives are expendable? If none is your answer then Bush did well. In theory, no lives should be expendable. Reality paints a different picture. As long as the radical Islamists are willing to sacrifice their own lives in order to take out "infidels", the dynamics of that equation changes somewhat. When the value of human life differs from one side to the other, our "leverage" becomes limited. In the cold war, we managed to keep "the evil empire" at bay due to the concept of mutually assured destruction. When your new enemy consists of people who are not afraid to die (and their reward received in Heaven) to advance their cause, a concept such as M.A.D. starts to crumble. How much bloodshed could have been averted if Hitler had been taken out of the picture in the 1920's? ***** We can play that game back to Babylonian Kings of the third millenium BC. That is really a poor argument. No, it's just placing a current situation against a backdrop of historical perspective. The case for preemption is just that. In 2002 Bush never made a good case for preemption. Most of what I conclude was never presented to teh world population. Yes the Senate and the House knew of it, but the average American Public per se was not kept informed of these potentials. For good reason I suspect. Does the average citizen need to know, or have the capacity to understand, the complete truth assuming we can definitively identify it amongst all the free flowing propaganda? ******** Duh! Last time I reviewed my civics and political science notes, I thought the American People were the government. You may find it acceptable to blindly follow your elected officials like those in Hitler Germany! Woah! Back up and drop the Hitler metaphors. This is not about dictatorship, but about the ineptitude, indifference, and general lack of understanding of "big picture" politics by the average American. We elect representatives to carry out America's business in our best interests so that "we the people" do not have to. If the government had to disclose each and every piece of intelligence with the population at large, they would, at the very least, create a national security issue, and at the worst create confusion and panic as the average citizen tries to come to grips with what they've just been told. Son I have a great deal of intreped feelings when a President says to me trust me I am keeping the best interests of the American People at heart and then proceeds to beat around the bush, no pun intended, trying to justify a preemptive invasion. There is a reason why we have a representative democracy and not a direct democracy. We elect people who are supposedly trained in the skills necessary to carry out our business. The last thing we need to do is second guess the motives of our leaders without concrete proof that such questioning is warranted. Perpetuating the distrust of our leaders, are the minions of the news media, many of which are (consciously or not) furthering the agendas of people who would like nothing more than the fall of the democratic way of life in this country. What better way to incite an overthrow of a government than to create the impression that the leaders are "up to no good"? There are all sorts of conspiracies and supposed "reports" telling of all kinds of "dirty deals" done by our government for many years. They're freely available to anyone with the drive to research them. But not many of those stories are verifiable with hard facts. When you look into the backgrounds of those who print these stories, it becomes clear what their agendas are. Hell yes the American People need to know. Secrecy is the death toll of a democracy and a republican form of government. There is such a thing as "need to know". This administrtation has been the most secret since Reagan's first term. We are also the first since Vietnam, except for the brief Gulf war in 1991, to be actively engaged in long term military operations. That necessitates a certain amount of secrecy. Do you think our government was completely forthcoming with all intel during WWII or Vietnam? Then I look and see who is advising GW Bush and then it all become to clearly now. Bush's advisors are out of the Cold War Era and need an enemy. I wonder if there is not one then have they created one? For that to be true then you would have to somewhat support the conspiracy theory which claims that 9/11/01 was orchestrated by our own government. Our enemy attacked us first. What happened afterward was just a succession of events placed into motion as a result of 9/11. Dave "Sandbagger" |
|
George:
So then, Bush is our enemy--it is our fault radical muslims wish to destroy American property--and kill Americans. You want to tie our militaries hands over the fact that they didn't have these weapons--which we got there first and stopped them from getting them. Your suggestion it that we should have waited until they had them--then instead of smashing our own planes into those buildings they could have been much more successful with those weapons (chemical, biological, nuclear.) And then, we would have a right to stop them... You argument that Iraq and Sadam were not Bin Laden is shallow--they have the oil money which financed him, they hold the same radical ideas--this is enough for them to die... I am not pleased with Saudi Arabia... I am one would support our LARGEST nuclear bomb dropped square in the middle of Iran--if they even threaten to be a threat to us... and if it would only save one innocent American life... Warmest regards, John "I AmnotGeorgeBush" wrote in message ... From: (John Smith) Let's get real, there are two of our VERY LARGE, VERY expensive buildings missing in New York. In part because of the Bush admins failures. The failures listed below all came after 911 and are independent of the acts against the US. Thousands of Americans died in those buildings. See above. There was a large hole in our pentagon, site .of our most holy protection for this land. Holy? Duuuuude,,,, One plane was headed towards the Whitehouse, another of our most holy political sites-- "Holy political"? before it was downed. There are a few airplanes of ours which were destroyed in these attacts--and American lives lost on each and everyone of these aircraft. Anyone who does not want to go after those who did THAT, with every resource at our disposal, is either a coward, terrorist themselves, or an idiot. And only an idiot would believe BL is in Iraq, or that Iraq had anything to do with what you described above. But what you did here is what Bush often does, he uses the term "Iraq" when speaking of 911 and BL, but I will admit, he has stopped doing this since the 911 Report. Now if only his legions of sheople can manage to emulate him in this regard..... And, the radical muslims will point blank tell you that you have three choices--join them, be enslaved by them or die. Muslims don't run this country, and the oppression you speak of is not limited to just the Muslim world or Iraq . Any rational person would choose a fourth--they die! Fortunately, we were never in such a position. We simply don't have a choice in this matter... What matter is that? Going after BL and those responsible for 911, or the war in Iraq? Even Bush no longer tries to employ such long ago defeated rhetoric. Warmest regards, John From the Times wires: Before the Iraq invasion, the Bush administration asserted that Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons and was developing nuclear weapons. Officials also allege Iraq was working on prohibited long-range missiles and drones that could disperse biological agents. The presidential intelligene commison examined each of the US intelligence community's prewar assertions on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and reached these conclusions: Nuclear Weapons: Wrong Analysts wrongly interpreted the purpose of some metal tubes Iraq tried to import, arguing they were for centrifuges to enrich uranium when they were for conventional artillery rockets. Other imports of materials with more than one potential use were also similarily misinterpreted. Biological Weapons: Wrong Agencies trusted several Iraqi defectors who were lying, ignoring inconsistencies in their statements and other warning signs that these defectors were providing false information. Chemical Weapons: WRONG The intelligence committe drew its conclusions from satellite photos of trucks and buildings and other sources that were suspicious but ultimately ambiguous, and trusted human sources who made claims that Hussein had accomplished things that are technically impossiible. WMD-Armed Drones: Wrong Analysts concluded the drones were for WMD based on limited information; Iraq;s drones turned out to be for reconnaissance. Hussein's Intentions: Wrong Intelligence agencies did not seriously consider Hussein could have given up his WMD ambitions and destroyed his stockpiles. Although several intel sources asserted before the war that Iraq did not have any WMD, US analysts have regarded this as disinformation. End of Times wire report. -- |
On Wed, 25 May 2005 12:39:42 -0400, I AmnotGeorgeBush wrote:
And, the radical muslims will point blank tell you that you have three choices--join them, be enslaved by them or die. Muslims don't run this country, and the oppression you speak of is not limited to just the Muslim world or Iraq . This sounds just like the crusades all over again. If you haven't seen the new movie "Kingdom of Heaven" I suggest that you do. It will remind you of what is happening in the middle east now, even if it wasn't the intent of the movie. Regards, Leland C. Scott KC8LDO |
On Wed, 25 May 2005 09:03:07 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote: "I AmnotGeorgeBush" wrote in message ... How many links do you need, Dave? Here are a few more, just to keep you entertained. Holy ****, he still didn't post links. From the Times wires: Before the Iraq invasion, the Bush administration asserted that Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons and was developing nuclear weapons. Officials also allege Iraq was working on prohibited long-range missiles and drones that could disperse biological agents. The presidential intelligene commison examined each of the US intelligence community's prewar assertions on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and reached these conclusions: Nuclear Weapons: Wrong Analysts wrongly interpreted the purpose of some metal tubes Iraq tried to import, arguing they were for centrifuges to enrich uranium when they were for conventional artillery rockets. Other imports of materials with more than one potential use were also similarily misinterpreted. Biological Weapons: Wrong Agencies trusted several Iraqi defectors who were lying, ignoring inconsistencies in their statements and other warning signs that these defectors were providing false information. Chemical Weapons: WRONG The intelligence committe drew its conclusions from satellite photos of trucks and buildings and other sources that were suspicious but ultimately ambiguous, and trusted human sources who made claims that Hussein had accomplished things that are technically impossiible. WMD-Armed Drones: Wrong Analysts concluded the drones were for WMD based on limited information; Iraq;s drones turned out to be for reconnaissance. Hussein's Intentions: Wrong Intelligence agencies did not seriously consider Hussein could have given up his WMD ambitions and destroyed his stockpiles. Although several intel sources asserted before the war that Iraq did not have any WMD, US analysts have regarded this as disinformation. End of Times wire report. -- Want more, Dave? The list is endless but these should have you spinning your wheels a bit more than usual since your first knee-jerk reaction was to deny any Bush failures, then beg for examples. Vinnie S. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:34 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com