|
****hed, you forgot these "eminent" politicians' words....dummy!
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 "Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998 "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin,Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998 "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,)and others, December 5, 2001 "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that the deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" - Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002 "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..." - Sen. John F. Kerry ! (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 |
We need a good strong militia here, something on a national level to oversee
and watchdog our gov't--and have a basic plan if there ever arises a need to rise up and take control back from our gov't... you would think someone in the right position with enough money would already have something started, anyone know of a good group... nothing radical, just a group which swears to uphold the constitution, but will resort to force if necessary? Warmest regards, John "I AmnotGeorgeBush" wrote in message ... David T. Hall Jr. wrote: No, Hitler (Bush) basically told them that Germans (American Christians) were superior, gave them someone else to blame (terrorists) (deflection) for their problems, and promised to "fix" it. When you tell people what they want to hear, it's not hard to gain their support. You not only bought this bull**** lock, stock and barrel, you inhaled it faster than Bush did cocaine at Yale. - (The rate Congres s here is going in ten yrs we all will have to have papers to travel around in the US. ) Surely you have to realize just how exaggeratedly absurd that is. Surely you don't realize how clueless you are. If you kept up to date on your own parties activity, you will find the proposal of a national ID card is not only very real, but a probability,,,all in the name of protection. Besides, we already have "papers". It's called a driver's license. He said "national".,,all across America, not issued by the state, but issued by the feds. (Members in Congress want even more rigid Patriot Act enactment. I love that, they want the masses to give up civl liberties and make them feel it is patriotic to do so! Even call the law the "Patriot Act". ) Well, here's the deal. If we have total freedom and civil liberties, it becomes next to impossible to effectively protect us against outside infiltrators. Exactly. And this country has always operated that way. Freedon does not come without its price. So you have to make a choice. The choice has already been made. Bush seeks to change it. Either certain freedoms need to be modified or .curtailed in order to make our borders more secure, make living and travel throughout our country more difficult for non-citizens, and obtaining forged documents by hostiles much tougher, or we have to learn to accept that the .price of our open freedom might likely be a large scale terrorist attack. In the first place, that you attempt but fail to make a lucid connection between cracking down on "terrorists" and curbing our rights is a highly laughable offense. People like you actually believe this ****. You cannot realistically expect to have both total freedom and total protection. Correct. This country chose total freedom. Bush is trying to do away with it. If you do not want the government taking steps to protect us from terrorists, The steps have proved fruitless. We lost rigts and attacks were still not prevented, have no right to complain when they attack. Keeping with that incompetent mindset, if you are not serving in the war, or have no family there, or have never served, you have no right to complain about those who do and say the war in Iraq is wrong. Ludicrous. As long as they use our own laws against us, we remain vulnerable. Open border policy and the freedom we enjoy has always made us vulnerable. That's the price we pay for the freedom we enjoy, it's a tradeoff risk we take. Most people are willing to give up some freedoms in order to gain better security. Dead wrong. Most people still believe in our founding forefathers statements and still apply them today. Franklin said "Those who would sacrifice personal rights in order to obtain temporary security, deserve neither" But that does not mean that we are "becoming .a fascist state". As long as we can continue to elect our representatives, that will not happen. GW Bush will not be the president 4 years from now, and there will be a new leader for us to blame for all the trouble we're having. And since you know it's going to be a democrat, you are already speaking of such blame 3 years away, but still suffer gastronomic pain when the Bush failures are illustrated. (IF Americans don't wake up to the big picture it will be to late. In fact so many things are no win place that it may now be to late. One more 9/11 event and that may spell the end of most of our civil liberties. ) I'd rather lose some civil liberties than worry that my family could be wiped from the planet .in one fell swoop. As Franklin said, you deserve neither. Besides, some people take advantage of certain civil liberties in order to engage in activities that are either illegal or immoral. (snip) Have at it, David. You're certified. David T. Hall Jr. "Sandbagger" N3CVJ |
Well, I agree, we need a militia to protect ourselves from such as bush and
kerry--do you think the power and money is going to allow anyone into office who is for the common citizen--hell no, graft, corruption and bribes rule this gov't--I think that is quite obvious... they play us for fools--this is not a "two party" system--that is all a farce, little has changed from when clinton signed NAFTA and sold missle secrets to the chinese for bribes... We are in deep chit here! John "I AmnotGeorgeBush" wrote in message ... ass.wizard wrote: So then, Bush is our enemy- When a president is sworn in, he swears to uphold and protect the Constitution. As soon as he was sworn in, he launched an attack on parts of it. Nowhere in the oath does it say "And swear to uphold the Constitution EXCEPT in matters of.....(insert republican lunacy here)". Yes, Bush is the enemy of the people of the United States. Yesterday's poll showed 61% of the American people now believe Bush does NOT have the best interests of the country at heart..but I find solace in those stats. People need a wakeup a call in addition to the government they deserve. |
On Wed, 25 May 2005 05:30:06 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote: 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. I'm just paraphrasing the conspiracy nuts who think our government is in bed with big business and a host of other conglomerates. 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: Why, it's clear that YOU don't understand it. This is not a "majority rule" country -- it's a country based on the recognition of individual rights and freedoms. Yes but every time we have an election, the majority picks the winner. 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, Try to refuse to pay your taxes, cry fire in a crowded theater, attempt to approach an elected official without permission, posses contraband, or act in a manner which could be construed as suspicious. Your "rights" are limited, to some extent, by the government. Some of your "rights" are really privileges (try to drive a car without a license). 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". But if your guy loses on election day, tough cookies. The USA is NOT a democracy No, it's a representative republic, loosely based on parliamentary rule. -- it's a country based on EQUAL RIGHTS and FREEDOMS for EVERY citizen, the "Moral Majority" be damned. You cannot give everyone what they want. Any fool (Except perhaps you) knows that. When people group together with diametrically opposing wishes and viewpoints, the largest group usually wins. 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. It's a shame that you took an oath to defend something that you don't understand properly. You are a hopeless idealist. Reality is a concept that escapes you. You don't even understand that the establishment clause does not establish separation of church and state. Nowhere are the words separation of church and state in there. 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? I am for it. But what you are is open for questioning. Dave "Sandbagger" |
First we would have to vote on who they are allowed to run, I don't see
anyone there right now I would vote for, not hillary, not kerry, not even the congressman or senator who is "mine", it feels like someone else put him in office (in deed the largest developer here donates to his campaign and my elected official are bending over for him constantly--and the issues are somehow ever blocked from getting onto the ballot to be reversed)--he has done nothing for me... hope he has helped someone somewhere... what has your congressman done for you? John "Dave Hall" wrote in message ... On Wed, 25 May 2005 05:30:06 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: 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. I'm just paraphrasing the conspiracy nuts who think our government is in bed with big business and a host of other conglomerates. 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: Why, it's clear that YOU don't understand it. This is not a "majority rule" country -- it's a country based on the recognition of individual rights and freedoms. Yes but every time we have an election, the majority picks the winner. 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, Try to refuse to pay your taxes, cry fire in a crowded theater, attempt to approach an elected official without permission, posses contraband, or act in a manner which could be construed as suspicious. Your "rights" are limited, to some extent, by the government. Some of your "rights" are really privileges (try to drive a car without a license). 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". But if your guy loses on election day, tough cookies. The USA is NOT a democracy No, it's a representative republic, loosely based on parliamentary rule. -- it's a country based on EQUAL RIGHTS and FREEDOMS for EVERY citizen, the "Moral Majority" be damned. You cannot give everyone what they want. Any fool (Except perhaps you) knows that. When people group together with diametrically opposing wishes and viewpoints, the largest group usually wins. 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. It's a shame that you took an oath to defend something that you don't understand properly. You are a hopeless idealist. Reality is a concept that escapes you. You don't even understand that the establishment clause does not establish separation of church and state. Nowhere are the words separation of church and state in there. 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? I am for it. But what you are is open for questioning. Dave "Sandbagger" |
On Wed, 25 May 2005 07:14:41 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote: 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. Even if the American company is forced out of business by cheaper foreign competitors? 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. Tariffs are an overly naive and simplistic answer, which will not help. I'll tell you why. First off, the import tariff will raise the price of imported goods which drive up the costs that the American consumer pays. Then the worker will demand more in raises to compensate, and you now have inflation. Secondly, the U.S. is but ONE consumer of goods. American companies trying to compete in foreign markets will not have the protection of the tariff and they will wither under strong foreign competition which they will not be able to match. Also, other countries do not like tariff policies and would likely impose tariffs on our goods in retaliation to our tariffs on theirs. Surely you can figure out what would happen then. 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. See above. 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. Does it matter? If it's cheaper, they will buy it. 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. So, then, you would rather an American company keep it's American workforce in a patriotic corporate suicide attempt, as it folds under unmatchable competition from abroad? What if all US companies fold or move their corporate headquarters offshore? Then what? 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". Well that's true to an extent. Those who invest their money in fixed rate securities (retired people) will earn more interest, while those seeking to borrow, will pay more. But the rich are who generally create the jobs that the rest of us work at. If inflation cuts into their costs too much, they will have to reduce the workforce or make other cuts (outsource?) to keep the margins. 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. Sigh. You can't get through a post without an insult can you Mr Bartender? 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. But Iraq is not poor in natural resources. 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. I know that freedom is not unlimited. 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. Well then we need to outlaw all corporate election contributions. Dave "Sandbagger" |
On Thu, 26 May 2005 14:45:02 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in : On Wed, 25 May 2005 05:30:06 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: 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. I'm just paraphrasing the conspiracy nuts who think our government is in bed with big business and a host of other conglomerates. Zeti-Reticuli? 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: Why, it's clear that YOU don't understand it. This is not a "majority rule" country -- it's a country based on the recognition of individual rights and freedoms. Yes but every time we have an election, the majority picks the winner. Wrong. The majority of -voters- choose. And the person they choose is not the "winner", as if being a public official was some sort of prize. It's not. It's a job. And their job is to work in the best interests of -ALL- their constituents, not just those that voted them into office. And just for your information, your right to vote is granted by the state, not guaranteed by the Constitution. There have been many efforts to add a Constitutional amendment that would guarantee every citizen the right to vote, but each attempt has been blocked by the Republicans. That's just another tidbit you never hear about from the "left-wing liberally biased news media". 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, Try to refuse to pay your taxes, Now -there's- a great idea -- demand that the goverment protect your country and your freedoms then squirm away when the bill comes. cry fire in a crowded theater, Are you so uneducated that you don't even know where that phrase originated? attempt to approach an elected official without permission, Attempt to enter my house without permission and see what happens. posses contraband, Contraband, by definition, is illegal. or act in a manner which could be construed as suspicious. You can blame Bush's Patriot Act for that one. Your "rights" are limited, to some extent, by the government. Of course rights have some limitations because there are circumstances where exercising those rights can infringe on the rights of others. How does gay marriage infringe on -your- rights, Dave? Some of your "rights" are really privileges (try to drive a car without a license). The lack of a driver's license doesn't prevent you from travelling freely, just not with a motor vehicle. Regardless, you can drive a motor vehicle without a license if you are on private property. Kids do it all the time at the go-kart tracks. Farmers do it all the time in their fields. Need more examples of your ignorance? 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". But if your guy loses on election day, tough cookies. If your guy loses on election day, you don't lose the rights and freedoms that are guaranteed by the Constitution. The USA is NOT a democracy No, it's a representative republic, loosely based on parliamentary rule. -- it's a country based on EQUAL RIGHTS and FREEDOMS for EVERY citizen, the "Moral Majority" be damned. You cannot give everyone what they want. Any fool (Except perhaps you) knows that. When people group together with diametrically opposing wishes and viewpoints, the largest group usually wins. When you find a majority that is willing to give up the Constitution then you let me know. 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. It's a shame that you took an oath to defend something that you don't understand properly. You are a hopeless idealist. So were the founding fathers. Reality is a concept that escapes you. You don't even understand that the establishment clause does not establish separation of church and state. Nowhere are the words separation of church and state in there. You tried that spin once before and it didn't work. Why would you think it's going to work if you use it a second time? 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? I am for it. Excellent. Now learn something about it. For starters, try "The Constitution of the United States: Its Sources and its Application" by Thomas James Norton. This book should be kept on your desk right next to your barely-used dictionary and over-worked computer. ----== 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 gay marriage, they can do anything they want, but can't marry in my
church which holds gays to be an abomination (I don't share anything in common with them either so they are best with others of their type, as I am with mine) however, NO tax breaks for them, NO spousal benefits paid by the gov't, and NO other hidden costs to taxpayers to support their "lifestyle." Then let them "marry" all they want... Regards, John "Frank Gilliland" wrote in message ... On Thu, 26 May 2005 14:45:02 -0400, Dave Hall wrote in : On Wed, 25 May 2005 05:30:06 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: 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. I'm just paraphrasing the conspiracy nuts who think our government is in bed with big business and a host of other conglomerates. Zeti-Reticuli? 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: Why, it's clear that YOU don't understand it. This is not a "majority rule" country -- it's a country based on the recognition of individual rights and freedoms. Yes but every time we have an election, the majority picks the winner. Wrong. The majority of -voters- choose. And the person they choose is not the "winner", as if being a public official was some sort of prize. It's not. It's a job. And their job is to work in the best interests of -ALL- their constituents, not just those that voted them into office. And just for your information, your right to vote is granted by the state, not guaranteed by the Constitution. There have been many efforts to add a Constitutional amendment that would guarantee every citizen the right to vote, but each attempt has been blocked by the Republicans. That's just another tidbit you never hear about from the "left-wing liberally biased news media". 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, Try to refuse to pay your taxes, Now -there's- a great idea -- demand that the goverment protect your country and your freedoms then squirm away when the bill comes. cry fire in a crowded theater, Are you so uneducated that you don't even know where that phrase originated? attempt to approach an elected official without permission, Attempt to enter my house without permission and see what happens. posses contraband, Contraband, by definition, is illegal. or act in a manner which could be construed as suspicious. You can blame Bush's Patriot Act for that one. Your "rights" are limited, to some extent, by the government. Of course rights have some limitations because there are circumstances where exercising those rights can infringe on the rights of others. How does gay marriage infringe on -your- rights, Dave? Some of your "rights" are really privileges (try to drive a car without a license). The lack of a driver's license doesn't prevent you from travelling freely, just not with a motor vehicle. Regardless, you can drive a motor vehicle without a license if you are on private property. Kids do it all the time at the go-kart tracks. Farmers do it all the time in their fields. Need more examples of your ignorance? 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". But if your guy loses on election day, tough cookies. If your guy loses on election day, you don't lose the rights and freedoms that are guaranteed by the Constitution. The USA is NOT a democracy No, it's a representative republic, loosely based on parliamentary rule. -- it's a country based on EQUAL RIGHTS and FREEDOMS for EVERY citizen, the "Moral Majority" be damned. You cannot give everyone what they want. Any fool (Except perhaps you) knows that. When people group together with diametrically opposing wishes and viewpoints, the largest group usually wins. When you find a majority that is willing to give up the Constitution then you let me know. 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. It's a shame that you took an oath to defend something that you don't understand properly. You are a hopeless idealist. So were the founding fathers. Reality is a concept that escapes you. You don't even understand that the establishment clause does not establish separation of church and state. Nowhere are the words separation of church and state in there. You tried that spin once before and it didn't work. Why would you think it's going to work if you use it a second time? 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? I am for it. Excellent. Now learn something about it. For starters, try "The Constitution of the United States: Its Sources and its Application" by Thomas James Norton. This book should be kept on your desk right next to your barely-used dictionary and over-worked computer. ----== 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 15:05:25 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in : On Wed, 25 May 2005 07:14:41 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: 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. Even if the American company is forced out of business by cheaper foreign competitors? Obviously you didn't read the entire post before starting your reply. 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. Tariffs are an overly naive and simplistic answer, which will not help. I'll tell you why. First off, the import tariff will raise the price of imported goods which drive up the costs that the American consumer pays. Then the worker will demand more in raises to compensate, and you now have inflation. Wrong. Import tariffs drive up the cost of -imported- products, which in turn encourages -domestic- production and manufacturing. The prices will go up, as will the wages; but the overall effect is that the domestic economy is stimulated, which more than compensates for any short-term dips. And for the record, it also reduces the amount paid for welfare since more people are working. Secondly, the U.S. is but ONE consumer of goods. American companies trying to compete in foreign markets will not have the protection of the tariff and they will wither under strong foreign competition which they will not be able to match. Also, other countries do not like tariff policies and would likely impose tariffs on our goods in retaliation to our tariffs on theirs. Surely you can figure out what would happen then. Wrong on both counts. American innovation and technology is, and has always been, one of the primary exports of this country. Stimulate the industrial base and you stimulate people and businesses to be more innovative (instead of using the word as an advertising gimmick). 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. See above. 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. Does it matter? If it's cheaper, they will buy it. I guess that's why Mercedes, Jags and BMW's sell so well, huh? Didn't you learn anything in our discussion about how a quality education is often preferred over a lesser degree? If you did, what part of your brain is unable to apply the underlying concept to other situations? 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. So, then, you would rather an American company keep it's American workforce in a patriotic corporate suicide attempt, as it folds under unmatchable competition from abroad? What if all US companies fold or move their corporate headquarters offshore? Then what? What if all US companies lobbied for import tariffs? 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". Well that's true to an extent. Those who invest their money in fixed rate securities (retired people) will earn more interest, while those seeking to borrow, will pay more. But the rich are who generally create the jobs that the rest of us work at. Wrong. The failure of Reaganomics proved that people create their own jobs when the rich get too greedy. They do so out of necessity. If inflation cuts into their costs too much, they will have to reduce the workforce or make other cuts (outsource?) to keep the margins. It really doesn't matter since the US is no longer a free-market economy -- the Federal Reserve has tight (and probably illegal) control over the money supply and keeps the inflation rate down artificially. 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. Sigh. You can't get through a post without an insult can you Mr Bartender? Nope. Can you get through a post without a demonstration of your ignorance and lack of education? 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. But Iraq is not poor in natural resources. But Iraq's natural resources are only partially owned and controlled by Iraq. They were fully owned by Iraq under Saddam, but after his overthrow many international conglomerates (mostly US and UK oil companies, most of which include the Bush family as stockholders) invoked claims that existed prior to Saddam. The people of Iraq are going to see hardly any of the money that comes from their own resources -- instead it's going right into the pockets of oil company fat-cats. 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. I know that freedom is not unlimited. Freedom isn't free. Period. Quit being a dumbass and learn 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. Well then we need to outlaw all corporate election contributions. Well gee, Dave, what a novel idea. ----== 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 =---- |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:35 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com