Hey. I didn´t know the presidential campaign had started yet.
Let me try: "you three are nothing but a Jewish-religious-conservative conspiracy to undermine the freedom of all freethinking individual. And you are RATS"
Anyone else wants a shot?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I could say things like "You see something you don´t understand and per reflex you assume its directed against you?" but that would make it look like I was going after the man instead of the ball. Then I could make an analogy to your confusion between anti-zionism and anti-semitism but that would drag a completly other discussion into this one. So here is the simple neutral explanation instead:
In last presidential election (remember I said something about the election had started again) in one of the negative campaign tv commercials targeting the democrats the word "democrats" was doing some screen gymnastics and in one frame it said "RATS". There were some speculation about it at that time: Was it deliberatly or by coinsident? Thats what the "RATS" reference was about.
Sorry for sticking my oar in here, I am an ignorant Brit for the record, so please feel free to shoot me down in flames.
There is a lot of merit in the original post, even though it might be born out of NYT media spin.
There is growing opposition to American foreign policy around the world.
Certainly (having spent time in the US), I was appalled at how much the US media is completely US-centric and advertising led. There is little that is true and accurate or unbiased and in-depth about a lot of the reporting on foreign issues.
I believe that the average North American has a cats chance in hell of understanding many of the issues regarding America's place in the rest of the world (and that isn't the average American's fault). America deserves a better and unbiased news media, so that the better informed can appreciate what a complete arse GBush is and how he is making the US look real dumb. In fact, looking real dumb isn't the worry - the Republican's are looking to justify their thievery of the presidency (and divert attention from social issues, unemployment, housing, immigration etc.) by buying votes with talk of justice and war.
Many people around the world admire the principles on which America was founded, but those principles appear to have been eroded.
sorry if it strayed a little off-topic. Rant Ends.
I could say things like "You see something you don´t understand and per reflex you assume its directed against you?" but that would make it look like I was going after the man instead of the ball. Then I could make an analogy to your confusion between anti-zionism and anti-semitism but that would drag a completly other discussion into this one. So here is the simple neutral explanation instead:
In last presidential election (remember I said something about the election had started again) in one of the negative campaign tv commercials targeting the democrats the word "democrats" was doing some screen gymnastics and in one frame it said "RATS". There were some speculation about it at that time: Was it deliberatly or by coinsident? Thats what the "RATS" reference was about.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You are such a cleaver boy.
What can I say Anders, you?re a great a champion of Jewish causes. I just wonder what the Danes will think if your kind of logic and sympathy was to be turned towards their nation and homeland. Have you tried arguing for the dissolution of their national claims? Why not give it a try? Don?t be shy. Let your sensitive soul be generous with its love. Don?t worry, I?ll be more than happy to provide you with a pair of dentures and a wheelchair.
yes please... start another thread for your jousting . .
Now about the loans, zMench, its as if you completely overlooked the main problem with th eloans that was NOT stipulated in the loan agreements (and there are many other problems as well)
namely: the fact that despite our supposed love of Laissez faire we have our governement SUBSIDIZE exports to these third world countries in order to gaurantee that we undercut ALL local competition.
And that's not even touching on the other stipulations such as that these countries provide TAX FREE land for corporations. WHere they can then set up LABOR CAMPS . . . camps that pay pennies and DO NOT COMPENSATE the government with taxes . . which means not helping them payback their loans
(Make no mistake, this is a sort of slavery, slavery through usery)
. . . these stipulations came AFTER the original loan but were tacked onto agreements that allowed the countries to remain in debt without foreclosing sort of speak . . . in other words: once they owed, and could not pay due to above reasons, they then HAD to accept new stipulations including idiocies such as 25% interest increases . . . either accept them or more increases etc etc, as long as new markets are opened up for American Governement subsidized goods and new LABOR factories are opened up for American owned multi-nationals.
This is not Conservative business as it is supposed to be practiced, where the natural competative edge wins out . . . this is bullying through false pretences . .
and this is just a small thing
note the post by the Brit above . . . wether he is right or wrong, he confirms exactly what I am saying about our perceptions abroad . . .
remember . . . my saying this is only party about wether or not this perception is justified . .
although I do believe that in large part it is . . .
<strong>yes please... start another thread for your jousting . .</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry
Another issue about loans. Its a known thing that a lot of african "leaders" took loans in the west with security in their lands natural resources. It was also known to anyone with ears and eyes that the leaders were nothing but cleptocrats with huge bank accounts in other western countries. When they were eventually lifted from power they had secured themselves a nice life abroad. In my eyes its nothing but theft when those who lended them the money demand it paid back from the country. They can go after the former leader all they want but not the country.
Well, if that?s the cost of borrowing money from the US, or doing business with the US, then don?t do business with the US. Go to the British, or the Europeans, or the Russians, or the Chinese, or the Japanese, the Koreans, etc., who do not subsidize their industry. What's the problem?
Well, if that?s the cost of borrowing money from the US, or doing business with the US, then don?t do business with the US. Go to the British, or the Europeans, or the Russians, or the Chinese, or the Japanese, the Koreans, etc., who do not subsidize their industry. What's the problem?
[ 01-03-2003: Message edited by: zMench ]</strong><hr></blockquote>The problem is that the damage waas and is done through the subsidization NOT being clear before the loans were taken out then 'doing business with' became 'pleasing the master' . . . and, the problem is is that it has to do very much so with our perception abroad . . . namely that we would give loans with trickery amounting to share-cropper type neo-slavery as part of the bargain.
Bush had a good idea when he proposed cancelling debts . . . it would be unbelievably equitable . . . not just a gesture, but the right thing to do.
<strong>The problem is that the damage waas and is done through the subsidization NOT being clear before the loans were taken out then 'doing business with' became 'pleasing the master' . . . and, the problem is is that it has to do very much so with our perception abroad . . . namely that we would give loans with trickery amounting to share-cropper type neo-slavery as part of the bargain.
Bush had a good idea when he proposed cancelling debts . . . it would be unbelievably equitable . . . not just a gesture, but the right thing to do.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Obviously I don?t share your description of the situation. But if there?s a majority consensus of US tax payers that share your point of view, then all the best. Cancel all the debts that others are owing you, if you really think that will solve the problem of them not liking you. It?s no sweat off my back. Although I had the impression that Carter or Clinton had already done that..
Pfflam: Have you read "Globalization and the postcolonial world : the new political economy of development" by Ankie Hoogvelt? He (she?) is thinking in the same lines as you, but put it into a historical frame. Go read it if you haven´t.
I´m a open economy kind of guy and have many times discussed the issue with more socialist friends (Socialists are gereally speaking more sceptical than liberals and conservatives towards open marked here. Liberal is considered much closer to conservatives here than to socialists) and I have had the attitude that on the long run open economies will benefit the poor more than rich and it will all go towards equal. After reading the book I still think open markeds are best for everyone and protectionism never will do any good but your opponent on the marked must not be in a much more priveledged situation on the marked than you are or you will always be screwed. If you desperatetly need money to pay loans for instance you must accept almost any price for it and then you are in a very disadvantaged situation on the marked.
So beside opening of markeds the disadvantaged must be put in a situation where they aren´t forced into accepting the demands of others no matter how unfair they are. Unless that is done there is no open or free marked.
Even one of the fathers of the liberal economy, John Stuart Mill, knew that.
[quote]I mean the rhetoric on N. Korea, the pulling out of the crimes against humanity court, and especially the insistence that we have a war with Iraq. <hr></blockquote>
If anyone is throwing out rhetoric it is North Korea. They are flatly pulling out of a treaty (actually a strategic framework" I believe)....and it is they who have threatened the US. Our response was to see a diplomatic solution while still appearing strong. We accomplished this, in part because Donald Rumsfeld vaguely referenced the fact that "The US can fight two conflicts at once....and win them both". It will be interesting to see what happens.
[quote]articularly the last one . . . I reaize that Bush is truly hoping that we don't go to war (at least that would be my benificent take on it rather than my more cynical version) and that he wants to have a resolution that would come bloodlessly but because of his application of pressure . . .*ehem*
. . .no really truly <hr></blockquote>
Sarcasm aside now pfflam, I am completely willing to admit that Bush WANTS a war with Iraq. The difference is that I and many others AGREE with him. Saddam is currently seeking WOMD....let us at least be clear on that. He definitely has chemical and biological weapons because we gave them to him 20 years ago. Bush can't control that. We must get rid of this man and his government.
jimmac:
[quote] It was the same way with you insisting that Iraq had WOM as you put it. What's been 5 weeks now? And guess what...........NOTHING! <hr></blockquote>
I have come to expect better arguments than this. You cannot possibly believe that the inspectors have any chance of finding anything. They have chemical and biological weapons. I believe they are very close to a nuke.
[quote]
Just go ask any poor slob on the street looking for a job. They will tell you the truth. By the way while going over the headlines at CNN after Christmas I think " Grim picture " was used in the description. That doesn't sound strong to me. <hr></blockquote>
Again...this argument is really disapointing coming from you. Any evidence regarding the hypothetical slob you mention would be totally anecdotal....sort of like the spoof SNL did of Bill O'Reilly regarding the population of NY versus California. As for CNN...I try not to listen to News acnchors' characterizations of stories. The numbers are what we must look at....and I agree the Xmas numbers weren't good at all (though they were good for online sales and bargain outlets). There were also three weeks between Thanksgiving and Xmas, which is another factor. The overall economic picture is, I would say "decent...but not particularly good". We never even had a technical recession, according to the numbers that is.
I did a little reading on the subject and I get the impression the S. Korea does not really want the situation with North resolved. It seems to me that what the S. Koreans would like best is to keep the North on life support but not have it collapse and die. This way they don?t need to worry about a possible financial bankruptcy should they require to absorb the North politically. It?s a reverse lesson from the German example.
But keeping the North on life support just means that this dying regime will continue to engage the planet?s rogue elements in an effort to secure funds through the sale of WoMD. The US really needs to put their thinking cap on this one. keeping the status quo is gonna lead to dissaster.
<strong>The overall economic picture is, I would say "decent...but not particularly good". We never even had a technical recession, according to the numbers that is.</strong><hr></blockquote>We went into recession <a href="http://www.nber.org/cycles/recessions.html"; target="_blank">in March 2001</a>, and we're probably still in one (they don't say we're out of one until many months after it actually happens, so we'll just have to wait and see). Bush even said that the recession had started before he came to office, and <a href="http://slate.msn.com/id/2076134/"; target="_blank">there's been criticism of him for saying that</a>, because it didn't technically start until a few months after he was inaugurated.
<strong>We went into recession <a href="http://www.nber.org/cycles/recessions.html"; target="_blank">in March 2001</a>, and we're probably still in one (they don't say we're out of one until many months after it actually happens, so we'll just have to wait and see). Bush even said that the recession had started before he came to office, and <a href="http://slate.msn.com/id/2076134/"; target="_blank">there's been criticism of him for saying that</a>, because it didn't technically start until a few months after he was inaugurated.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is the silliest argument. The point really is did his policies help bring it on.
Whether it started before or after he took the oath, the point obviously is that his policies had not had anytime to be passed and put into law yet.
Either way he inherited the effect, he was not the cause.
You forgot to quote this little part of your own link.
[quote]Did the economy go into recession because President Bush came into office? Of course not. Had Al Gore become president, would the economy have entered a recession in March 2001? Certainly. In hindsight, it's clear we were heading for a recession in late 2000. President Bush caught the wrong end of the business cycle. <hr></blockquote>
Yeah, presenting simple facts is always a silly argument to conservatives. Read my post again. What argument, exactly, was I making, except to correct a factual error by SDW? Your own defensiveness about Bush is showing. I don't blame the recession on Bush (the deficit on the other hand...).
Comments
<strong>
Hey. I didn´t know the presidential campaign had started yet.
Let me try: "you three are nothing but a Jewish-religious-conservative conspiracy to undermine the freedom of all freethinking individual. And you are RATS"
Anyone else wants a shot?</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is a joke?
<strong>
This is a joke?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Take a wild guess. Didn´t you see Scotts post? I´m just playing along.
Scott and me don´t need smilies to show when we are kidding.
[ 01-03-2003: Message edited by: Anders the White ]</p>
<strong>
Take a wild guess. Didn´t you see Scotts post? I´m just playing along.
Scott and me don´t need smilies to show when we are kidding.
[ 01-03-2003: Message edited by: Anders the White ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmm,?
Calling Jews RATS is a funny joke to you? Is this some kind of European funny that we?re not yet familiar here with?
[ 01-03-2003: Message edited by: zMench ]</p>
I could say things like "You see something you don´t understand and per reflex you assume its directed against you?" but that would make it look like I was going after the man instead of the ball. Then I could make an analogy to your confusion between anti-zionism and anti-semitism but that would drag a completly other discussion into this one. So here is the simple neutral explanation instead:
In last presidential election (remember I said something about the election had started again) in one of the negative campaign tv commercials targeting the democrats the word "democrats" was doing some screen gymnastics and in one frame it said "RATS". There were some speculation about it at that time: Was it deliberatly or by coinsident? Thats what the "RATS" reference was about.
There is a lot of merit in the original post, even though it might be born out of NYT media spin.
There is growing opposition to American foreign policy around the world.
Certainly (having spent time in the US), I was appalled at how much the US media is completely US-centric and advertising led. There is little that is true and accurate or unbiased and in-depth about a lot of the reporting on foreign issues.
I believe that the average North American has a cats chance in hell of understanding many of the issues regarding America's place in the rest of the world (and that isn't the average American's fault). America deserves a better and unbiased news media, so that the better informed can appreciate what a complete arse GBush is and how he is making the US look real dumb. In fact, looking real dumb isn't the worry - the Republican's are looking to justify their thievery of the presidency (and divert attention from social issues, unemployment, housing, immigration etc.) by buying votes with talk of justice and war.
Many people around the world admire the principles on which America was founded, but those principles appear to have been eroded.
sorry if it strayed a little off-topic. Rant Ends.
MA.
<strong>
I could say things like "You see something you don´t understand and per reflex you assume its directed against you?" but that would make it look like I was going after the man instead of the ball. Then I could make an analogy to your confusion between anti-zionism and anti-semitism but that would drag a completly other discussion into this one. So here is the simple neutral explanation instead:
In last presidential election (remember I said something about the election had started again) in one of the negative campaign tv commercials targeting the democrats the word "democrats" was doing some screen gymnastics and in one frame it said "RATS". There were some speculation about it at that time: Was it deliberatly or by coinsident? Thats what the "RATS" reference was about.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You are such a cleaver boy.
What can I say Anders, you?re a great a champion of Jewish causes. I just wonder what the Danes will think if your kind of logic and sympathy was to be turned towards their nation and homeland. Have you tried arguing for the dissolution of their national claims? Why not give it a try? Don?t be shy. Let your sensitive soul be generous with its love. Don?t worry, I?ll be more than happy to provide you with a pair of dentures and a wheelchair.
Start another thread if you want to discuss Israel
Now about the loans, zMench, its as if you completely overlooked the main problem with th eloans that was NOT stipulated in the loan agreements (and there are many other problems as well)
namely: the fact that despite our supposed love of Laissez faire we have our governement SUBSIDIZE exports to these third world countries in order to gaurantee that we undercut ALL local competition.
And that's not even touching on the other stipulations such as that these countries provide TAX FREE land for corporations. WHere they can then set up LABOR CAMPS . . . camps that pay pennies and DO NOT COMPENSATE the government with taxes . . which means not helping them payback their loans
(Make no mistake, this is a sort of slavery, slavery through usery)
. . . these stipulations came AFTER the original loan but were tacked onto agreements that allowed the countries to remain in debt without foreclosing sort of speak . . . in other words: once they owed, and could not pay due to above reasons, they then HAD to accept new stipulations including idiocies such as 25% interest increases . . . either accept them or more increases etc etc, as long as new markets are opened up for American Governement subsidized goods and new LABOR factories are opened up for American owned multi-nationals.
This is not Conservative business as it is supposed to be practiced, where the natural competative edge wins out . . . this is bullying through false pretences . .
and this is just a small thing
note the post by the Brit above . . . wether he is right or wrong, he confirms exactly what I am saying about our perceptions abroad . . .
remember . . . my saying this is only party about wether or not this perception is justified . .
although I do believe that in large part it is . . .
<strong>yes please... start another thread for your jousting . .</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry
Another issue about loans. Its a known thing that a lot of african "leaders" took loans in the west with security in their lands natural resources. It was also known to anyone with ears and eyes that the leaders were nothing but cleptocrats with huge bank accounts in other western countries. When they were eventually lifted from power they had secured themselves a nice life abroad. In my eyes its nothing but theft when those who lended them the money demand it paid back from the country. They can go after the former leader all they want but not the country.
<strong>
Now about the loans, zMench
.
.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, if that?s the cost of borrowing money from the US, or doing business with the US, then don?t do business with the US. Go to the British, or the Europeans, or the Russians, or the Chinese, or the Japanese, the Koreans, etc., who do not subsidize their industry. What's the problem?
[ 01-03-2003: Message edited by: zMench ]</p>
<strong>
Well, if that?s the cost of borrowing money from the US, or doing business with the US, then don?t do business with the US. Go to the British, or the Europeans, or the Russians, or the Chinese, or the Japanese, the Koreans, etc., who do not subsidize their industry. What's the problem?
[ 01-03-2003: Message edited by: zMench ]</strong><hr></blockquote>The problem is that the damage waas and is done through the subsidization NOT being clear before the loans were taken out then 'doing business with' became 'pleasing the master' . . . and, the problem is is that it has to do very much so with our perception abroad . . . namely that we would give loans with trickery amounting to share-cropper type neo-slavery as part of the bargain.
Bush had a good idea when he proposed cancelling debts . . . it would be unbelievably equitable . . . not just a gesture, but the right thing to do.
<strong>The problem is that the damage waas and is done through the subsidization NOT being clear before the loans were taken out then 'doing business with' became 'pleasing the master' . . . and, the problem is is that it has to do very much so with our perception abroad . . . namely that we would give loans with trickery amounting to share-cropper type neo-slavery as part of the bargain.
Bush had a good idea when he proposed cancelling debts . . . it would be unbelievably equitable . . . not just a gesture, but the right thing to do.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Obviously I don?t share your description of the situation. But if there?s a majority consensus of US tax payers that share your point of view, then all the best. Cancel all the debts that others are owing you, if you really think that will solve the problem of them not liking you. It?s no sweat off my back. Although I had the impression that Carter or Clinton had already done that..
I´m a open economy kind of guy and have many times discussed the issue with more socialist friends (Socialists are gereally speaking more sceptical than liberals and conservatives towards open marked here. Liberal is considered much closer to conservatives here than to socialists) and I have had the attitude that on the long run open economies will benefit the poor more than rich and it will all go towards equal. After reading the book I still think open markeds are best for everyone and protectionism never will do any good but your opponent on the marked must not be in a much more priveledged situation on the marked than you are or you will always be screwed. If you desperatetly need money to pay loans for instance you must accept almost any price for it and then you are in a very disadvantaged situation on the marked.
So beside opening of markeds the disadvantaged must be put in a situation where they aren´t forced into accepting the demands of others no matter how unfair they are. Unless that is done there is no open or free marked.
Even one of the fathers of the liberal economy, John Stuart Mill, knew that.
Sorry for the rant.
[quote]I mean the rhetoric on N. Korea, the pulling out of the crimes against humanity court, and especially the insistence that we have a war with Iraq. <hr></blockquote>
If anyone is throwing out rhetoric it is North Korea. They are flatly pulling out of a treaty (actually a strategic framework" I believe)....and it is they who have threatened the US. Our response was to see a diplomatic solution while still appearing strong. We accomplished this, in part because Donald Rumsfeld vaguely referenced the fact that "The US can fight two conflicts at once....and win them both". It will be interesting to see what happens.
[quote]articularly the last one . . . I reaize that Bush is truly hoping that we don't go to war (at least that would be my benificent take on it rather than my more cynical version) and that he wants to have a resolution that would come bloodlessly but because of his application of pressure . . .*ehem*
. . .no really truly <hr></blockquote>
Sarcasm aside now pfflam, I am completely willing to admit that Bush WANTS a war with Iraq. The difference is that I and many others AGREE with him. Saddam is currently seeking WOMD....let us at least be clear on that. He definitely has chemical and biological weapons because we gave them to him 20 years ago. Bush can't control that. We must get rid of this man and his government.
jimmac:
[quote] It was the same way with you insisting that Iraq had WOM as you put it. What's been 5 weeks now? And guess what...........NOTHING! <hr></blockquote>
I have come to expect better arguments than this. You cannot possibly believe that the inspectors have any chance of finding anything. They have chemical and biological weapons. I believe they are very close to a nuke.
[quote]
Just go ask any poor slob on the street looking for a job. They will tell you the truth. By the way while going over the headlines at CNN after Christmas I think " Grim picture " was used in the description. That doesn't sound strong to me. <hr></blockquote>
Again...this argument is really disapointing coming from you. Any evidence regarding the hypothetical slob you mention would be totally anecdotal....sort of like the spoof SNL did of Bill O'Reilly regarding the population of NY versus California. As for CNN...I try not to listen to News acnchors' characterizations of stories. The numbers are what we must look at....and I agree the Xmas numbers weren't good at all (though they were good for online sales and bargain outlets). There were also three weeks between Thanksgiving and Xmas, which is another factor. The overall economic picture is, I would say "decent...but not particularly good". We never even had a technical recession, according to the numbers that is.
[ 01-03-2003: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
But keeping the North on life support just means that this dying regime will continue to engage the planet?s rogue elements in an effort to secure funds through the sale of WoMD. The US really needs to put their thinking cap on this one. keeping the status quo is gonna lead to dissaster.
SDW,
By the way where did you get this the Bat phone or your secret decoder ring?
" I believe they are very close to a nuke. "
zMench,
Psst, It's " The Planet of The Apes " not " Tha Planet of The Apes ".
[ 01-03-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<a href="http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell1.asp"; target="_blank">The reasons for American resentment</a>
Nick
<strong>The overall economic picture is, I would say "decent...but not particularly good". We never even had a technical recession, according to the numbers that is.</strong><hr></blockquote>We went into recession <a href="http://www.nber.org/cycles/recessions.html"; target="_blank">in March 2001</a>, and we're probably still in one (they don't say we're out of one until many months after it actually happens, so we'll just have to wait and see). Bush even said that the recession had started before he came to office, and <a href="http://slate.msn.com/id/2076134/"; target="_blank">there's been criticism of him for saying that</a>, because it didn't technically start until a few months after he was inaugurated.
<strong>We went into recession <a href="http://www.nber.org/cycles/recessions.html"; target="_blank">in March 2001</a>, and we're probably still in one (they don't say we're out of one until many months after it actually happens, so we'll just have to wait and see). Bush even said that the recession had started before he came to office, and <a href="http://slate.msn.com/id/2076134/"; target="_blank">there's been criticism of him for saying that</a>, because it didn't technically start until a few months after he was inaugurated.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is the silliest argument. The point really is did his policies help bring it on.
Whether it started before or after he took the oath, the point obviously is that his policies had not had anytime to be passed and put into law yet.
Either way he inherited the effect, he was not the cause.
You forgot to quote this little part of your own link.
[quote]Did the economy go into recession because President Bush came into office? Of course not. Had Al Gore become president, would the economy have entered a recession in March 2001? Certainly. In hindsight, it's clear we were heading for a recession in late 2000. President Bush caught the wrong end of the business cycle. <hr></blockquote>
Nick
[ 01-03-2003: Message edited by: trumptman ]</p>
[ 01-04-2003: Message edited by: BRussell ]</p>