I am watching F-911 tomorrow

[CDB]

Uh.... hello?

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed



Cheney is almost as bad as Rumsfeld. This administration is more about pandering to corporate interests than anything I've ever seen. Score another contract for Halliburton.

Um, is that the same CIA that made that little WMD mistake. True, they made it along with a lot of other people, but still...

I love Rumsfeld. He's completely politically incorrect, makes no effort to reassure people or make them feel good at all. He says the most amazingly hilarious things too. There's a book out called Pieces of Intelligence: The Existential Poetry of Donald Rumsfeld. It's hilarious. I'd recommend it for anyone who likes a good laugh.

 

[BigSwede]

I am a Libertarian, but also a big fan of the jolly fat man. Unfortunately, I tought F-911 fell flat.

 

[BigSwede]

And...

I've yet to see one economist of any stripe explain why too much or too little exporting, or too much or too little importing is good or bad, depending on what stripe of economist of course. There is no optimal level of either.

The wholesale trade balance is somewhat of a Red Herring, That being stated, there are some ramifications of running a continuing-deficit of this magnitude. China receives USD in payment for it's goods and buys US paper&hard assets in the form of Treasury debt and RE. This occurs with every trading partner we have, an artifact of being a Nation that does nothing but consume due to its [relative] vast wealth.

 

[CDB]

The wholesale trade balance is somewhat of a Red Herring, That being stated, there are some ramifications of running a continuing-deficit of this magnitude. China receives USD in payment for it's goods and buys US paper&hard assets in the form of Treasury debt and RE. This occurs with every trading partner we have, an artifact of being a Nation that does nothing but consume due to its [relative] vast wealth.

True. However it's not a bad thing. With few exceptions, when you look at economies around the world those running with trade deficits tend to be doing a lot better than those with surpluses. It's too complicated an issue to encapsulate it so easily in the idea of more imports than exports, or more exports than imports. What's being imported and exported alone make it hard to determine if at any given moment having a deficit is harmful or not. You're basically right, it's a red herring.

It is however of great importance to America First types, who think opening a factory overseas costs Americans jobs in the long run, or that in the long run the best thing to do is enact restrictive trade policies to raise the cost of imports relative to American goods and services.

 

[BigSwede]

Well, the deficit is also artifact of our success as a Nation, obviously, and certainly our socioeconomic success is the overriding input. However, running a deficit as large as ours puts more and more US assets under foreign control. Balance of Power, economically-speaking, has ebbed and flowed based upon such trade.

I am not suggesting policies restricting trade[Buchanan], but the deficit could lead to a significant loss of buying power for the American consumer. This would be very destructive to our domestic economy and could signal the death-rattle for the US job market, further shifting the BoP towards holders of US assets.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Moore: “What happened to the search for Osama bin Laden?�
Costas : “Obviously they're pursuing Osama bin Laden as we speak.�
Moore challenged the premise: “Really, you believe that?�
Costas: “Yes.�
Moore: “You do believe that?�
Costas: “Sure. And if they could find him, and perhaps they eventually will, they'd be gratified by that.�
Moore: “You don't think they know where he is?�
Costas: “You think they know where Osama bin Laden is and it's hands off?�
Moore: “Absolutely, absolutely.�
Costas: “Why?�
Moore: “Because he's funded by their friends in Saudi Arabia! He's back living with his sponsors, his benefactors. Do you think that Osama bin Laden planned 9-11 from a cave in Afghanistan? I can't get a cell signal from here to Queens, alright, I mean, come on. Let's get real about this. The guy has been on dialysis for two years. He's got failing kidneys. He wasn't in a cave in Afghanistan playing-�
Costas : “You think he's in Saudi Arabia, not Afghanistan, not Pakistan.�
Moore: “Well, could be Pakistan, but he's under watch of those who have said put a stop to this because-�
Costas : “Including, at least by extension, the United States, he's under the protective watch of the United States?�
Moore: “I think the United States, I think our government knows where he is and I don't think we're going to be capturing him or killing him any time soon.�

 

[jrkarp]

hate bush, love america. he is a retart

Boy you look like a fucking genius calling someone else a retard and spelling it wrong.

/karp

 

[jrkarp]

And we had a good idea of where he was then. In fact, we've often had a very good idea of where he was and let him slip through our fingers. This goes back to the Clinton administration.

To what end? If we brought OBL in or killed him (and could prove it), Bush would look like such a hero people (who, in general, are sheep) would forget most of the mistakes he's made.

/karp

 

[gobig1]

Bottom line.........There are NO GOOD POLITICIANS, that includes Presidents and ex-Presidents. It doesn't matter who is in office, they will be critized.

Here is one of the definitions of Politician from Merriam Webster online;

Politician - a person primarily interested in political office for selfish or other narrow usually short-sighted reasons.

Politicians DO NOT have your, my, our best or ANY of our personal interests in mind. This country is not free anymore, it is ran by politicians with THEIR own agenda in mind.

GOBIG

 

[Brooklyn]

To what end? If we brought OBL in or killed him (and could prove it), Bush would look like such a hero people (who, in general, are sheep) would forget most of the mistakes he's made.

Osama Bin Laden/Usama Bin Ladin is a symbol. If we kill him he can become a martyr. If we capture him it makes it look to the masses like the war on terror is pretty much over, which is far from the truth. Anytime Bush wants to get support for his agenda he trumps the threat of Bin Laden out. He is the face of terror like Saddam Hussein was the face of the old Iraq. The best thing for Bush, as far as the long-term is concerned, is not to catch Bin Laden. Why do you think we keep capturing his "Number 2 guy"?

 

[jrkarp]

Bottom line.........There are NO GOOD POLITICIANS, that includes Presidents and ex-Presidents. It doesn't matter who is in office, they will be critized.

There are good and bad in every profession.

Here is one of the definitions of Politician from Merriam Webster online;

Politician - a person primarily interested in political office for selfish or other narrow usually short-sighted reasons.

One of the other definitions on there is "a person experienced in the art or science of government." Actually, that is the first definiton.

Politicians DO NOT have your, my, our best or ANY of our personal interests in mind. This country is not free anymore, it is ran by politicians with THEIR own agenda in mind.

GOBIG

You're partially right; a lot of them don't. However, you can't make broad, sweeping generalizations like that.

As for this country not being free, you are sadly mistaken.

/karp

 

[jrkarp]

Osama Bin Laden/Usama Bin Ladin is a symbol. If we kill him he can become a martyr. If we capture him it makes it look to the masses like the war on terror is pretty much over, which is far from the truth. Anytime Bush wants to get support for his agenda he trumps the threat of Bin Laden out. He is the face of terror like Saddam Hussein was the face of the old Iraq. The best thing for Bush, as far as the long-term is concerned, is not to catch Bin Laden. Why do you think we keep capturing his "Number 2 guy"?

I've considered that and that argument has some merit... However, we all know that once Bil Laden is taken out of the picture, someone else will take his place, and more than likely we will see terrorist activities increase in respose to the capture. So really, Bush could say "Hey, we got him," which makes him look good, and he can also say "We've still got a lot more work to do," which keeps the war on terror going.

/karp

 

[PastorofMuppets]

Brooklyn, you really think that any president would play games like that?

I mean seriously, it's not like Bush needs to get reelected or anything.

Oh, and please name an instance of Bush "trumping" the threat of bin laden.

I have heard plenty of the "war on terror" but I don't remember OBL really being mentioned beyond Op EF.

But I do agree with you, capturing bin laden would not mean that it would be the end of the "war on terror", he is simply a figurehead.

But hey, that doesn't stop liberals from screaming "WHAT ABOUT BIN LADEN????!!!?!?!"

now does it?

 

[gobig1]

There are good and bad in every profession.


One of the other definitions on there is "a person experienced in the art or science of government." Actually, that is the first definiton.


You're partially right; a lot of them don't. However, you can't make broad, sweeping generalizations like that.

As for this country not being free, you are sadly mistaken.

/karp

That is your OPINION.....after 21+ years in the military I would defend our "freedoms" with my life, that doesn't mean our country is free.......increasing encroachment into my personal desires that have no harm to any other individual is not a free society (my opinion) although we do enjoy many more benefits than most societies, we are FAR from free to do as we please or choose in respect to not harming others.

Just because you "agree" with a politicians point of view on a certain subject DOES NOT mean they have YOUR best interest in mind, they don't even know who the hell you are, so YES the broad sweeping generalization definitely applies to politicians.

 

[jrkarp]

Just because you "agree" with a politicians point of view on a certain subject DOES NOT mean they have YOUR best interest in mind, they don't even know who the hell you are, so YES the broad sweeping generalization definitely applies to politicians.

So basically what you are saying is that if a politician doesn't know you personally, he's out for selfish motives? I think it's pretty ridiculous to assert that just because a politician doesn't know everybody who he represents personally, that means that he doesn't care about the best interests of the community (as a whole) that he was elected to represent.

Obviously he can't know what is in your PERSONAL best interests, but that doesn't mean that he doesn't care about his constituents at all.

/karp

 

[gobig1]

So basically what you are saying is that if a politician doesn't know you personally, he's out for selfish motives? I think it's pretty ridiculous to assert that just because a politician doesn't know everybody who he represents personally, that means that he doesn't care about the best interests of the community (as a whole) that he was elected to represent.

Obviously he can't know what is in your PERSONAL best interests, but that doesn't mean that he doesn't care about his constituents at all.

/karp

If you would have read my post slower, we both basically said the same thing, except that I'm not saying he is being selfish with only his interests/motives in mind, JUST NOT YOURS in mind. Obviously, he is voted into office on broad, general issues, i.e., reduce crime, increase jobs, etc., those may/may not affect you directly, that in no way means he is looking out for YOU. I think my whole point of this is that a politician will make uninformed decisions based on media propaganda, specifically steroids (which is why we are all here) and go with the "general" public point of view and make them illegal. Back in 1990 when steroids became scheduled class III and illegal, all the doctors on the voting panel said it was the wrong thing to do. I just don't like someone I don't know making decisions for me, maybe you do......I don't. Enough on this......enjoy your day.

GOBIG

 

[jrkarp]

If you would have read my post slower, we both basically said the same thing, except that I'm not saying he is being selfish with only his interests/motives in mind, JUST NOT YOURS in mind. Obviously, he is voted into office on broad, general issues, i.e., reduce crime, increase jobs, etc., those may/may not affect you directly, that in no way means he is looking out for YOU.

Um, you said:

Politicians DO NOT have your, my, our best or ANY of our personal interests in mind. This country is not free anymore, it is ran by politicians with THEIR own agenda in mind.

So, actually that is exactly what you said.

EDIT: Wait, I think I get what you are saying: elected politicians do not represent us personally. So what? That doesn't mean that they are selfish or bad people or not good at their jobs, which is what meant when you originally said:

Bottom line.........There are NO GOOD POLITICIANS, that includes Presidents and ex-Presidents. It doesn't matter who is in office, they will be critized.

Politician - a person primarily interested in political office for selfish or other narrow usually short-sighted reasons.

I think my whole point of this is that a politician will make uninformed decisions based on media propaganda, specifically steroids (which is why we are all here) and go with the "general" public point of view and make them illegal. Back in 1990 when steroids became scheduled class III and illegal, all the doctors on the voting panel said it was the wrong thing to do. I just don't like someone I don't know making decisions for me, maybe you do......I don't. Enough on this......enjoy your day.

GOBIG

I don't like people making decisions for me either, but that's life.

/karp

 

[INFOHAZARD]

Where did that come from? Not from Moore!

This months issue of Scientific America had some interesting FACTS about what happened on 9/11 and they started out trying to find something that would point the finger at the government but in the end they said that no one could give factual evidence to back up any of there claims. I thought that was interesting.

I hope no one here actually believes bullshit like the buildings didn't come down because two 747's flew into them it was because Bush and Cheney were detonating bombs in the basement as they sipped on brandy and smoked cigars in the white house.

 

[Funny Monkey]

Where did that come from? Not from Moore!

I don't think so that was just one of the conspiracy theorists they spoke with and that was his views on the situation. There were several others in the article that one just semed to jump out in my mind.

I was wondering where you were at? Welcome back.