Iraqi Statue honoring President Bush - Page 4

"That is not my personpal opinion but rather an extremely common and universal judgment. Maybe you simply weren't aware that you were being constantly referred to as inferior?"

Wow, you even judge others judgements, you sure know a lot about other people's opinions, and as for being constantly referred to as inferior, sure I notice it, when I talk to people like you.

You refer to so much hearsay judgement and speak of little personal experience, its funny then when I throw in some physical facts seen with my own eyes you just throw out some more hearsay judgement, but just a little more defensively.

"Becaue you are the one that made the claim - duh!"

Ass, I was referring to why should I bother, you never do with your claims, duh.

"OMG - the US has one of the lowest unemployment rates - not only of industrialized nations but in all of our history as well."

Well, I'm glad Fox and Bush agree, too bad that line was out the door, those unemployed and layed off people would love to have heard that.

"Yeah from stinking rich limosine liberals. "lol""

Ya, name one source of yours thats not a stinking limosine right winger, your hypocricy knows no bounds, beside I prefer independant media and foreign press these days, and indy's aren't rich usualy so sorry, you are wrong.

"End of the marriage penalty, rate reductions, increase in the child credit - those are the facts jack!"

Hey your kinda right for once, there is some fact here and I even agree and can speak of personal gain from it, but I can tell you from the same personal experience that it didn't save the world, but even I mark that one up for a positive, but I'm sure the money came from somewhere else that needed it, because I'm a realist and know that it didn't come from the defense spending, and if it didn't come from there than it comes from either more taxes or other cut social programs, like underfunding No Child Left Behing etc etc.

Any investments regarding the stock markets can be highly dangerous, bonds I know too little of to speak of currently.

The Poles fought so incredibly hard for their freedom and deserve a lot of the credit for toppling the USSR. The Aussies, Brits and Americans have an incredible record for being on the right side of history.

What I think you are not understanding is the perspective of the topic. You are making it personal - what should your view of your govt be when the point is the states perspective - how it views its role and relationship to other nations. Anyone should agree with you in principle that the more democracies the better but thats a different topic.

Of course NAFTA is just a start and will shortly expand to most nations in the Americas. But you cant argue that America has not had a free-trade agenda for the last 20+ years.

How much faith do you put in the success of the EU?

The problem with free trade claims is the same as the problem with capatalism, they are not free and open, they are highly monopolized and abused.

Sweat shops exist because of these types of policies when not properly applied. Or because they are indeed outrightly corrupt.

Sweatshops exist because people are offering cheaper labour then their competitors.

Sweatshops existed in Britain, then in Europe and America, then in Japan, Korea and Taiwan. Now these are heralded as the prime examples of sheer overwhelmingly obscene wealth.

Its a necessary transition.

Very good point DT,

Furthermore a wealthy American industrialist was sued and forced to close his 'sweatshops' in some latin american country. The Chinese came in and paid the workers much less than what the American had been paying them.

Ive been to one of those sweatshops in Mexico. The workers are provided a meal, transportation and housing. The workers were extremely pleasant and seemed much happier than the peasants I saw on the streets.

By: k3rrycalls2004

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/veteransforkerry/message/10570

One man, Ahmed Dujaily, 80, a London-trained engineer who was agriculture minister under King Faisal II, put it politely. "We thank the Americans for destroying the regime of Saddam," he said. "But often, they were not careful for the people; they did many wrong things. Now, we know what they are looking for. They are looking for oil, and military bases, and domination of the new regime. They will have their military headquarters for the region in Iraq, and when they will leave, nobody knows."

A billionaire has earned, or stolen - however you want to look at it, about 1 dollar from everyone. When you think that there are some people that might be lucky to make a dollar a day; who needs to be a billionaire? Who really has earned a billion? Rather - others have earned it for them. What makes one worth a billion and another not even worth a dollar? Does a billionaire work hard all day?

Mr. Soros is my buddy, so I'll stop picking on billionaires - how about the United States. We spend billions on war - and weaponry; why? If the United States could spend less on weaponry and wars and the billionaires could share a little, there would be no sweat shops were kids and old people work hard all day in crowded uncomfortable conditions having to patiently wait just to relieve themselves just so they can eat, and billionaires can be billionaires and we can have weapons. But are the billionaires and the pentagon all to blame? Next time we go shopping, we can just take some time to look at the labels. Maybe we might have to spend a dollar or two more - we can suffer a little so that they don't have to. If everyone would just do a little bit, it would make one big change. How do we get everyone to start caring just a little bit, to do just something?

"Its a necessary transition"

Their movement is necessary?

"Furthermore a wealthy American industrialist was sued and forced to close his 'sweatshops' in some latin american country. The Chinese came in and paid the workers much less than what the American had been paying them.

Ive been to one of those sweatshops in Mexico. The workers are provided a meal, transportation and housing. The workers were extremely pleasant and seemed much happier than the peasants I saw on the streets."

Firstly sweatshops is only one point, and it seems you both are defending them. And at least one piont of sweat shops not being addressed is why they are a problem, its not just because its basically somewhat legalized slavery, its also because those sweatshops are notorious for taking American jobs, undermining the value of humanity and the workforce, and they are usualy to make American goods, and other developed countries of course.

Meaning that we endorse it.

This country used to have something called job security, that term is basically nonexistant now. Unemployment isn't a problem for no reason, and it is a problem, no matter what Bush tells you. Outsourcing and hiring desperate and illegal immagrants at low wages is a problem.

And the presented logic by Bush of the main American body of the working class going to school to either completely change careers or all become managers is just ludicrous. Firstly you cannot move everyone to management, that doesn't even make sense. Not to mention that it would bankrupt companies.

And if you want to start forcing people to change jobs, I'm guessing we could use some fresh blood and bloodlines in politics and government.

Billionaires only exist because of the acceptance, encouragement, and a system based on greed, a sin last I heard. Where's the moral superiority I hear so much about? I guess people just practice selective morality.

"Firstly sweatshops is only one point, and it seems you both are defending them."

I cant speak for DT but I am defending reality and defending capitalism against the well intentioned socialists that want to micro-manage 3rd world countries in order to prevent abuses when in the long run they cause far much more harm than good and much of that harm is actually the deaths of millions including children.

"And at least one piont of sweat shops not being addressed is why they are a problem, its not just because its basically somewhat legalized slavery,"

Slavery is a word that has a specific meaning. You are trying to win an argument by using a false definition of sweatshop in order to generate an emotional response. That's sophism!

" its also because those sweatshops are notorious for taking American jobs, undermining the value of humanity and the workforce, and they are usualy to make American goods, and other developed countries of course."

With the American unemployment rate at historical lows such arguments don't hold much weight.

The Left and the Democrats have controlled the American educational system since the 1930's. Since education (or lack of) is the primary cause of poverty then maybe we should embrace republican ideas regarding education reform.

"Their movement is necessary?"
Its necessary if you want to become an obscenely rich, services based western-style economy.

But remember, each person who works in a sweatshop is who person who chose to NOT be an impoverished peasant.

Capitalism did not make them poor, they were already poor. However, by giving them a choice, the farm or the sweatshop, they can choose between eventually becoming rich like us, or remaining 3rd World countries.

As seen by the number of greenies and American protectionists, many far Easterners have chosen wealth over tradition.

The point I need to make against banning sweatshop is the same one often used against banning prostitution:
If you remove that option of working. If you remove what is for many countries a huge source of jobs, then you have to understand that they're going to starve.

You can destroy their jobs because they don't match your moral standards, but just be prepared to foot the bill for their well being.

Frankly, I think its completely stupid. The problem is not the sweatshops. The problem is that is they're so poor that working in a sweatshop is better then being a peasant.

To stop sweatshops, donate aid, or campaign for aid. Banning sweatshops would be completely idiotic for the reasons I have stated.

"I cant speak for DT but I am defending reality and defending capitalism against the well intentioned socialists that want to micro-manage 3rd world countries in order to prevent abuses when in the long run they cause far much more harm than good and much of that harm is actually the deaths of millions including children."

The problem with this is that the population of the well intentioned are not the ones actually doing anything to help, its the capitalist minded government that usually isn't all that well intended. And so you end up with more harm than good. And the population doesn't find out either ever or till after the fact.

"Slavery is a word that has a specific meaning. You are trying to win an argument by using a false definition of sweatshop in order to generate an emotional response. That's sophism!"

Sophism is based of fallacies, my point while not fitting 100% the word slavery which I pointed out as well, is not fallacious, I simply don't know the proper term, I could say quai-slavery or oppressive or whatever.

Look at it this way, if people get paid but still cannot afford to pay for a place to live and food to eat than are they really getting paid?

"With the American unemployment rate at historical lows such arguments don't hold much weight."

I'm afriad its your claim of unemployment that doesn't hold much weight. Do you know how your sources determine those numbers? Do you think the unemployed all seek unemployment benefits to aid in determining those numbers?

And with no stop to illegal immagration and even work visas your number will be skewed, because someone is working, sure, but now an American isn't.

And thats what brings us back to the point of sweatshops.

With your argument of taking them away and that taking poor peoples jobs, thats exactly what happened when the sweatshops were created to begin with. They took already poor peoples jobs overseas and gave them to even poorer people for even less wages, where does that leave the original person who lost their job? Homeless in America?

Hey, I don't want to take anybody's jobs, but whoever runs the jobs will gladly give them to anyone who will work for less, and thats the moral issue I'm working with. The poor issue for everyone. Except for those few making zillions off the poor.

"Their movement is necessary?"
Its necessary if you want to become an obscenely rich, services based western-style economy. "

No matter how rich the country only a few citizens will be rich while the rest remain dirt poor.

"But remember, each person who works in a sweatshop is who person who chose to NOT be an impoverished peasant. "

No, they are still impoverished peasants, but now they have change in their pocket.

And a point back to employment, a highly missed point when referring to American employment rates is that regardless of even that number, the poverty level is increasing, and the reason is because benefits and wages are down, jobs are being outsourced and replaced by cheaper labor immagrants who are used to sweatshops.

Oh, and as for education, I don't care if its democrats or republicans, you are absolutely right about poverty and education, so lets actually fund it, thats the first step. Education should never be allowed to be underfunded by any means or reasons.

But I'll tell you what though, if we don't offer actual education rather than patriotic lies we will still suffer greatly.

Fund it? OMG - not that lame argument again. That's the cry of the left. Why would you put the fox in charge of the hen house? Don't you get it? The Left has been in charge of education and education reform for 8o years. America already spends more on education than any country in the world and what do we have to show for it? My God man, just look at DC and the amount of funding it receives. And look at the excellence of American education in the 19th century when it received NO federal funding. Money is not and will never be the answer to all your problems. Instead we need to embrace true reform: school choice! Take the money out of the unions and politicians and bureaucrats hands and give to the parents.

Education works in Europe at least.

I mean, private education only exacerbates class lines. It removes equality of opportunity and makes social mobility more difficult. Besides that, it creates a quasi-feudal class of the rich.

The principle (although practical problems can always arise) should always be, that regardless of birth, you have the same shot at life as everyone else.