|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#371
|
|||
|
|||
More dumb**** liberals...
"Bill C" wrote in message
... "There is no need for an investigation because we're quite certain he did it," one senior Bush administration official said." In case you don't understand that - the CIA has the direct recordings of it. Or a reliable eye witness. " previously undisclosed CIA report written in the summer of 2002 questioned the "credibility" and "truthfulness" of an Al Qaeda detainee who became a key source for the Bush administration's claims about links between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden." Again - if you have a dozen documents claiming very good evidence that someone is telling the truth do you believe them or the one document that is opposite? And tell me why you would believe that the CIA are so stupid? Look, these guys aren't making up their minds on the evidence of one or two "maybe" pieces of evidence. They have huge intelligence operations and from those returns they have to make up their minds ON THE SAFE SIDE of security. That means that they always have to take the path of greatest safety. That doesn't mean they're correct. |
Ads |
#372
|
|||
|
|||
More dumb**** liberals...
In article ,
Bill C wrote: BAGHDAD, Iraq ‹ U.S. officials believe they have "rock solid" evidence that Iraqi Governing Council member Ahmad Chalabi (search), once a darling of the American government, passed secrets to Iran, Fox News has learned. "There is no need for an investigation because we're quite certain he did it," one senior Bush administration official said. Chalabi - whose pal is Randy Scheunemann, McCain's top foreign policy advisor. http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmem...cain_advis.php Scheunemann has also been a lobbyist for the republic of Georgia - why do you think McCain is so busy making big statements about the Georgia - Russia conflict? |
#373
|
|||
|
|||
More dumb**** liberals...
On Aug 14, 5:26*pm, Bill C wrote:
On Aug 14, 8:09*pm, "Paul G." wrote: You clowns keep babbling about "running screaming". *I've never suggested anything of the sort, why would I? *That's a strawman. *I clearly said what Bush should have done is "excuse himself, assess the situation, consult with his advisers and order the appropriate actions." * There's no screaming in any of that. I challenge anyone to find any fault with any of those action items: 1. Excuse himself. 2. Assess the situation 3. Consult with his advisers 4. Order the appropriate actions I have no idea why that is remotely controversial. *It's common sense that the President should IMMEDIATELY look into the matter when told "American is under attack". -Paul *Now that your rhetoric has wound down, Don't insult me by suggesting my rhetoric has "wound down", I have a reputation to maintain. My rhetoric NEVER winds down. Besides, I called you a clown. ;-)) -Paul |
#374
|
|||
|
|||
More dumb**** liberals...
On Aug 14, 11:59*pm, "Paul G." wrote:
On Aug 14, 5:26*pm, Bill C wrote: Don't insult me by suggesting my rhetoric has "wound down", I have a reputation to maintain. * My rhetoric NEVER winds down. Besides, I called you a clown. *;-)) -Paul- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Just don't call me late for dinner. Bill C |
#375
|
|||
|
|||
More dumb**** liberals...
On Aug 8, 1:40*pm, Ron Ruff wrote:
People who like to have decisions made for them tend to have the immature minds... In the USA we just call them democrats, or those that vote that way. You don't need fries from McDonalds. |
#376
|
|||
|
|||
More dumb**** liberals...
On Aug 7, 1:53 pm, Mark & Steven Bornfeld
wrote: SLAVE of THE STATE wrote: On Aug 6, 2:37 pm, Ron Ruff wrote: The only thing I can think of is the recent topic of national health care. Every decent country in the world has that except for the US. They all spend less per capita than the US (some of the best ones about half), and most of them report much higher levels of satisfaction. These are the facts. I doubt it. That crap is always suspect. Are you calling the Chung Charts "crap"??!! You're saying you take a plot that loops in so much and condenses it to such a simple presentation is "good?" Any presentation that presumes in the validity of aggregating social values and pareto optimums is suspect. Social "facts" do not speak for themselves no matter how careful and competent the researcher is. I'm not saying a curious social researcher should not try to discover patterns of behavior and even try to speculate on the motivations behind behavior. That, in fact, is my expectation. |
#377
|
|||
|
|||
More dumb**** liberals...
"Killfile Bypass" wrote in message
... By the way, Germany in the Nazi era was *not* a socialist state in any meaningful sense of the word. You'd do well to learn that. Ahh? What was the actual German government then? But anonymous posters have just too much courage for me to face. It's funny, Tom, but I'd have thought you would have the brainpower to figure out exactly who the poster was. Is there some reason I should even care? |
#378
|
|||
|
|||
More dumb**** liberals...
On Aug 7, 10:12*am, Ron Ruff wrote:
SLAVE of THE STATE wrote: "Manufacturing today is as strong as ever there simply aren't as many people needed to produce the increased amount of manufactured goods." Now you are talking some sense. IMO this is the cornerstone of prosperity... continual improvement in efficiency. I don't lament the loss of "jobs" at all. But the problem is when the vast bulk of the population has no share in that prosperity... instead they merely find themselves out of work with only low-paying "service" options with no benefits or security. Do you have a solution to that problem? No, because I don't see the entitlement nor view it as "a problem." Moreover, I blame guvmint, not industry. Or do you believe that it is no big deal that most in society become poorer while a few get rich? I believe you are wrong in your framing. The poorest do get richer by capitalistic advance. You just don't like the distribution. BTW, there is a solution, but I'd be interested to hear what you think. "In the May/June 2004 issue of Foreign Affairs, Daniel W. Drezner cites data that shows global employment in manufacturing decreasing by 11% between 1995 and 2002, all the while global manufacturing output increased by 30% during the same period. Of course *employment* in manufacturing will tend to decline as it becomes more automated and efficient. The problem is that instead of become more efficient, the US has simply shifted manufacturing to places with low wages (like China), which operate less efficiently in terms of man-hours. Only if they are less capitalized and over-regulated. You know what "capitalize" means, right? It is what capitalism is, not the standard marxist claptrap myths that have bounced around for the last 100y. "Which is preferred a healthy, productive manufacturing sector (that is, one that has shed excess labor) or a bloated, inefficient industry that can't and doesn't compete in the global marketplace?" Unfortunately, the US has neither. "In the year 1900, roughly half of the American work force was employed in agriculture. One hundred years later that percentage had dropped ... down to 2%. Free trade, innovation and capital creation had obviated the need for 98% of the total work force. Farms today are big and highly technical. Imagine the tragedy if government had 'saved' the farmers from losing their jobs 100 years ago." I'm all for the government never ever "saving" someone's job. "The threats of protection emanating from Washington are very real and have the potential to upset an already fragile global economy." The only "protection" we need to employ is to improve our own living standard via improved efficiency instead of outsourcing to slave labor. Downsize guvmint then. In fact, outsource it. lol. It ain't about capitalism vs socialism... they both lead to destruction if they aren't intelligently managed and controlled. Total nonsense. *Capitalism does not need "managing." *It is organic, not designed. *It just happened and it is *orderly* as a force of nature and life, like a robin building its nest without a blueprint. Only if you believe that society should be comprised of a large number of poor workers and a few wealthy. This is what capitalism naturally becomes. Marxist Klaptrap. http://mises.org/story/2317 As production of everything becomes more efficient, less work is needed, and you have excess people... and excess people will *naturally* be paid at subsistence level... if they can find work at all. This is the situation we've been sliding into for a few decades. Our manufacturing sector was highly unionized, which was the only way they managed to secure a decent middle-class life. I don't have any thing against workers colluding into unions. I do have something against coerced bargaining. Unions aid and abet outsourcing. Those days are gone. Most service jobs cannot add the sort of value that manufacturing can, which is why wages tend to be low and they can't be raised. The bottom line is that improved efficiency certainly does increase collective wealth... but in capitalism this *naturally* becomes concentrated towards a few people, and society as a whole does not benefit. "Collective wealth" is Marxist Klaptrap. It isn't clear why you believe in entitlements. I don't believe in them. |
#379
|
|||
|
|||
More dumb**** liberals...
"SLAVE of THE STATE" wrote in message
... http://mises.org/story/2317 This pretty effectively explains how government colluded with some people to cause some people to get rich off of the government. It should be noted that MOST businesses in the USA do not get the slightest help from governments and many of them are actively held back. Let's remember that Henry Ford doubled the wages of his factory workers so that they could buy the very products they were making. Sure it was good for him but it was a whole lot better for the workers. Think of Westinghouse who brought AC electricity to the USA. The list is endless of great businessmen who became rich but at the same time greatly improved the lives of their customers and their workers. That's the entire point of capitalism. And as for the pretense that the USA is somehow the home of big business - the USA is home to only 37% of the world's largest companies. Tiny Japan has 22%!!! |
#380
|
|||
|
|||
More dumb**** liberals...
On Aug 7, 8:12 am, Ron Ruff wrote:
Of course *employment* in manufacturing will tend to decline as it The problem is that instead of become more efficient, the US has simply shifted manufacturing to places with low wages (like China), which operate less efficiently in terms of man-hours. Also, don't get hung up with "efficiency" (productivity) in production. Just because "someone" is less productive for a particular task does not itself call for idling that particular productivity and reassigning the task. Far from it. Nice little survey of comp adv: http://mises.org/books/game.pdf "On another occasion, two experts from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) came to visit the campus. In a small room, Muso (as his friends call him) began a logical and persistent grilling of what USAID was doing in Latin America. Within a relatively short period, he literally obliterated the specious interventionist arguments that these USAID PhDs were spewing (and using our taxpayer dollars to do so!)."--Roger LeRoy Miller (author Economics Today), Foreward to /Not a Zero-Sum Game, The Paradox of Exchange/ "Understanding that in a market economy a person can only get rich by enriching others torpedoes claims to the moral high ground of those who propose that government redistribution of wealth is a means to alleviate poverty."---Manuel F. Ayau, /Not a Zero-Sum Game, The Paradox of Exchange/ "Manuel Ayau has long emphasized the centrality of comparative advantage, rightly counseling scholars that society cannot be understood without first grasping the logic of comparative advantage."--Donald J. Boudreaux, chair Department of Economics George Mason University Fairfax, Virginia, Foreward to /Not a Zero-Sum Game, The Paradox of Exchange/ Of course, regular people practice cooperative division-of-labor stuff all the time, without bothering to formally describe what they are doing. It is the "low energy state," and natural phenomena "seek" the low energy state. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Liberals hard at work | DI | General | 19 | June 25th 07 07:16 PM |