 |
| |
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wycoff
What a terrible thing to do! Damn the labor unions! We'd be super competative if we repealed all our labor, environmental, and minimum wage laws... we'd be a third world country, but our goods would be so cheap!
|
etc., etc., etc.
I have heard these arguments since I was a small kid. The unions and Democrats have been against every labor-saving invention, advance, trend or whatever for as long as time exists. They opposed eliminating firemen on diesel railroads. They opposed the introduction of automation in the factory. They opposed the introduction of computers in the office. They opposed buying parts from foreign companies.
And the beat goes on, and on, and on, and on, and on. The stupidity of the arguments are obvious to to anyone who understands the least bit about economics. But, the Dems rely on the stupidity of their audience in order for people to buy their crap.
Free trade in all its forms has lead to tremendous economic expansion since it was introduced. Adam Smith has to be given his due. He is as important to modern civilization as is Newton.
The bottom line: competition is the soul of free trade. It leads to better products, lower costs and greater wealth for all. As productivity increases, the real wages of employees increase. Imagine had we blocked automation way back when. We would now be that third world nation you describe.
The road to prosperity is forward, not backwards as the Dems (the real reactionaries and conservatives) advocate.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DarkCloud
Ned
What Bush says is immaterial when the Arab people and government see that statement for what it truly is, as immaterial and senseless as his plan to send man to Mars or his new immigration propoal (which made tons of sense, but would never get past congress- and bush knew that.) Bush is just plying platitudes on the American people, attempting to gain votes and in the process is misleading. |
The Arab people, or just Al Jazeera and that ilk. Or the Western, anti-Bush press that openly questions US "motives?"
Trust me, there are a lot of peoples in the Mid East who truly want democracy and who welcome US support. Just look what happened in Palestine, for example, when Bush stopped the US coddling of that blood-soaked "president" Arafat. We got democracy. But, the Dems were so critical of Bush that they could not even support his disdain of this petty dictator.
quote:
In what way do the democrats oppose this? |
[Bush's foreign policy efforts to spread democracy.]
Observe how they are treaty Bush's UN ambassador selection.
quote:
As far as I can see, they were against bush intervening in Iraq- and as we can see, intervention was done for illegal reasons- Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction and the inspectors were in the nation when war was declared. |
Revisionism at its best. The Dems voted in favor of war. Even Kerry voted in favor.
quote:
Democrats are also for working with other nations. Working with other nations ensures favorable trade policies. Good relations with other nations ensures that foreigners like americans and they buy american goods, and american culture. Good realtions with other nations means that they'll trade with the US in the future. Now, of course, most nations are pragmatic and they will trade as long as there is a market... However, for how long will they purchase american goods when american goods are increasingly becoming culture-only oriented?? If there is a good popular relationship, then yes, they'll purchase, if not- then they won't and the US economy will suffer. |
Decode:
Placing US foreign policy at the mercy of the French who openly advocate an anti-US policy for Europe.
quote:
So, the true patriot would seek an international coalition and to play by the rules of the UN instead of setting a terrible precedent for people to disregard the motions of the UN security council. |
That was Saddam, not Bush, defying the UN. Do get your facts straight.
As to actions w/o UN authorization, think Clinton and his two wars in the Balkans.
quote:
What is the US going to do in 10 years when China invades Taiwan? |
Blow the Chinese navy out of the water?
quote:
The US has little legal recourse. It already set a precedent of disregarding UN proclamations, and China actually has a claim on the little island.
Bush and the neo-cons have created a terrible foreign policy situation. |
Only if, as you openly suggest, that Bush is not for democracy at all, but for American imperialism. The truth though is that the Dems are the one's who oppose every move to greater democracy in the world. It is the Dems who favor the status quo, ending free trade and coddling America's enemies (France, for example).
[q]The United States' time at the top of the world is nearing an end, China and India will soon surpass America- and America (to ensure its economic security), needs to do everything it can to ensure that it retains industrial might to meet their challenge for as long as humanly possible.
[/QUOTE]
When I was a kid, I heard the same thing about the USSR.
Then I heard it about Japan.
Then I heard it about Europe.
Now I hear it about China and India.
I think the left just loves to project high growth rates well into the future without understanding the reasons for growth and why the US always stays ahead. The fact is, though, the future they predict may come true if their anti-free trade policies are in fact enacted.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
No. The rightists support progress of mankind towards greater freedom, democracy and human rights. It is the reactionary left who opposes freedom at every level. The true "conservatives" are the people who oppose progress. That is today's left. |
Ned,
I agree that the right supports some forms of progress. For instance, cheaper labor(automation) that increases the owners profits. As a by product it may lower the price of products but that is irrelevant. The idea is to increase profits and the owners charge as much as the market will allow and they pay as little as possible for the workforce and the materials to make the products. On the other hand the right does not want any progress in the realm of social rights for all because there is no profit to be made.
Another area that the right espouses is democracy. Democracy at the barrel of a gun because the right believes that democracy leads to free markets. Free markets lead to profits for the owners. On the other hand, they do not believe in democracy when the nation may democratically choose to have a government that is theocratic, or choose to have a government that seeks to give it's people ownership of their own country. Progress means profit to the right. Profit for the corporations.
The right believes it's more important to spend money to democratize/indoctrinate/pacify Iraq than it is to educate americans. More important than drug and crime prevention. More important than feeding, sheltering, and providing education and jobs to america's poor, jobless, and famished.
Of course, the left wants progress. Progress without families losing their homes because the breadwinner has been laid off and no other job pays enough.
If what you say is true then we would not be trading with China and Russia right now. The right really only supports commerce and power. Everything else is slogans.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pax
Ned,
I agree that the right supports some forms of progress. For instance, cheaper labor(automation) that increases the owners profits. As a by product it may lower the price of products but that is irrelevant. The idea is to increase profits and the owners charge as much as the market will allow and they pay as little as possible for the workforce and the materials to make the products. On the other hand the right does not want any progress in the realm of social rights for all because there is no profit to be made.
Another area that the right espouses is democracy. Democracy at the barrel of a gun because the right believes that democracy leads to free markets. Free markets lead to profits for the owners. On the other hand, they do not believe in democracy when the nation may democratically choose to have a government that is theocratic, or choose to have a government that seeks to give it's people ownership of their own country. Progress means profit to the right. Profit for the corporations.
The right believes it's more important to spend money to democratize/indoctrinate/pacify Iraq than it is to educate americans. More important than drug and crime prevention. More important than feeding, sheltering, and providing education and jobs to america's poor, jobless, and famished.
Of course, the left wants progress. Progress without families losing their homes because the breadwinner has been laid off and no other job pays enough.
If what you say is true then we would not be trading with China and Russia right now. The right really only supports commerce and power. Everything else is slogans. |
The right wants free trade because it allows everyone the opportunity to do well. It does, however, share the lefts concern for people who are temporarily dislocated by job losses, for the incapacitated and for the elderly. But the left stands uniform in its hatred of money and of progress. It will say anything, including lies, that will divert peoples attention away from their agenda of socialism. Socialism is the enemy of free enterprise and of freedom itself.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
The right wants free trade because it allows everyone the opportunity to do well. It does, however, share the lefts concern for people who are temporarily dislocated by job losses, for the incapacitated and for the elderly. But the left stands uniform in its hatred of money and of progress. It will say anything, including lies, that will divert peoples attention away from their agenda of socialism. Socialism is the enemy of free enterprise and of freedom itself. |
I don't believe socialism or communism has ever been applied in the way it was thought up. So there is no practical example of true socialism working or not working. Socialism might be the enemy of free enterprise but is different from freedom.Freedom and Free Enterprise are just as related as other that use the base free. Free Enterprise, Freefall, Free lunch, Free market, Free base, Freedom, Freedom Fries.
I'm all the left and I love money. How else could I afford my computers, motorcycle, minidv camera, cars and internet porn. I also love the idea of knowing that my tax dollars are spent making america a fair, prosperous, educated, and safe country to live. Not that my tax dollars and military are used to secure resources unrightfully and make the rich, filthy rich.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
On the continuing debate on the origins of WWII: Japan v. China, I don't doubt Japan's aggressive foreign policy. But the major cause of Chinese outrage that lead to the breakout of hostilities at the end of the 20's was Versailles and the give-away of Chinese territory to Japan. Now we all know that Japan would not have been able to get that province without British support, which in fact was given. From the quotes provided by Molly, it appears that Wilson's objections were again "overridden" by Britain so that Britain could reward one of its allies. |
When in doubt, make it up, eh, Ned ?
You blithely ignore the facts that Japan attacks China twice before the outbreak of World War One, presses the Twenty One Demands on China in 1915, and had invaded and annexed Korea, Formosa/Taiwan and the Ryukyu Islands, all before 1914, 1918 or 1919.
They were all territories that were either seen by the Chinese as vassal states or sent tribute and envoys, a practice interrupted by the upstart Japan.
Good grief, I've even provided quotes from a Chinese Imperial General and a Chinese President illustrating that they knew who the enemy was and no indication whatsoever that they believed the British Empire to be behind Japan's belligerence and expansionism.
And the best you can do, is not even quote Wilson or the Versailles Treaty, but just 'interpret' a quote I've used.
So Japan would not have been able to get the former German Territory without British support, eh ?
Well other than a small contingent of Empire troops sent from Tientsin to the siege of Tsingtao after it had already begun, I don't think you have a clue as to what you're talking about.
How was the British Empire going to stop Japan from keeping Shantung and Tsingtao ? Go to war again after the ending of WWI when the British Empire was hugely in debt and had lost so many trained soldiers and sailors, warships and merchant vessels ? Project an exhausted army into the treaty ports and Hong Kong ?
Dream on.
Let's see what happened at Versailles and not in your fantasy world:
" Singularly, the places reserved for the delegation from China were not to be occupied. This was the one rift in the lute, for the Chinese commissioners, in protest against the clauses of the treaty agreeing to the transfer of the German leaseholds to Japan, decided not to sign the treaty.
A month before the Chinese plenipotentiaries had made a formal request of the Peace Conference that the questions involved in the Shantung matter be not included in the treaty, but be postponed for future consideration. This request was denied.
On the morning of June 28th M. Lou Tseng Tsiang, president of the Chinese delegation, asked that China be permitted to sign with the explanatory note, "Under the reservation made at the plenary session of May 6, 1919, and relative to the question of Shantung (Articles 156, 157, and 158)." He pointed out that the Swedish plenipotentiary signed the act of the Congress of Vienna with a reservation.
The request was not acceded to by the conference, and when the time for signature came, the Chinese did not respond. The attitude of the Chinese delegation in this matter was consistent with its point of view that Japan should have been asked by the Peace Conference to vacate Shantung and turn all German property over to China. "
signing the treaty:
" The delegation from the United States was the first to be called up after the Germans. President Wilson rose, and as he began his walk to the historic table, followed in order by Secretary Lansing, Colonel House, General Bliss, and Mr. White, other delegates stretched out their hands to congratulate him.
He came forward with a broad smile, and signed his name at the spot indicated by M. William Martin, director of the protocol. Mr. Lloyd George followed the American delegation, together with Mr. Balfour, Lord Milner, Mr. Bonar Law, and Mr. Barnes; and when these five men had signed, the delegates from the British dominions followed, a notable array of men representing the greatest power the world has ever seen. "
http://www.firstworldwar.com/source...onf_signing.htm
Why Wilson signed:
"At the front of this great treaty is put the Covenant of the League of Nations. It will also be at the front of the Austrian, treaty and the Hungarian treaty and the Bulgarian treaty and the treaty with Turkey. Every one of them will contain the Covenant of the League of Nations, because you cannot work any of them without the Covenant of the League of Nations. Unless you get the united, concerted purpose and power of the great Governments of the world behind this settlement, it will fall down like a house of cards. There is only one power to put behind the liberation of mankind, and that is the power of mankind. It is the power of the united moral forces of the world, and in the Covenant of the League of Nations the moral forces of the world are mobilized."
-Woodrow Wilson
And why did Japan get Shantung ?
He needed Japanese support for his League of Nations, and the price to be paid was Shantung. Accordingly the League of Nations was included.
Still, you can always use that line you used before about Wilson being a patsy of the tricky British and French can't you ?
Even though there wasn't an ounce of proof for such an assertion.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-06-2005 20:28
|