PDA

View Full Version : Jeff, Your academy mind needed...



TheSage
05-28-2007, 07:35 AM
How smart is it to keep enabling China's immoral slave labor practices as they're using those trade dollars to grow their military for use against us?

Most people are probably too stupid get a grasp on this situation. Maybe you can help us out?

Hobbit
05-28-2007, 10:08 AM
It's a case of 'out of sight, out of mind.' Few people actually pay attention to where their stuff comes from or where the money goes after they buy it, which is why they don't really care.

Remember, the first crucial step William Wilberforce took towards the abolition of slavery in the UK was to make sure people actually knew what kind of conditions existed aboard slave ships.

OCA
05-28-2007, 10:11 AM
Isolationism is the new saviour of America!:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

TheSage
05-28-2007, 10:32 AM
Isolationism is the new saviour of America!:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:


Actually, I'm not a strict isolationist. I just believe in limiting trade to partners with a similar basic morality, so the inhumanity of slave or prison labor is not rewarded, and our workers are not put out of business due to the "cost" of humane treatment.

I also believe security consideration should play a role, and we shouldn't allow our trade dollars to fund armies against us.

Our china relationship is stupid on so many levels. Do you have anything besides false characterizations of my position or hackneyed neocon tropes?

TheSage
05-28-2007, 10:40 AM
It's a case of 'out of sight, out of mind.' Few people actually pay attention to where their stuff comes from or where the money goes after they buy it, which is why they don't really care.

Remember, the first crucial step William Wilberforce took towards the abolition of slavery in the UK was to make sure people actually knew what kind of conditions existed aboard slave ships.

Yes. But blaming the people is a copout. Historically trade policy has always been set at the federal level. We saw fit to impose restrictions over Elephant Ivory, South African Apartheid, Saddam Husseins actions. But on china, now it's all the people's fault? I call bullshit. Though I fully support educating people, something other than full support of the chinese totalitarians from our government might also be helpful.

OCA
05-28-2007, 10:44 AM
Actually, I'm not a strict isolationist. I just believe in limiting trade to partners with a similar basic morality, so the inhumanity of slave or prison labor is not rewarded, and our workers are not put out of business due to the "cost" of humane treatment.

I also believe security consideration should play a role, and we shouldn't allow our trade dollars to fund armies against us.

Our china relationship is stupid on so many levels. Do you have anything besides false characterizations of my position or hackneyed neocon tropes?


You have any proof that China is gearing up yheir military specifically for war with America?

TheSage
05-28-2007, 10:47 AM
You have any proof that China is gearing up yheir military specifically for war with America?



You saying their intentions are pure?

TheSage
05-28-2007, 11:24 AM
Boy, that shut you right the fuck up, didn't it, senor douchebag?

OCA
05-28-2007, 11:29 AM
You saying their intentions are pure?

Could be? You saying they aren't?

Still waiting on the proof of specific military buildup for war with America.

OCA
05-28-2007, 11:29 AM
Boy, that shut you right the fuck up, didn't it, senor douchebag?

Busy beating the fuck out of you in Cosa Nostra.

TheSage
05-28-2007, 11:32 AM
Busy beating the fuck out of you in Cosa Nostra.

Not really. You're just a misguided semi-socialized criminal, trying to justify your disease.

darin
05-28-2007, 11:41 AM
Boy, that shut you right the fuck up, didn't it, senor douchebag?

This is not the cage - any more outbursts like that close the thread.

TheSage
05-28-2007, 11:53 AM
This is not the cage - any more outbursts like that close the thread.



ok.

Baron Von Esslingen
05-28-2007, 12:01 PM
Could be? You saying they aren't?

Still waiting on the proof of specific military buildup for war with America.

Here's one: (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/05/world/asia/05military.html?ex=1330750800&en=79bcc1577391ca4e&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)


BEIJING, March 4 — China announced its biggest increase in defense spending in five years on Sunday, a development that quickly prompted the United States to renew its calls for more transparency from the Chinese military about the scope and intent of its continuing, rapid arms buildup.

Jiang Enzhu, a spokesman for the National People’s Congress, the Communist Party-controlled national legislature, said China’s military budget would rise this year by 17.8 percent to roughly 350 billion yuan, or just under $45 billion.

“We must increase our military budget, as it is important to national security,” Mr. Jiang said at a news conference. “China’s military must modernize. Our overall defenses are weak.”

But China’s military modernization efforts, particularly its drive to develop advanced weaponry, have been raising concern from Washington to Tokyo to New Delhi, where officials are worried that the buildup could be as much offensive as defensive. In January, China set off fears of an arms race in space when it successfully tested an antisatellite missile that destroyed one its own aging weather satellites. A month earlier, the People’s Liberation Army began deploying the country’s first state-of-the-art jet fighter, the J-10.

And this from a few years ago: (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1117/p01s03-woap.html)


BEIJING – Shi Jin wears a jean jacket, has razor-cropped hair, and seems gravely earnest. An officer in the People's Liberation Army, he was wooed from a Beijing vocational college three years ago by recruiters who talked up his technical aptitude - and his patriotism.

In the past decade, China has undergone two military high-tech reforms designed to give the country a modern fighting force. To sustain that progress, it must attract many more gung-ho young engineers like Shi, who spends most of his time working on an "informational" revolution that planners hope will one day allow them to "see" a battlefield with the same depth as the US military. "I will not do any direct fighting if there is a war, but I am contributing on the technical side," he says. "We are all needed in the new Army."

China's desire, often stated, is to be a great nation. Many in Beijing feel that the country's natural right is to be the major power in Asia. But China has rarely been given high marks in global military annals. It has a "brown water" Navy that doesn't navigate open seas. It can't project power by sending forces abroad. It has relied on states like Russia for jet fighters, cruise missiles, and other advanced weapons.

Yet it now appears China is methodically changing this equation.

In a surprisingly short time, China has accomplished two feats. One, it has focused its energy and wealth on creating an army within an army. It has devoted huge amounts of capital to create a small high-tech army within its old 2.2 million-member rifle and shoe-leather force.

The specialty of this modern force, about 15 percent of the PLA, is to conduct lightning attacks on smaller foes, using an all-out missile attack designed to paralyze, and a modern sea and air attack coordinated by high-tech communications. In other words, this new modern force is designed to attack Taiwan.

Second, China has taken painful but successful steps to create a "defense industrial base," or weapons-building capability. The PLA has improved its factory quality control and its ability to adapt foreign technology. It is bringing an indigenous small-wing F-10 fighter off the production line, and it is moving rapidly toward a "blue water" Navy with ships built in China.

Indeed, the past three years have yielded the impressive fruits of a modernization campaign started in the late 1990s: A nuclear attack submarine, the 093, launches in months; presumably it will be capable one day of firing satellite-guided cruise missiles that can blast a cruiser or carrier. China now has more accurate ICBMS, a host of land- and sea-based cruise missiles, and about 400 Su-27 and Su-30 Russian fighter jets it didn't have before.

"Do the old shibboleths still apply - that the Chinese defense industry is backward, poor, and low-quality?" asks Evan Medeiros, an analyst with the RAND Corp. in Washington, D.C.

"No," he says. "It seems China has turned the corner.... For the first time in 20 years, the PLA has adopted reforms that make sense. They adopted, and implemented, and are really learning quickly." Medeiros is lead author of a 300-page RAND study, "New Directions for China's Defense Industry," released this month.

"The PLA has undergone a revolution in communications," says James Mulvenon, of the Center for Intelligence Research and Analysis in Washington, D.C. "They have gone from dirt to wireless in a generation."

Taking China's power seriously

Such progress is catching attention, respect, and concern in the Pentagon. At Honolulu's US Pacific Command, and in military circles in Taiwan, Guam, and Tokyo, it is universally accepted that China is on its way to becoming a military challenge in Asia. US planners no longer talk dismissively of China's power or, potentially, its reach. In a key shift, US ability to quickly and easily defend Taiwan in an attack is no longer a given. Chinese cruise missiles are creating a more lethal environment in the Taiwan Straits.

This summer, Gen. Zhu Chenghu, dean of China's National Defense University, raised the subject of weapons of mass destruction, which China rarely mentions, in connection with Taiwan. Should US forces aid Taiwan in a war, he told bewildered US visitors, "Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds ... of cities will be destroyed by Chinese" nuclear weapons.

Ignore the Chinese, with their influx of American manufacturing money, at your own peril. They are still communists despite the changes in their economy.

TheSage
05-28-2007, 12:06 PM
Thanks for getting involved, baron. these neocons now believe totalitarianism is cool, as long their positions in the STS (service to self) hierarchy are secure. So sad.

TheSage
05-28-2007, 12:20 PM
But I want to hear Jeff's pentagon certified opinion on our idiotic china policy.

Hobbit
05-28-2007, 12:54 PM
Yes. But blaming the people is a copout. Historically trade policy has always been set at the federal level. We saw fit to impose restrictions over Elephant Ivory, South African Apartheid, Saddam Husseins actions. But on china, now it's all the people's fault? I call bullshit. Though I fully support educating people, something other than full support of the chinese totalitarians from our government might also be helpful.

Yes, because people demanded it. It's all about votes. If the politicians cut off trade with China, a lot of industrialists are going to be very upset with them and try to have them voted out of office and replaced with those who will re-open Chinese relations. Now, I'm not saying that it's the people's fault, but the people provide the only solution. If enough attention is brought to Chinese atrocities, only then can politicians cut off relations with them without committing political suicide.

Once again, it's not about blame. Blame solves nothing. It's just about finding a solution.

TheSage
05-28-2007, 01:01 PM
Yes, because people demanded it. It's all about votes. If the politicians cut off trade with China, a lot of industrialists are going to be very upset with them and try to have them voted out of office and replaced with those who will re-open Chinese relations. Now, I'm not saying that it's the people's fault, but the people provide the only solution. If enough attention is brought to Chinese atrocities, only then can politicians cut off relations with them without committing political suicide.

Once again, it's not about blame. Blame solves nothing. It's just about finding a solution.



No. Politicians could stand up to industrialists. That's another solution. Don't let them off the hook. We should ban trade of goods made with slave labor. Bans of this kind have long been a tactic of effecting change. THere are other solutions besides people not buying chinese. And it's hard when non chinese alternatives have nearly been put out of business. Don't propagandize for the fascists in power. It demeans all of us, you most of all.

Hobbit
05-28-2007, 01:23 PM
No. Politicians could stand up to industrialists. That's another solution. Don't let them off the hook. We should ban trade of goods made with slave labor. Bans of this kind have long been a tactic of effecting change. THere are other solutions besides people not buying chinese. And it's hard when non chinese alternatives have nearly been put out of business. Don't propagandize for the fascists in power. It demeans all of us, you most of all.

Once again, you seek to assign blame, rather than a solution. Let's look at the facts.

1) Due to a combination favorable nation trade status and slave labor used by China, Chinese goods are very cheap here in America, as compared to American alternatives.

2) People who sell these goods gain an economic advantage by doing so. Cheap goods sell more volume.

3) People never act without some sort of incentive, and with politicians, the most likely and only effective, proven incentive is votes.

4) Money swings elections.

5) People who sell cheap, Chinese goods have lots of money.

Now, let's speculate a little from these facts.

First, if politicians were to suddenly and out of the blue cut off trade relations with China, it would make the people who sold those goods very angry. Those people have lots of money, which they would then use to campaign against first, the passing of such a bill, and second, the removal of any politicians who vote in favor of such a bill.

This means that many politicians would likely be sacrificing their political careers for such a move, and with their primary incentive being votes to stay in office, they are not going to make such a move without some sort of change. Now, they've weighed the risks and know that some people would be more likely to vote for them if they cut of Chinese relations, but have calculated that the votes lost from negative campaigning would outweigh the votes gained. This means a net loss of votes, so they don't do it.

Ok, now we know why nothing is happening. It's really that simple. There's no complicated conspiracy. All it is is that some people are making money and are going to go to considerable lengths to ensure that they continue making that money. The people with the power think that these lengths will ruin them, so they do what those with the money wish.

Now that we know this, the next step is in forming a solution. Blame can be assigned at some other time. Now, it's easy to just say that those politicians need to stand up to those with the money. Sure, that's a solution, but the problem is...you're not the politicians. You can't simply pull a couple of strings and watch trade with China vanish. No, the politicians are independant people and require some sort of incentive, the most effective one being votes. The solution, then, is to make it clear to those politicians that cutting off trade with China will bring a net gain in votes, or better yet, to make it clear that failing to cut off trade with China will result in their removal. To that end, money must be raised. Letters must be written. Lobbying must be done. That is the solution, not standing around whining about how spineless politicians won't stand up to evil corporations. If they're not doing what you want, make them.

TheSage
05-28-2007, 01:27 PM
Once again, you seek to assign blame, rather than a solution. Let's look at the facts.

1) Due to a combination favorable nation trade status and slave labor used by China, Chinese goods are very cheap here in America, as compared to American alternatives.

2) People who sell these goods gain an economic advantage by doing so. Cheap goods sell more volume.

3) People never act without some sort of incentive, and with politicians, the most likely and only effective, proven incentive is votes.

4) Money swings elections.

5) People who sell cheap, Chinese goods have lots of money.

Now, let's speculate a little from these facts.

First, if politicians were to suddenly and out of the blue cut off trade relations with China, it would make the people who sold those goods very angry. Those people have lots of money, which they would then use to campaign against first, the passing of such a bill, and second, the removal of any politicians who vote in favor of such a bill.

This means that many politicians would likely be sacrificing their political careers for such a move, and with their primary incentive being votes to stay in office, they are not going to make such a move without some sort of change. Now, they've weighed the risks and know that some people would be more likely to vote for them if they cut of Chinese relations, but have calculated that the votes lost from negative campaigning would outweigh the votes gained. This means a net loss of votes, so they don't do it.

Ok, now we know why nothing is happening. It's really that simple. There's no complicated conspiracy. All it is is that some people are making money and are going to go to considerable lengths to ensure that they continue making that money. The people with the power think that these lengths will ruin them, so they do what those with the money wish.

Now that we know this, the next step is in forming a solution. Blame can be assigned at some other time. Now, it's easy to just say that those politicians need to stand up to those with the money. Sure, that's a solution, but the problem is...you're not the politicians. You can't simply pull a couple of strings and watch trade with China vanish. No, the politicians are independant people and require some sort of incentive, the most effective one being votes. The solution, then, is to make it clear to those politicians that cutting off trade with China will bring a net gain in votes, or better yet, to make it clear that failing to cut off trade with China will result in their removal. To that end, money must be raised. Letters must be written. Lobbying must be done. That is the solution, not standing around whining about how spineless politicians won't stand up to evil corporations. If they're not doing what you want, make them.


Once again, you seek to attempt to limit solutions. One solution is politicians outlawing slave goods. Their corruption doesn't let them off the hook. Why would it? That's really a non-argument.

I'm for informing the people. You should also be for laws outlawing slave goods, but you're not. You seem to think corruption is a valid rationalization; it's not.

Dilloduck
05-28-2007, 01:29 PM
Once again, you seek to assign blame, rather than a solution. Let's look at the facts.

1) Due to a combination favorable nation trade status and slave labor used by China, Chinese goods are very cheap here in America, as compared to American alternatives.

2) People who sell these goods gain an economic advantage by doing so. Cheap goods sell more volume.

3) People never act without some sort of incentive, and with politicians, the most likely and only effective, proven incentive is votes.

4) Money swings elections.

5) People who sell cheap, Chinese goods have lots of money.

Now, let's speculate a little from these facts.

First, if politicians were to suddenly and out of the blue cut off trade relations with China, it would make the people who sold those goods very angry. Those people have lots of money, which they would then use to campaign against first, the passing of such a bill, and second, the removal of any politicians who vote in favor of such a bill.

This means that many politicians would likely be sacrificing their political careers for such a move, and with their primary incentive being votes to stay in office, they are not going to make such a move without some sort of change. Now, they've weighed the risks and know that some people would be more likely to vote for them if they cut of Chinese relations, but have calculated that the votes lost from negative campaigning would outweigh the votes gained. This means a net loss of votes, so they don't do it.

Ok, now we know why nothing is happening. It's really that simple. There's no complicated conspiracy. All it is is that some people are making money and are going to go to considerable lengths to ensure that they continue making that money. The people with the power think that these lengths will ruin them, so they do what those with the money wish.

Now that we know this, the next step is in forming a solution. Blame can be assigned at some other time. Now, it's easy to just say that those politicians need to stand up to those with the money. Sure, that's a solution, but the problem is...you're not the politicians. You can't simply pull a couple of strings and watch trade with China vanish. No, the politicians are independant people and require some sort of incentive, the most effective one being votes. The solution, then, is to make it clear to those politicians that cutting off trade with China will bring a net gain in votes, or better yet, to make it clear that failing to cut off trade with China will result in their removal. To that end, money must be raised. Letters must be written. Lobbying must be done. That is the solution, not standing around whining about how spineless politicians won't stand up to evil corporations. If they're not doing what you want, make them.

So would you financially support a party who was opposed to trading with a country that uses slave labor and is using that money to build up a military that the US may fight in Taiwan someday?

TheSage
05-28-2007, 01:32 PM
So would you financially support a party who was opposed to trading with a country that uses slave labor and is using that money to build up a military that the US may fight in Taiwan someday?

No. HE would try to explain to the whole party how corruption is just a fact of life and fighting it is for losers, like all totalitarians do.

Dilloduck
05-28-2007, 01:35 PM
No. HE would try to explain to the whole party how corruption is just a fact of life and fighting it is for losers, like all totalitarians do.

Like amnesty ?

TheSage
05-28-2007, 01:43 PM
Like amnesty ?

Amnesty must be unique, because the people have clearly spoken, yet the neocons are doing exactly the opposite action. But hobbit says if they spoke out on china, they would do what the people want. Somehow I think he's utterly full of crap.

Dilloduck
05-28-2007, 01:48 PM
Amnesty must be unique, because the people have clearly spoken, yet the neocons are doing exactly the opposite action. But hobbit says if they spoke out on china, they would do what the people want. Somehow I think he's utterly full of crap.

Corporatists from both sides of the aisle are running the show regarding amnesty and Chinese trade. Anything that is pro dollar is pro America. Any "side-effects" are a neccessary evil.

Hobbit
05-28-2007, 01:50 PM
Once again, you seek to attempt to limit solutions. One solution is politicians outlawing slave goods. Their corruption doesn't let them off the hook. Why would it? That's really a non-argument.

I'm for informing the people. You should also be for laws outlawing slave goods, but you're not. You seem to think corruption is a valid rationalization; it's not.

You missed my point entirely. My point is that whining about corruption is not a solution, it's just an annoying way of stating the problem. The solution is to make sure that the politicians know that this corruption is not acceptable and that they are going to lose their seats if they let it continue.

When I say, "We need to make these politicians understand that voting for China will lose them votes," and you say, "No, the politicians just need to stop voting for China," it's like claiming that the solution to house-training a dog is simply stating, "He needs to stop crapping in the house." That's not a solution. The solution is the WAY to CONVINCE him to stop crapping in the house.

TheSage
05-28-2007, 01:54 PM
You missed my point entirely. My point is that whining about corruption is not a solution, it's just an annoying way of stating the problem. The solution is to make sure that the politicians know that this corruption is not acceptable and that they are going to lose their seats if they let it continue.

When I say, "We need to make these politicians understand that voting for China will lose them votes," and you say, "No, the politicians just need to stop voting for China," it's like claiming that the solution to house-training a dog is simply stating, "He needs to stop crapping in the house." That's not a solution. The solution is the WAY to CONVINCE him to stop crapping in the house.

I didn't miss your point. You're trying to keep the blame off politicians for selling out the american people, and put it on people for not COMMUNICATING their desires. That's bullshit. They know they're selling out america and they don't care. One solution would be a law against slave labor goods. This isn't a communication problem.

5stringJeff
05-28-2007, 03:45 PM
Sorry to be so slow to respond. I've been out enjoying my Memorial Day by buying furniture (at on of those HUGE Memorial Day Blowout Sales!) and reading.

OK, here's my take on China. Free trade with China is beneficial to America, both economically and strategerically. :)

Free trade with China works just like free trade with any other country: both countries experience more efficient economies, which provide more goods, cheaper, for all consumers. It also serves to maximize the use of labor within both markets. Specifically, America gets lots of inexpensive goods, and China gets a lot of money for it. American and Chinese labor both tend towards jobs which maximize their efficiency; generally speaking, China's, towards manufacturing, and America's, toward service. Standards of living in both countries go up.

From a strategic standpoint, the meshing of our two economies is a case of "keeping your friends close, and your enemies closer." The closer our economies are, the less China will want to go to war with us. And, even if for some reason, they do go to war with us (or to get back Taiwan), the closer our economies are, the more it will hurt China. For example, everyone keeps talking about how much China's national bank has in American savings bonds. If China went to war with us, and we cancelled those bonds, guees what would happen to China? Their reserves would take a HUGE hit - so huge that it would ruin their credit on the worldwide market. That means they'd have to go into overtime printing currency, running up inflation on the yuan in the middle of a war. Bad financial policy.

Not to mention, China's economy is so huge that it can't be ignored. 1.2 billion people are making stuff, and it's got to go somewhere.

In summary, our policy of free trade with China is good for American consumers, American workers, and American national security.

TheSage
05-28-2007, 03:57 PM
Sorry to be so slow to respond. I've been out enjoying my Memorial Day by buying furniture (at on of those HUGE Memorial Day Blowout Sales!) and reading.

OK, here's my take on China. Free trade with China is beneficial to America, both economically and strategerically. :)

Free trade with China works just like free trade with any other country: both countries experience more efficient economies, which provide more goods, cheaper, for all consumers. It also serves to maximize the use of labor within both markets. Specifically, America gets lots of inexpensive goods, and China gets a lot of money for it. American and Chinese labor both tend towards jobs which maximize their efficiency; generally speaking, China's, towards manufacturing, and America's, toward service. Standards of living in both countries go up.

From a strategic standpoint, the meshing of our two economies is a case of "keeping your friends close, and your enemies closer." The closer our economies are, the less China will want to go to war with us. And, even if for some reason, they do go to war with us (or to get back Taiwan), the closer our economies are, the more it will hurt China. For example, everyone keeps talking about how much China's national bank has in American savings bonds. If China went to war with us, and we cancelled those bonds, guees what would happen to China? Their reserves would take a HUGE hit - so huge that it would ruin their credit on the worldwide market. That means they'd have to go into overtime printing currency, running up inflation on the yuan in the middle of a war. Bad financial policy.

Not to mention, China's economy is so huge that it can't be ignored. 1.2 billion people are making stuff, and it's got to go somewhere.

In summary, our policy of free trade with China is good for American consumers, American workers, and American national security.

Yes. This is the neocon narrative on the matter. But the massive imbalance is the problem. Like you said, they get all the money, we get all the cheap goods. The problem is that no matter how cheap goods get, you still can't afford them when you have no job. For this reason, and for the basic moral reason, we should disallow slave labor products from entering our markets and forcing our workers to compete with slaves.

The problem with the "comparative advantage" theory is it completely devalues the intrinsic value of self-sufficiency. Dependancy is bad, and losing the capacity to carry out our own production in case the relationship goes south is also bad. Becoming dependant in this manner on a nation building a massive military against us is just intrinsically stupid. I disagree with your heavily propagandized opinion.

5stringJeff
05-28-2007, 04:04 PM
Yes. This the neocon narrative on the matter.

So now I'm a Neocon Dispensationalist Zionist. If there's one thing you're good at, it's labeling people.


But the massive imbalance is the problem. Like you said, they get all the money, we get all the cheap good. The problems is that no matter how cheap goods get, you still can't afford them when you have no job.

See the unemployment numbers lately? They're still hovering right around 4.5%, close to what economists consider "permanent unemployment."


For this reason, and for the basic moral reason, we should disallow slave labor products from entering our markets and forcing our workers to compete with slaves.

Our workers aren't competing with Chinese workers. Manufacturing jobs are, on the whole, moving to China (and other countries), while Americans are taking new jobs in other industries.


The problem with the "comparative advantage" theory is it completely devalues the intrinsic value of self-sufficiency. Dependancy is bad, and losing the capacity to carry out our own production in case the relationship goes south is also bad. Becoming dependant in this manner on a nation building a massive military against us is just intrinsically stupid.

Except this is not one-way dependency, as though we are becoming patrons of China. It's interdependency, where both parties gain through the arrangement, and both parties lose out if the arrangement is terminated.


I disagree with your heavily propagandized opinion.

I disagree with your unsupported rebuttal.

TheSage
05-28-2007, 04:12 PM
So now I'm a Neocon Dispensationalist Zionist. If there's one thing you're good at, it's labeling people.

THis label perfectly describes you. And it's not a recent development. Sometimes labels are accurate, and it sounds like a whiny lib to attack the entire notion of labels instead of disputing their accuracy.





See the unemployment numbers lately? They're still hovering right around 4.5%, close to what economists consider "permanent unemployment."

But the quality of these jobs is low and they pay low. I know this doesn't concern you.





Our workers aren't competing with Chinese workers. Manufacturing jobs are, on the whole, moving to China (and other countries), while Americans are taking new jobs in other industries.


They are competeing with with slave laborers, and losing bad. Yeah. The new jobs are burger flipping, and valet parking.




Except this is not one-way dependency, as though we are becoming patrons of China. It's interdependency, where both parties gain through the arrangement, and both parties lose out if the arrangement is terminated.

no. American workers are getting the shit end of the stick. Long term, this is a big loser for the american people. Cheap ipods don't make up for the long term shittification of our nation.





I disagree with your unsupported rebuttal.

It's supported by basic logic.



Here's what's happening. The more our leaders ask other nations to sign on to their agenda, the more our leaders have to show there's something in it for the other nations. What our leaders are using to show their earnestness, is their active decimation of the american people, and the subordination of their (the american people's) long term interest to the interests of the people of the foreign nation. This is what is meant by "selling out". They're selling us out to build the "New World Order".

Dilloduck
05-28-2007, 04:48 PM
So now I'm a Neocon Dispensationalist Zionist. If there's one thing you're good at, it's labeling people.



See the unemployment numbers lately? They're still hovering right around 4.5%, close to what economists consider "permanent unemployment."



Our workers aren't competing with Chinese workers. Manufacturing jobs are, on the whole, moving to China (and other countries), while Americans are taking new jobs in other industries.



Except this is not one-way dependency, as though we are becoming patrons of China. It's interdependency, where both parties gain through the arrangement, and both parties lose out if the arrangement is terminated.



I disagree with your unsupported rebuttal.

Interdepencies are great until one partner decides it doesn't like the deal. Oil for example.

MtnBiker
05-28-2007, 04:56 PM
Canada is our largest importer of oil and we have alot of oil that we won't drill for.

TheSage
05-28-2007, 04:57 PM
Plus, I believe a common BASIC morality should be in place, prior to trade agreements. Allowing slave and prison labor into the common market just makes me ill everytime I think about it. This "if we don't facilitate it someone else will" crap is the same argument satan would use. We learn in grade school that the bad behavior of others doesn't justify our own. This is kid stuff. It's sad that our leaders are involved in a satanic pact to enslave mankind. Terribly sad.

Dilloduck
05-28-2007, 05:05 PM
Canada is our largest importer of oil and we have alot of oil that we won't drill for.

I think we'll be ok if Canada decides not to import oil from American companies.

Said1
05-28-2007, 07:27 PM
I think we'll be ok if Canada decides not to import oil from American companies.

Aw nuts. China owns most of our newly refined stuff. Don't cut us off.

Hobbit
05-28-2007, 11:26 PM
I didn't miss your point. You're trying to keep the blame off politicians for selling out the american people, and put it on people for not COMMUNICATING their desires. That's bullshit. They know they're selling out america and they don't care. One solution would be a law against slave labor goods. This isn't a communication problem.

No, if you think I'm excusing politicians, then you're missing the point entirely. the point is that, yes, the politicians are to blame, but corrupt politicians don't fix themselves any more than spoiled kids do, and just like spoiled kids, you have to kick the crap out of them. It's up to us, the citizens to kick out corrupt politicians, and if we stand by and allow them to do what they want, then it's just as much our fault as theirs.

TheSage
05-29-2007, 06:09 AM
No, if you think I'm excusing politicians, then you're missing the point entirely. the point is that, yes, the politicians are to blame, but corrupt politicians don't fix themselves any more than spoiled kids do, and just like spoiled kids, you have to kick the crap out of them. It's up to us, the citizens to kick out corrupt politicians, and if we stand by and allow them to do what they want, then it's just as much our fault as theirs.

I want people to speak out. But the additional power politicans have to change things makes them extra culpable. I will not allow you to blame the people for our politicians selling them out. And I expect you to advocate loud and proud against trade with slave labor nations.

Dilloduck
05-29-2007, 08:37 AM
Aw nuts. China owns most of our newly refined stuff. Don't cut us off.

It's OK. Being dependent on China is a good thing. You get cheap stuff and they get your money. :laugh2:

Hobbit
05-29-2007, 10:58 AM
I want people to speak out. But the additional power politicans have to change things makes them extra culpable. I will not allow you to blame the people for our politicians selling them out. And I expect you to advocate loud and proud against trade with slave labor nations.

Well, you're gonna have to deal with it, because I AM blaming the people. The government only rules with consent from the governed, especially in our government, where all politicians are constantly up for re-election. If the politicians are corrupt and the people keep elected them, then the people are guilty.

For example, Ted Kennedy is an irredeemable jackass whose legacy will be pretty terrible, but the people of Massachussetts keep electing him over and over and over again, so I also blame them.

Dilloduck
05-29-2007, 11:21 AM
Well, you're gonna have to deal with it, because I AM blaming the people. The government only rules with consent from the governed, especially in our government, where all politicians are constantly up for re-election. If the politicians are corrupt and the people keep elected them, then the people are guilty.

For example, Ted Kennedy is an irredeemable jackass whose legacy will be pretty terrible, but the people of Massachussetts keep electing him over and over and over again, so I also blame them.

People can't be expected to vote wisely if they are not informed accurately. Those that seek votes or attempt to sway voters keep them in the dark and feed them lies.

Hobbit
05-29-2007, 12:15 PM
People can't be expected to vote wisely if they are not informed accurately. Those that seek votes or attempt to sway voters keep them in the dark and feed them lies.

And whining that people do that isn't helping. If these people are being lied to, expose the truth. Concentrating on what other people do wrong doesn't help you with anything unless you're a cop. If you think something's wrong with the world, YOU need to change it, because chances are, nobody else is going to.

TheSage
05-29-2007, 12:17 PM
And whining that people do that isn't helping. If these people are being lied to, expose the truth. Concentrating on what other people do wrong doesn't help you with anything unless you're a cop. If you think something's wrong with the world, YOU need to change it, because chances are, nobody else is going to.


No. We should expect our leadership to think long term about the security and economic ramifications of utter dependancy on a hostile power, whose very governing philosophy is the antithesis of ours. Stop blaming the victim, toadface.

The truth is our leadership if for this, regardless of the impact. And when people do complain, we're told we're ignorant, protectionist racist nazis, or some other term of endearment.

Dilloduck
05-29-2007, 12:22 PM
And whining that people do that isn't helping. If these people are being lied to, expose the truth. Concentrating on what other people do wrong doesn't help you with anything unless you're a cop. If you think something's wrong with the world, YOU need to change it, because chances are, nobody else is going to.

That wasn't a whine---it was a truism.

Hobbit
05-29-2007, 12:24 PM
No. We should expect our leadership to think long term about the security and economic ramifications of utter dependancy on a hostile power, whose very governing philosophy is the antithesis of ours. Stop blaming the victim, toadface.

Expecting them to show some integrity ain't gonna make it happen. They'll just feed you a quick lullaby to put you back to sleep. The default state of a politician is to advance his own beliefs. You're quite unlikely to make him change those beliefs, so you have to give him an incentive to advance yours.

And if our leaders aren't thinking about the long term, but we elect them anyway, then we're guilty (though maybe not so much as they are).

TheSage
05-29-2007, 12:25 PM
Well, you're gonna have to deal with it, because I AM blaming the people. The government only rules with consent from the governed, especially in our government, where all politicians are constantly up for re-election. If the politicians are corrupt and the people keep elected them, then the people are guilty.

For example, Ted Kennedy is an irredeemable jackass whose legacy will be pretty terrible, but the people of Massachussetts keep electing him over and over and over again, so I also blame them.

No. The government does whatever it wants and chides the people into conforming. Look at their behavior on the immigration bill. Utterly totalitarian and nearly criminal.

Hobbit
05-29-2007, 12:44 PM
No. The government does whatever it wants and chides the people into conforming. Look at their behavior on the immigration bill. Utterly totalitarian and nearly criminal.

I agree with you on that. What I'm saying is that we've got to, get this, STOP CONFORMING and kick the little P.O.S.'s right out of Washington. They certainly aren't going to change if we don't.

TheSage
05-29-2007, 12:50 PM
I agree with you on that. What I'm saying is that we've got to, get this, STOP CONFORMING and kick the little P.O.S.'s right out of Washington. They certainly aren't going to change if we don't.

That sounds good.:dance:

Dilloduck
05-29-2007, 12:56 PM
That sounds good.:dance:

Ya it does but look at our next electons. We got a new crop of the same POS. Every election --same POS. We're owned.

TheSage
05-29-2007, 12:57 PM
Ya it does but look at our next electons. We got a new crop of the same POS. Every election --same POS. We're owned.

Our bodies, but not our souls. They only win when we start perpetuating their lies for them. many on here are lost souls, Christians in name only, perpetuating satanism for worldly power.

5stringJeff
05-29-2007, 01:06 PM
many on here are lost souls, Christians in name only, perpetuating satanism for worldly power.

You must have some great spiritual insights, being able to judge the status of Christians' salvations based on their worldly politics. Ever consider starting your own cult?

TheSage
05-29-2007, 01:08 PM
You must have some great spiritual insights, being able to judge the status of Christians' salvations based on their worldly politics. Ever consider starting your own cult?

No. I'm happy with the message of jesus christ. I'm not talking about the noahide apostasy that the christian church has turned into either. Jesus was a rebel, not one who bowed to the satanic rationalizations of entrenched worldly power.

5stringJeff
05-29-2007, 01:14 PM
No. I'm happy with the message of jesus christ. I'm not talking about the noahide apostasy that the christian church has turned into either. Jesus was a rebel, not one who bowed to the satanic rationalizations of entrenched worldly power.

Actually, we spent 206 posts explaining why Jesus is/was not a rebel (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=822&highlight=Rebel). And if you were happy about the message of Christ, shouldn't that lead you toward a life of spreading the gospel, not a life of inciting hatred against the Jews? After all, Jesus was a Jew.

TheSage
05-29-2007, 01:16 PM
Actually, we spent 206 posts explaining why Jesus is/was not a rebel (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=822&highlight=Rebel). And if you were happy about the message of Christ, shouldn't that lead you toward a life of spreading the gospel, not a life of inciting hatred against the Jews? After all, Jesus was a Jew.

You spent that much time failing at your task, actually.
Jesus was the first christian. Believing he was the savior of mankind was not a jewish belief; it's the defining belief of christianity.

5stringJeff
05-29-2007, 01:20 PM
You spent that much time failing at your task, actually.
Jesus was the first christian. Believing he was the savior of mankind was not a jewish belief; it's the defining belief of christianity.

I didn't say it was a Jewish belief (although the apostles of the church were Jewish). I only said that Jesus was a Jew - ethnically, specifically.

And to call Jesus a Christian (one who follows Christ) is not correct. He is Christ. He is the Son of God, and Deity; the Worshipped, not the worshipper.

TheSage
05-29-2007, 01:23 PM
I didn't say it was a Jewish belief (although the apostles of the church were Jewish). I only said that Jesus was a Jew - ethnically, specifically.

And to call Jesus a Christian (one who follows Christ) is not correct. He is Christ. He is the Son of God, and Deity; the Worshipped, not the worshipper.


But ethnicity has nothing to do with religious belief, unless, of course, your religion is just a thin covering over some form of racism.

His beliefs were christian, because he believed himself, christ, to be the son of god. that's a christian belief.

5stringJeff
05-29-2007, 01:49 PM
But ethnicity has nothing to do with religious belief, unless, of course, your religion is just a thin covering over some form of racism.

I'm not saying that ethnicity has anything to do with religion. I'm only saying that Jesus was, ethnically, a Jew.


His beliefs were christian, because he believed himself, christ, to be the son of god. that's a christian belief.

There's a lot more to it than that. Among the central beliefs of Christianity is the dual nature of Christ, being fully human and fully divine. He is not "a Christian" in the sense that any human being today would be a Christian. He is God, just as the Father is God. He is the object of belief, not the one doing the believing. He knows who He is.

TheSage
05-29-2007, 01:52 PM
I'm not saying that ethnicity has anything to do with religion. I'm only saying that Jesus was, ethnically, a Jew.



There's a lot more to it than that. Among the central beliefs of Christianity is the dual nature of Christ, being fully human and fully divine. He is not "a Christian" in the sense that any human being today would be a Christian. He is God, just as the Father is God. He is the object of belief, not the one doing the believing. He knows who He is.

And I'm saying many ethnic jews are christians. Orthodox rabbis don't consider them good jews, of course. Being a jew doesn't preclude being a christian, because, as you said, jewishness is an ethnicity. Bringing it up was pretty stupid, considering these facts.