americans are idiots?

1. 56

   the new leftposted 14 years ago

   I may be a progressive but i understand reason unlike most on the right. After having a conversation with a independent at my job i have come to see that we are idiots.
   
   HE spoke about how the democrats have let down the country on their argument of change. He said he voted for obama excited to see change but that everything is still the same after 18 months in office. He said we're is the change he fought for when he campaign.
   
   He said he expanded the afghanistan war,the economy still reeling,the healthcare bill did not go far enough,financial reform was a joke,where's the immigration reform bill, the employee free choice act is dead in the senate,no climate change bill there's no change.
   
   In healthcare he brokered deals with the pharmaceutical companies,in financial reform he failed to address the main issue  on why banks fail is because of derivatives and yet still some too big too fail banks,the stimulus bill was too small so the economy has stalled.
   
   My answer was well the gop has continued obstructing the president and democrats since he got into office. They watered the stimulus bill down to the point that it was too small to help long term.
   
   IN the end he said democrats will lose seats and i agreed but nothing to the degree of what happened in 1994.What alarmed me is he rather go back to republican policy which i think will only lead us back into a recession then conservatives and independents will be glad are they that ignorant to see that democrats are working to help americans unlike republicans talk about the deficit when it comes to helping teachers,post office workers,kids,states,the middle class but when it's tax cuts for the rich it's ok if they are not paid for.
   
   In other words i can't believe how big idiots they are so i hope they do vote back republican lawmakers again so we can dip into a depression since it's ok to add to the deficit when republicans add debt to our kids future for no reason but when democrats do it they call it a socialist takeover of the government.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Evan G Rogersposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      if you're sick of the republicrats, then vote libertarian

      replyreport
      1. 0

         sandra rinckposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         He would probably rather die then vote for a libertarian.  He isn't stupid, he doesn't think liberal is the same as libertarian and libertarians are just as foul as conservatives if no difference at all.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Evan G Rogersposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            never said he was stupid. Just said that if he's sick of Republicrats, he should vote Libertarian.
            
            I will disagree with you on the "foul" thing.

            replyreport
   2. 59

      HalJordanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      SOME Americans may be idiots.  I feel that way every time I get sucked into the forums and attempt to read some of these posts!

      replyreport
   3. 76

      junkoposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Imagine where the nation would be if John and Sarah had won

      replyreport
2. 61

   katiem2posted 14 years ago

   I never talk politics does it not seem like people have forgotten the old expression...
   
   If you talk the talk,  Walk the Walk

   replyreport
   1. 0

      kimberlyslyricsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      

      replyreport
3. 0

   sandra rinckposted 14 years ago

   It is the most frustrating thing ever!  I can hardly stand to remain civil while talking to naysayers about all the progress that didn't happen because the Conserva*ucks won't let anything happen while they scream really ridiculous lies and even convince people that the Bush administration was democratic. 
   
   The filthy f***ing lies!  Gd dmn lies, lies, lies and they are running amok like idiots, they don't give a damn about peoples rights, they are a bunch of lying bigots!  I cannot say enough about how stupid they really are.  errrr...

   replyreport
   1. 61

      katiem2posted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I heard that!

      replyreport
   2. 61

      Evan G Rogersposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      all of this "progress" you speak of...
      
      ... does it cost money?
      
      yes? oh... ok...
      
      Where will this money come from?
      
      what's that you say? from people's pockets? the very same people who would much rather spend their money elsewhere and in a different way?
      
      ... if you want "social progress", then give to charity. If you want to steal from your neighbor to give to someone else, then use government.
      
      I was talking with my neighbor, a manager of a business, about the recent unemployment. We were talking about how many businesses are having trouble hiring, even though there are so many unemployed. He told me about one time he was in an interview and the prospective employee was asking "how can you compete with welfare? Why should I work with you guys when I can make money illegally in the free time provided by welfare?". He said he was flabberghasted.

      replyreport
   3. 60

      logic,commonsenseposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I find it ironic that those that preach tolerance and acceptance, are the biggest haters out there when it comes to Republicans or Bush.
      It may come as a suprise to you but there are just as many idiots that are Democrats as Republican.
      As far as corporations go, there are good ones and bad ones just as there are good and bad people.
      How many jobs would be there if it weren't for corporations?
      What would we have to choose for products to consume if it weren't for corporations?
      Talk about narrow mindedness and intolerant, perhaps you need to take a good look in the mirror.

      replyreport
4. 67

   aka-djposted 14 years ago

   Do you guys REALLY think the politicians are running your country??
   
   Did somebody say "idiots"??  (Sorry, don't want to be nasty, just "funny").
   
   Dig a bit deeper and you might find some surprising results..

   replyreport
   1. 0

      sandra rinckposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Like what?  What would you like to add that you have surprisingly dug up?

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Doug Hughesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         It's a secret.

         replyreport
5. 0

   ryankettposted 14 years ago

   What a stupid question. How long is a piece of string?

   replyreport
   1. 74

      Kangaroo_Jaseposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      That is an easy one Ryan, it is double of half it's length............

      replyreport
6. 68

   alternate poetposted 14 years ago

   Americans definately are NOT idiots, but a surprising number seem to listen and watch what are clearly lies and contortions of truth from your media. The same applies to the UK.  I meet many Americans here in China, both working here and as tourists, and I am gobsmacked by some of the things they come out with.  They tell me things about China - that come from their media - that they can SEE are not true because they are before their very eyes.
   
   Young Americans out of college that I work with here, almost without exception, are a mess of college culture and afraid of exploring new things and stay in tight little groups with their own little rituals, drinking, talking themseles up BIG, drugs sometimes, and see to display a pretty loose grip on reality; and an inbuilt aggressive defence strategy for life.
   
   The American media are running your country - and they are lying to you, and their weapons are to play up to bigotry and fear using volume and quantity.  This also goes all through the net in glaringly open ways, way beyond the simple lies that (we) were told so that America could attack Iraq.  I come from a Critical Theory kinda place and Derrida is one of the foremost and lucid exponents,  when trying to find his original words on the internet I am blocked by the thousands (and I mean thousands) of christian US so-called professors papers with some gobbledygook explanation of what Derrida is REALLY trying to say.  The same applies to many other things that disprove the flat-earth 'intelligent design' bull***t,  try looking for the evolution of christian art from 2 dimensional through the renaissance to 3 dimensional - check what is missing from allthe big collections that put the pics online.  The obvious manipulations of information and the spreading of disinformation are clear if you look.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      sandra rinckposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Absolutely! It is bull*hit!  Lies, disinformation, fake news, stories that haven't even happened.
      
      People need to use their brains, think goddamn it! They have seemed to have lost their minds on some special tea and it isn't green.  More like an opiate!

      replyreport
7. 0

   ahorsebackposted 14 years ago

   I believe Americans are working towards evolving into a new understanding of the voting system, partison politics will one day build up to a new awareness, and basicly vote all incumbants out, demand term limits and stop pointing fingers of extreme immaturity at one another. until then some of you people should grow up and begin appreciating  the system of  free speech of a media somewhat less than perfect. The most politicly open system in the world works from two parties ,less than perfectly but it works.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      katiem2posted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Great insights ahorseback

      replyreport
8. 0

   sandra rinckposted 14 years ago

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cKIPvfvxKo
   
   Corporations are trying to take over and Republican's are allowing them to do it.  They are dishonest, they are liars, they are dirthy filthy cheating scrum.
   
   They are awful, ugly, jerks who don't give a crap about who they hurt or helping anyone but themselves.

   replyreport
   1. 68

      alternate poetposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Because they are just the same (very few) people wearing different hats.  Their agenda is only for them, which is why I find it hard to understand how so many people scream for them, surely they understand they are being used ?

      replyreport
      1. 0

         sandra rinckposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         They actually don't.  That is the saddest and scariest part of all.  Doesn't matter how much you show them, how arrogant the corporations and R party has become, they are willfully ignorant.

         replyreport
   2. 61

      Evan G Rogersposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      that video disgusts me so much.
      
      "Giving money to politicians that are going to write legislation, unconstitutionally, to benefit the people that give them money is wrong!  we shouldn't stop the unconstitutional spending - even though we're in an economic crisis...
      
      ... we need to take away other people's freedoms!!"
      
      It's such nonsense!! The real problem is that fact that no one follows the Constitution anymore.
      
      But even besides that, if a single person can donate money anonymously, then so should a corporation be able to. Why? because a corporation is owned by people. And they can collectively donate money anonymously.
      
      Anything less is tyranny. (or playing-favorites)
      
      Another example of "we need to take away people's rights in order to keep everyone safe" bullsnot.

      replyreport
   3. 61

      Evan G Rogersposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      If obama were TRULY worried about government giving hand outs to companies that gave them election-money, then he would say this: "It turns out that giving federal money to companies is actually Unconstitutional! I read the 10th amendment, because lord knows I have never done so before, and have come to my senses. I will hereby veto any Unconstitutional spending that congress passes."
      
      But instead he says "I want to know who is donating money to my political enemies! Let's take away people's rights to privacy and the right to donate money to politicians they like!"

      replyreport
9. 0

   ahorsebackposted 14 years ago

   I get disgusted with the absolute immaturity of partison extremes spouting untruths and half witted  intellectual ideals, I should learn to just shut up and vote , They say that all poitical noise comes from five percent of each extreme , right and left , the rest of us are reasonable people . Greetings Katiem! Im going back to writing poetr....

   replyreport
10. 0

    sandra rinckposted 14 years ago

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xw31AI9N … re=channel
    
    Republican's are the ones stopping progress.  It is on the table, people need help and the Republican's say NO!

    replyreport
    1. 61

       Evan G Rogersposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       why is he making loans more available when we just went through a horrendous loan-induced economic catastrophe?!
       
       "small businesses are the backbone of our economy"
       
       ... erm... not really. GOOD businesses that provide WHAT CONSUMERS WHAT at a price that's affordable are the backbone of our economy.
       
       I find it fitting that such nonsense would be posted in an "americans are idiots" forum.

       replyreport
    2. 56

       C.J. Wrightposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Why do they need R support? They have the majority. The answer is that some of what's being proposed is so questionable, even their own party wont support it. It's also because it's election season. No politician wants to be "on the record" during this time.

       replyreport
11. 0

    sandra rinckposted 14 years ago

    FOX is a dirty Wolf
    
    http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/51322#top
    
    Who else is paying for this obstruction.  He gave 1 million dollars to the GOP, he owns the largest media corporation in the entire wold.
    
    Stop watching FOX!!!

    replyreport
12. 73

    raisingmeposted 14 years ago

    I am not an American.  Could somebody please explain what a libertarian is.

    replyreport
    1. 68

       alternate poetposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       I am not an American either - a Libertarian is a neo-conservative in diguise - someone who is moronic enough to believe that handing over the power of everything to the monopoly that is todays big business is a good idea

       replyreport
       1. 61

          Evan G Rogersposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          A monopoly has NEVER existed in all of history without the help of government.
          
          And by monopoly, i mean, a monopoly. A true, single owner of a thing, who used their position to gain profits etc. Microsoft was NOT a monopoly, neither were numerous other cases. I refuse to believe that "the government said so, so it must be true" is a valid argument for a monopoly.
          
          Why is this true?
          
          Because once prices raise, competition becomes more heated. Why bother paying 50 bucks per tomato, when you can just grow your own darned tomatoes and then sell the leftovers for $49.95?

          replyreport
    2. 0

       PrettyPantherposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       "Once when we were in our twenties I asked my twin brother what exactly a Libertarian was. “A Republican who owns a bong,” was his highly informative response.
       
       That explains a lot."
       
       http://firedoglake.com/2007/09/12/late- … cre-megan/
       
       Have you read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand?  Libertarianism doesn't work in the real world, because it glorifies selfishness and greed, two character traits that thrive just fine on their own.

       replyreport
    3. 61

       Evan G Rogersposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       These other people are speaking nonsense. Ignore them
       
       A libertarian is the name we give people who abide by the Classical Liberal mantra.
       
       It basically means "One can do with his property as he wishes, so long as it doesn't interfere with another's right to do so as well."
       
       That's pretty much what it boils down to.
       
       Everyone agrees with this, but then goes nuts when you start applying it to situations.
       
       For example:
       
       1)"should there be a mosque built in New York?"
       
       The cool-headed libertarian response: "yes, of course. It's private property"
       
       Everyone else: "mwar mwar mar mrawrar!!!"
       
       2)"Should we tax everyone's income?"
       
       The Libertarian response: "no, that's their property, and any time a tax is collected it's an act of aggression. if you don't see WHY it's an act of aggression, just stop paying taxes for a year or two and see what happens!"
       
       Liberals/democrats: "Yes! Making money is evil!"
       
       Republicans: "We need to pay for wars SOME how!!"
       
       3) "Who's fault was the BP oil spill?"
       
       Libertarian: "The government's fault. They not ONLY put INCENTIVES to drill in insanely dangerous places, but they ALSO make it illegal to own waterways. If waterways could just be owned, then people would take MUCH better care of them"
       
       Democrats: "the evil corporations who provide me with the oil that I use every day!! I HATE THEM SO MUCH!!!.... oh, btw, I own stocks!"
       
       Republicans: "The middle east!! let's bomb them!!"
       
       .....
       
       Anyway, that's basically a libertarian. You name the issue, and the "principle of non-aggression" will likely answer the question for you. It just might be a weird answer that no one thought up before..
       
       ... and that's why we're called "republican[s] who own bongs".

       replyreport
13. 0

    sandra rinckposted 14 years ago

    Evan G. Rogers, you are willfully ignorant and you have no idea what you are saying, what you are supporting to create.  You have no idea how dictators are made. 
    
    You seem to have no understanding at all about what the government is for.
    
    You can talk all the talk you want to but in the end, you really have no clue because you are willfully ignorant and you are a liar.
    
    Stop lying!

    replyreport
    1. 61

       Evan G Rogersposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Dictators are made when people give up their freedom for security. And Obama is asking us to give up one more of our freedoms. He's already working on control of the internet (the president DOES have authority to shut down websites in "times of emergency", aka, whenever the artificial threat level is ... whatever they decide it needs to be), lord knows the constitution means nothing to him (nor any of the RepubliCrats), and he got the Nobel PEACE prize even though he has yet to end any of the wars.
       
       You name the dictator (within reason -- no "Ookaga the caveman"), I'll show you a list of freedoms the people gave up to their government. And I would bet, beyond a doubt, one of the first ones was "the right to bear arms".
       
       But anyway....
       
       What did I lie about? What am I willingly ignorant about? i don't even know which of my comments you're responding to!!... Actually, just about everything I've said can be shown with a massive collection of books, videos, and articles. All can be found online.
       
       Once again, if Obama was TRULY serious about ending "corporations expecting hand outs for helping out politicians", then he would start vetoing such pork spending. But INSTEAD, he gave out over $1 TRILLION to corporations, unconstitutionally.
       
       And a note about the "corporations giving money to politicians" thing... Do you own stock in a company? Because that means that you are part-owner of the company. Which means that you have a vote in how they spend their money. Which means that ALL THAT A CORPORATION IS, everything that a corporation does, is MERELY AN ACT OF A GROUP OF PEOPLE!!! This means that if we make it illegal for a Corporation to donate money anonymously to a politician, then we have just made it illegal for individuals to donate money anonymously to a corporation.
       
       See how that works? it's a slippery slope to fascism, and this is a good first step. For once, I agree with the Supreme Court.

       replyreport
       1. 0

          sandra rinckposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          
          
          By forcing people out of the country, laying off law enforcement, privatizing the prison system, promoting violence, hate speech, and buying government?
          
          
          
          You mean like when Bush decided it was constitutional to tap phones.  Or when Bush declared the War in Iraq won about 6 years ago but never actually left until Obama said you need to be out by August 31st 2010 and as his most unholy ethics would have it, the last combat troops left two weeks early.
          
          
          Hitler, Stalin, Marx, KimJung Ill...
          
          
          
          Find them for me because I would really like to know where your getting your information if it isn't Fraud News.
          
          
          
          That's a new number, where did you get that from? lol 
          
          
          
          You may own a share of a stock but indeed you do not sit on a panel with the company presidents, CEO's and so and and so forth to tell them what you think they should do with their money.  You may collect a dividend but you are delusional to believe that you can tell a corporation what to do with their own money.  Suppose the company you invested in gave a million dollars to the party you hate...ie: everyone but Republicans? 

          replyreport
          1. 61

             Evan G Rogersposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             Ok, the problem here is that you think I'm a Bush supporter
             
             I'm not.
             
             Read my comments again with the understanding that I hate Bush with a passion. He was a tyrant.
             
             But also know that I hate Obama for the same reasons - ignoring the Constitution.

             replyreport
             1. 0

                sandra rinckposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                I think that since you chose instead to ignore the questions or at least address them, that all you have come up with is that you hate Obama.
                
                The idiocy that see here is that you say now that Bush was a tyrant however, you are supporting they tyranny he left behind.
                
                You make 'argument' that are usually illogical and for the most part you contradict your positions with the very next sentence.
                
                It is okay to not like the presidents or government and big greedy corporations.  It's not okay to perpetuate the lies as though they are true and continue to allow ignorance to be the "straw the broke the camels back". 
                
                Don't wear ignorance like a salutation or a title on a name tag that reads "Bob doesn't know he can change: Bob"

                replyreport
                1. 61

                   Evan G Rogersposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                   I'm not supporting any tyranny he left behind!! What are you talking about?! What question did I ignore? The one about Republicans? I thought I made my stance clear when I said I'm not a RepubliCrat, or when I said I hated Bush... or... when... I typed everything I've ever typed on these forums!
                   
                   You're too confusing to have discussions with!! And you're very insulting.
                   
                   Good day, madam.

                   replyreport
14. 60

    mikelongposted 14 years ago

    Like in so many other places, I observe people arguing, but without any actual substance.....  They keep regurgitating what the media reports....
    
    If we as Americans truly cared about preserving our nation, than we would work to ensure all goods brought in to the American marketplace originate from factories and workshops that pay American wages.
    
    We would work to realize how the evolution of the world through privatized globalization of goods production and logistics networks are changing our world....
    
    California is the breadbasket of the United States in terms of money paid into the federal government. Combining our agriculture with our dominant import/export hubs of Los Angeles/Long Beach, San Francisco, and San Diego, we receive a great amount of both public and private investment.
    
    But we are losing this relevance as corporations work with private investors to remake the map of financial flow.
    
    Mexico will become, and is already on track to do so, the major base of manufacture for American bound goods....  Ports are being built along Mexico's western coast designed to provide cheaper alternatives to the unionized American ports of each coast... Guy Slim, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, Punta Colonet..
    
    Where goods go, business goes, new markets, new exchange houses and real estate booms...all the development that stimulates wealth..and the Peso is now 12, almost 13, to the 1 American dollar....  I was in Mexico 3 years ago and it was 10-1.
    
    Americans, through their purchases and public servants and their policies, need to demand responsibility, and end the economic "race to the bottom" that drives American capital away from American jobs and churns up policital/social dischord and economic disparity that drives undocumented immigration into Mexico, the United States, and elsewhere...
    
    It is also probably a good idea to end two nonsensical, wasteful wars and close the tax dodges that were installed during that same political period....
    
    But who is ready for the real discussions???

    replyreport
    1. 0

       sandra rinckposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       I am listening.  At least you didn't call them 'illegal' immigrants so thank you for using a more appropriate term, undocumented.
       
       The trouble I see brewing is that their idea of 'privatization' seems to resting in the pocket of one corporation which is not good by any means because one person holding all the keys screams dictator, which is apparently happening.
       
       The idea of privatizing is not a bad idea, the problem I see with their idea of privatizing doesn't mean breaking down corporations to allow for a more fruitful market where there can be competition and the means to actually prosper.
       
       Instead, I see them moreless trying to 'privatize' the government essentially ie: "Republican's want less government like crooks want less cops."
       
       At the top of what I see is a huge gap between rich and middle income and the trickle down theory is by and far wrong.  In the last ten years or so the rich have more than tripled their income while the rest saw a decrease of 10%.
       
       We want to create more factory jobs right here and break up the monopoly.  The share the wealth idea has been taken way out of context where some are assuming this means a Robin Hood scenario or the redistribution of wealth means take from the rich and give to the poor.
       
       They are running on this without having any idea of what it actually means.  Redistribution of wealth means giving smaller business the opportunity to compete.
       
       Obama says in a factory GM I think, how he wants things to be "made in America", he wants to close the job outsourcing and tighten safety regulations so that people don't end up dead because of negligence.
       
       These are all things the "republican's" say they want as well but are refusing to work with the democrats which I view in itself as total abuse of power because they keep doing it.
       
       Do it one time with good cause, fine.  Keep doing it even when their proposals are up for a vote.. why?  Just to do it and that is wrong.
       
       I know that the Republican's have investments in privatized industries much like Mac and Mae that had little oversight but was backed by the government.
       
       They do the same with Monastro who has or had backing by Bush and total abuse by the department of Agriculture and lack of over sight because the overseers are corrupt and using their power to forgo oversight to bring more money into their pockets.
       
       At the head of these corporations, the are not offering their employees fair and competitive wages or health care and they are the same corporations that also send business over seas, which in my eyes, what they are doing right here is like Chinese sweat shops.
       
       I also see them wanting to break up Unions so that people cannot invest in job protection and benefits.  The lies they tell people about a free ride for special interest groups in illogical since the people who joins unions pay for their unemployment and job security.
       
       They argue that unions suck because bad employees can keep their jobs but they refuse to talk about the three strikes rule or talk about better ways to 'reform' it not get rid of it since it is paid for by the people who pay for it...not the government.
       
       Also, Social Security has a 1.2 trillion dollar surplus with will pay 100% of the benefits until 2037 and then 78% (which I say we can work on in the mean time) but it is wrong for them to plant to privatize Social Security and take people's money and invest in on Wall Street.
       
       What they seem not really not understand or really care to look at is that Murdoch owns the Wall Street Journal, he owns DOW Jones and they want to give him all the power because he also has all the money and can buy whatever he wants to and apprently he is buying the GOP.

       replyreport
       1. 61

          Evan G Rogersposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          "The trouble I see brewing is that their idea of 'privatization' seems to resting in the pocket of one corporation which is not good by any means because one person holding all the keys screams dictator, which is apparently happening. "
          
          In case you haven't noticed, the government is a much more dangerous place to rest power.
          
          Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution lists EVERY power the president TRULY has. Military powers, pardons (except in cases of impeachment), treaties (as long as 2/3rds of the Senate agree), appointing people to positions (as long as the Senate agrees),....
          
          .. AND THAT'S IT.
          
          And yet, everyone nowadays is asking him what his stance is on "building a private building in downtown New York".
          
          We shouldn't be worrying about corporations! We should be worrying about government!!
          
          "What they seem not really not understand or really care to look at is that Murdoch owns the Wall Street Journal, he owns DOW Jones and they want to give him all the power because he also has all the money and can buy whatever he wants to and apprently he is buying the GOP."
          
          So.. what? some guy worked hard and invested his money wisely and has managed to bribe a bunch of political figures (IF that's even true, has yet to be seen) -- the problem isn't "Murdoch having money", the problem is that HIS BRIBES WILL ACTUALLY BUY HIM SOMETHING!!!
          
          Once again, if we follow the Constitution, the Senate and House can NOT give money to corporations. If we simply adhere to it, the bribes would go away.

          replyreport
    2. 61

       Evan G Rogersposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       "If we as Americans truly cared about preserving our nation, than we would work to ensure all goods brought in to the American marketplace originate from factories and workshops that pay American wages."
       
       This argument can easily be destroyed by simply realizing the difference between "wages" and "real wages". I wrote a hub on this, check it out.
       
       But for brevity, here's the argument, if we did this, then prices of everything would skyrocket immensely, and there would be mass poverty.  If some company in China can make silverware and send it all the way to America cheaper than it would cost an American company, then surely we can all admit that it would be in everyone's best interest to buy the Chinese stuff. Sure, some guy in the US won't be making silverware, but he would be making something else, something that could actually use his labor productively.
       
       Also, California has been losing a lot of private investment, and ... hasn't it gone bankrupt like 19 times in the past century? Texas - which doesn't have a state income tax - has been soaking up a lot of investment lately.

       replyreport
       1. 0

          sandra rinckposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          Yet you seem furious over Obama helping 'save' American Factory jobs or for him wanting "Made in America" stamped on things made here.  OR that the new plan to save jobs that you are so disgusted with, stops outsourcing of jobs.  You also seem against the Clean Energy Bill to create competitive jobs and products made right here.  You probably overlooked or just didn't get the news about a company in Indiana who is producing solar batteries as well computerized solar panels and their profits are up, up, up. They are exporting their solar products with the Made in America stamp to Germany, Italy and other countries.

          replyreport
          1. 61

             Evan G Rogersposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             if something can be made in China and sent over here cheaper than if some american did it...
             
             ... then it SHOULD be made in china, and that American SHOULD find a different job.
             
             I don't want my TAX dollars to support waste, and I don't want to pay for overpriced things in the supermarket.
             
             when... did... i talk... about the ... clean energy bill? ...? what? I mean, i probably AM against it, but ... where the heck did that come from?
             
             some company in India is doing well? Good! I'm glad! I hope that their business can survive withOUT government handouts!

             replyreport
15. 60

    mikelongposted 14 years ago

    When I said "American wages" I imply that, regardless of what country they are in, companies that create profit from the inbalance of manufacture vs. sales in American markets need to pay for health care, and high wages.

    replyreport
16. 56

    the new leftposted 14 years ago

    NO im not an idiot but as a progressive i feel that republicans should take over. Give the right what they want no more social security,medicare,and tax cuts that are not paid for. So in that sense i hope they do win because they do not want change so why try.
    
    I give up but do not think i am an idiot which im not and corporations do run the country. Read the new issue of mother jones

    replyreport
17. 60

    mikelongposted 14 years ago

    In terms of "privatized" I agree with you that there need to be restraints on how big or far-reaching such interests can become...
    
    But when the politics of power revolve around money...cash on hand....payable to policy makers...to make the makers even....then such regulation and respect for the rule of law are hard to put in place..
    
    And we have the likes of Sarah Palin running around trying to monopolize the "fed up" people...between her and at least a sizeable proportion of the "tea party"....what ridiculousness to which many people become victimized....

    replyreport
    1. 61

       Evan G Rogersposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Everyone's talking about how evil the "Corporations" are.
       
       Let me remind EVERYONE that the REAL issue is the Federal Government.
       
       Let's remind ourselves of the power of Congress:
       
       "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
       
       To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
       
       To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
       
       To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
       
       To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
       
       To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
       
       To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
       
       To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
       
       To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
       
       To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
       
       To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
       
       To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
       
       To provide and maintain a Navy;
       
       To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
       
       To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
       
       To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the "
       
       NO WHERE ON HERE DOES IT SAY "Congress has the power to spend $1 trillion in pork to corporations that bribe the congressmen".

       replyreport
       1. 60

          Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          ...to purchase a huge swath of land from Napoleon that doubles the size of the country?
          
          The "stone tablet" era of the Constitution passed a couple of centuries ago.

          replyreport
          1. 61

             Evan G Rogersposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             well, then, i suppose you shouldn't be surprised when the military comes marching down your street.

             replyreport
             1. 60

                Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                Yes, this document is all that prevents that from happening...
                
                

                replyreport
                1. 61

                   Evan G Rogersposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                   Actually, yes it is. Liberals hate conservatives on this issue, but conservatives are right:
                   
                   "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
                   
                   But it's probably the only reason it has yet to happen in the US.
                   
                   In the past 250 year span, it's happened in numerous, COUNTLESS other countries.
                   
                   Russia, China, Japan, Germany, Italy, just about every African country, Mexico, and an unbelievable swath of other countries.
                   
                   Maybe you should start to open your eyes, and see just how important this document is.

                   replyreport
                   1. 0

                      EmpressFelicityposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                      Add Britain to that list

                      replyreport
                      1. 61

                         Evan G Rogersposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                         my bad, thanks Emp.

                         replyreport
                   2. 60

                      Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                      Your particular take on the second leads to the lack of credibility of your conclusions.  Jefferson, Madison, Adams and other 18th century progressives did not intend for their writings to rule for a thousand years...
                      
                      The right winger who did terrorized the world from a nation with a long tradition of private gun ownership.

                      replyreport
                      1. 61

                         Evan G Rogersposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                         ... Ron, you're argument... is tiring.
                         
                         Remember that the Constitution has an Amendment process?
                         
                         ... yeah...
                         
                         That's the PROPER way to change the constitution, not through "meh, i'm the prez, i can do what I want!" style that things are done today.
                         
                         I can think of nothing more dangerous than to openly agree with our government that the Constitution is meaningless - it was created by the people for a reason.
                         
                         We've all become a foolishly proud people who have forgotten the lessons of the past.

                         replyreport
                         1. 60

                            Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                            No one has stated the basis of your strawman but you.  Hyperbole is a poor substitute for thoughtful responses.

                            replyreport
                            1. 61

                               Evan G Rogersposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                               you said  that the founders didn't expect their constitution to rule for thousands of years.
                               
                               Then i pointed you towards the process of amendments.
                               
                               ... i'm failing to see why you thought this was a "straw-man"...

                               replyreport
          2. 61

             Evan G Rogersposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             you're right, Jefferson DID perform an Unconstitutional act!!
             
             And in so doing, he has proven that we NEED to not only IGNORE the constitution, but actively pass EVERY LAW we can that goes against it!!
             
             HEAR HEAR!! A good solid argument by Ron Montgomery!!

             replyreport
             1. 60

                Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                Jefferson did not ignore the Constitution, he understood it's limitations far better than you do.  You should study his writings before pretending to understand his work.

                replyreport
                1. 61

                   Evan G Rogersposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                   is that why numerous NORTHERN STATES threatened to secede while he was president?
                   
                   yeah... about that... Jefferson made executive orders that were unconstitutional, and that were severely damaging to the northern states' economies. They demanded that such actions were unconstitutional, and they were the some of the first states to openly and seriously consider seceding from the union. (Virginia was not only the first state to secede from Great Britain, but it was -probably - the first state to openly discuss seceding from the union.)
                   
                   so. Yes. Jefferson's actions were unconstitutional. And a HUGE number of the people who lived at the time would agree with me.

                   replyreport
                   1. 60

                      Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                      And like today's zealots they were more than happy to bask in the rewards of his foresight.

                      replyreport
                      1. 61

                         Evan G Rogersposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                         I"m going to leave this argument with a quote from an unknown letter writer. It is quoted from the book "To His Excellency Thomas Jefferson: Letters to a President", ed. Jack McLaughlin (New York: W.W. Norton, 1991, page 19)...
                         
                         ... and you can decide if this sounds like the representatives of his state were "zealots" who were "more than happy to bask in the rewards of [jefferson's] foresight".
                         
                         (the typos will be included)
                         
                         "PRESIDENT JEFFERSON,
                         I have agreed to pay four of my friends $400 to shoat you if you dont take off the embargo by the 10th of Oct 1808 which I shall pay them, if I have to work hands & nees for it. Here I am in Boston in a starving Condition. I have by working at jurney wurk got me a small house but what shall I git to eat? I cant eat my house & it is the same with all the Coopers. I can't git no work by working about on the warves for you have destroy'd all our Commerce & all the ships lie rotting in our hoarbours & if you dont take off the embargo before the 10 of Oct. you will be shott before the 1st of Jany 1809. you are the greatest tyrants in the whole world. You are wurs than Bonaparte a grate deel. I wish you could feal as bad as I feal with 6 Children round you crying for vittles & be half starved yous[elf &] then you would no how good it felt."
                         
                         Surely, these men WERE in good spirits about the mighty and grand foresight of Jefferson!!
                         
                         ........

                         replyreport
18. 60

    mikelongposted 14 years ago

    Evan, you cite the words....but what of the reality?
    
    The city of Los Angeles was built by private interests running government...from the federal to the state and local levels... The Huntingtons, Stanfords, Crockers, Mellons, and others...
    
    We can point to the Constitution....but it is the practical application of this document that needs to be observed..
    
    I agree....private interests have too much influence in our governance..

    replyreport
    1. 61

       Evan G Rogersposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       I love the way that the phrase "private interests" has become synonymous with "evil greedy bastards"
       
       Let's remind ourselves that the only real reason we bother to go to work (at least, the most of us) is for our own "private interest".
       
       Let's remember that the reason why I can go down to the local McDonald's and get a burger is because McD's has a "private interest" in getting my money.
       
       Let's remember that the only reason why I can drive to work each day is because the oil companies' "private interest" is to give me a product that I want every day.
       
       Let's remind ourselves of Adam Smith's Invisible Hand, and how it's not through benevolence that we get our meals, but through each other's "private interest"

       replyreport
       1. 60

          Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          Your post indicates a flawed take on Smith's writings.
          
          I'll help you in getting started, but you'll have to take it from there.  My visible hands are needed elsewhere.
          
          Every individual endeavors to employ his capital so that its produce may be of greatest value. He generally neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. He intends only his own security, only his own gain. And he is in this led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. [italics added]
          This makes Smith sound as if he thought that the invisible hand always leads individuals who are pursuing their own interests to promote the good of society. He did not. He saw the interests of large capitalists as conflicting with those of the public: capitalists seek high profits, which corrupt and impoverish society. In another example the famous division of labor increases factory output but erodes the intelligence, enterprise, and character of workers. Smith's passage on the invisible hand says only that it operates "in this as in many other cases" -- not always, not even mostly.
          
          http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/is … squote.htm

          replyreport
          1. 61

             Evan G Rogersposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             "He generally neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it."
             
             "He intends only his own security, only his own gain."
             
             "And he is in this led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention."
             
             Those statements directly agree with what i've written.
             
             But, if you'll recall, Adam Smith wrote his book and destroyed Mercantilism in so doing.
             
             If you'll notice the vast majority of my statements on this forum, I, too, am for getting rid of our country's Mercantilist mistakes. This is why I've been quoting the constitution - the document that was to ensure that our government would never become a mercantilist nightmare.
             
             I'm surprised your "visible hand" would bother arguing with mine on an argument where I'm at complete agreement with (most) of Smith's statements: I'm against mercantilism, I'm for free-trade (smith might disagree with me a little here), and personal interest - with the absence of government's aggressive attacks on trade - is a good thing.
             
             And either way, Smith DID make numerous mistakes in his arguments - but they weren't really mistakes, i suppose - that would be like calling Newton "wrong" because he didn't take into account Einstein's theory of gravity. Smith just didn't have 100% of the whole picture (not that we do today, but we're further along than Smith was)

             replyreport
19. 65

    Greek Oneposted 14 years ago

    You all have made good points.. someone please get George W. Bush on the phone.. only he can lead us out of these troubled times!
    
    

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Lady_Eposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       lol. More like good "heated" points.

       replyreport
20. 60

    mikelongposted 14 years ago

    Evan, you made "private interests" synonymous with "greedy bastards"....I happened to cite some of these who just happened to be so...
    
    When I think of oil I think of Shell, and of Nigeria and the Ogoni and Shell-sponsored Nigerian government death squads...
    
    When I go to work I am with foster youth....I am paid through taxpayer funds...  I'm working because the society devised and created by men inspired only by increasing their wealth and monopolistic-minded imperialism (families like the Huntingtons) has failed....for it was never designed to succeed...only to turn a profit for a time.

    replyreport
    1. 61

       Evan G Rogersposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       No, your post talks about how, apparently (news to me, at least) the "private interests" built Los Angeles, and how this apparently goes against my previous arguments...
       
       The only reason it could possibly go against my previous arguments is if they were evil conniving bastards...
       
       and even then it would agree with my arguments: A city is allowed to be run by private interests. There's no clause in the Constitution that prevents it. (I haven't been able to read ALL 50 STATE constitutions, but I'm sure they are similarly worded to allow private cities -- after all, Disney world and Land are both pretty much private cities).

       replyreport
21. 59

    bsscorpio8posted 14 years ago

    Not stupid, just a little gullible and greedy.

    replyreport
22. 60

    mikelongposted 14 years ago

    Evan, I understand the difference between wages and real wages...
    
    This is why temp workers in logistics warehouses are paid eight dollars an hour (with the temp agency taking their cut first from the Walmart payroll) while the cost of living out in the Inland Empire (where the warehouses largely are) is seventeed dollars per hour.....poverty.. These jobs do not come with health or dental insurance...and there is no job security.
    
    Prices for things would go up....yes...  But people would also be making more. If health care costs were realistic and standardized (nationally) there would be more savings. But, unless labor rights and respect are demanded in other nations, we cannot do anything...  As long as labor organizers in Juarez, Mexico are killed, and their stories lost amid the "drug violence/narco terror" then there can be no progress...  When workers in China fight the concept of "national union" that kept them from independent organization and gain rights, and business can then run to India or Mexico, then what chance is there for the American?
    
    The "Race to the Bottom" needs to stop.
    
    Prices today are artificially lowered and raised for different regions...
    
    Evan...why is California losing "private investment"...where did much of this "investment" come from, and for what?
    
    California prospered because of its geographic location and monopoloy on Asian-facing ports...when we were exporting manufactdures it was very easy and efficient to put them on ships and send them around the world...  But then the manufactures dried up....and high paying "real wage" jobs disappeared forever....to be replaced with fewer import related work, that has provided few "real wage" benefits... 
    
    California's wealth came from its oil reserves....which are being cultivated by private companies who avoid "real" compensation to the State for the wealth of resources (what about all that gold?) they are taking and profiting from...   Our agriculture is still here....
    
    But our lifeblood, our bread and butter, being the American mouths to the Pacific, is being undercut as we speak... I expect much more divestment to come...  While Mexico is struggling with internal quandries, cities and transportation infrastructure are being built from scratch...  Punta Colonet...Lazaro Cardenas..
    
    California itself is being outsourced.....

    replyreport
23. 59

    HalJordanposted 14 years ago

    Seventeen dollars an hour is NOT poverty!  there are millions of people who would disagree with that.  I won't get into the rest since I didn't see anything I would want to argue about but 17.00 an hour is NOT povery.
    if you were going for dramatic effect or using hyperbole--just ignore my post! 
    I would also have to say that the FT positions for which I have applied for in the past have come with some kind of benefits as well.  But again, if you were just on a roll or exaggerating for effect--never mind!
    Being paid only for my part-time writing and being in need of a FT job right now those particular statements struck a nerve.  Again though, if you were just on a roll or employing hyperbole then just ignore my post!

    replyreport
    1. 61

       Evan G Rogersposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       yeah... 17 bucks an hour ANYWHERE is pretty nice.

       replyreport
       1. 60

          KFlippinposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          Evan, I added some links to my question for you, to perhaps help in looking in to my question, and no I'm not stalking you , just know you are here in the forums, and thought I'd make another pitch here for your help.  The question is pertinent of this notion running wild that Obama has laid the groundwork for a 'Presidential Army' in the health care bill. 
          
          Americans can be idiots, all people can be idiots, if they have become so frightened by the events around them that all things, all legislation, is subject to wild eyed interpretation......you don't strike me as putting wild-eyed interpretation on things.........so, just a last ditch effort on my part to request your help on a topic that I'd like to see fully explored, and either laid to rest - or exposed as the case may be, for something harmful to us. My own abilities are not adequate to explore this further, so I'm asking for help.

          replyreport
          1. 61

             Evan G Rogersposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             i didn't mean any disrespect on the question you asked, i just honestly know little about the question at hand. What was it about? Obama's private military in health care or something?
             
             And how it relates to a 1920 law? ... I just don't know my stuff that well.
             
             Sorry!

             replyreport
24. 60

    mikelongposted 14 years ago

    If you are speaking to me, I think you misunderstood something I wrote..
    
    
    They make 8 dollars an hour (technically 10 minus the temp agency fee) with no health or dental coverage....but the cost of living requires 17 dollars per hour minumum at full time hours just to survive..
    
    As for any post...you only wrote once in this thread, and said nothing of any relevance or significance to this topic as a whole, or what I have written.
    
    Read first....understand....and then relate please...

    replyreport
    1. 61

       Evan G Rogersposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       NO where in the world could a "cost of living" ACTUALLY be 17 bucks / hour.
       
       NO where.
       
       Not even america. -- People who make less than that SURELY have TVs, microwaves, and NUMEROUS other unnecessary things.
       
       I'm not calling into question the validity of your arguments, I'm pointing out the idiocy of the statistics you displayed.  (note: NOT THE IDIOCY OF YOU!!! if the statistics you pointed to actually meant what they meant, you'd have a good argument!)

       replyreport
25. 81

    Tom Cornettposted 14 years ago

    Obama...."Under my plan, energy bills would necessarily triple."  I'm getting into candles and Coleman lantern sales! 

    replyreport
26. 69

    blondepoetposted 14 years ago

    Americans have sexy accents.

    replyreport
    1. 93

       Rochelle Frankposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Really? I thought we didn't have accents (except for Boston, N'orleans, Tennesee, deep south, and far west).
       
       We think Aussie accents are kinda cute-- but then A'Mericans think all accents are interesting because we come from everywhere.

       replyreport
       1. 69

          blondepoetposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          Oh you guys definitely have accents I just drown in them.
          You guys say tomatooo
          We say tomarto

          replyreport
          1. 68

             alternate poetposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             and none of yew is talkin right - Us Inglish have the correct and only true Inglish !  bloody upstart colonials !! 

             replyreport
             1. 69

                blondepoetposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                Fair dinkum just wait til the ole digger comes out the outhouse and we throw a more shrimp on the barby.

                replyreport
                1. 69

                   waynetposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                   NOooooooo don't throw shrimp on the barbie as my daughter doesn't like fishy shrimps anywhere near her Barbie doll collection!!!

                   replyreport
                   1. 69

                      blondepoetposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                      Hahahahahaha
                      Oh dang Barbie is a spoil sport.

                      replyreport
                      1. 69

                         waynetposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                         Throw a shrimp on Ken instead as my Daughter don't like Ken...she said he's a geek! lol!

                         replyreport
27. 69

    ledefensetechposted 14 years ago

    It's amazing to see the totally indoctrinated Progressives who can't seem to understand that the majority of their fellow citizens disagree with just about any Progressive idea.  It's sad how deluded some people can be.

    replyreport
    1. 68

       alternate poetposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Hmmm  Totally Indoctrinated Progressive -  with your total dedication to the things you own, and the protection by any means of the things you own, you don't think you are totally  indoctrinated ?

       replyreport
28. 50

    lindababy200posted 14 years ago

    Hi, am Linda Weah
    I feel that this piece of mail will reach you in a perfect state of mind and a better healthy condition. When searching,I found your contact address and decided to contact you. I think and also feel that in today's world, neither race, nationality or religion is an obstacle to posse male / female Friendship
    Although we do not know well but I like to have you as friend if that is better for you.my name is Linda Weah,Daughter of Late Dr.Mark G Weah,a prominent and successful oil business man
    a citizen of Somalia in Eastern Africa,i am 23 yrs old, single never married,and presently, Living in Senegal While I hope to hear from you soon,
    and also waiting to receive some information about you, your family, country and even your personal life experiences. This will enable us to better understand and be able to understand ourselves more and for the business project I wait to hear from you soon through this email address. (linda2_weah@yahoo.com)
    Miss Linda Weah

    replyreport
29. 60

    mikelongposted 14 years ago

    Evan, I think you need to have your job outsourced or offshored...then let us see what your views are...
    
    And it's interesting to read that you evidently support basically slavery in other nations...so that you can fill your life with artificially cheapened junk...
    
    Way to go...
    
    I did not say "private interests" all by itself....I mentioned the Huntington Family, the Stanfords, and I can mention more....
    
    Do you even know who these men were, and what their "private enterprises" have done? I suppose not....
    
    You chose to not respond to the bulk of my statement to you....do you not have anything to say?
    
    "A city is allowed to be run by private interests"<--Evan
    
    People using a democratic process to elect their leadership are supposed to be running their towns, cities, counties, and nation....
    
    But when private corporations...like the Central Pacific Railroad, and others, jimmy the system to ensure that they and their representatives control the offices of power, democracy is checked at the door....
    
    Walmart, Costco, Best Buy, and Target (amongst others) form the American Chamber of Commerce in China....when Chinese workers were rallying and working for increased labor rights and protections in China, it was this shining face of America (the COC) that fought fervently against them....
    
    Something to be proud of....
    
    It is groups like these, who enjoy using money and pressure to keep workers poor, disenfranchized, and politically silent, that will quickly move their operations and influence elsewhere...like India, or even more so, Mexico, to ensure that working class progress gets left behind, wherever it pops up....beginning with the City of Los Angeles, and the state of California...
    
    What do you do for a living Evan?

    replyreport
    1. 61

       Evan G Rogersposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       I'm actually insulted by your post here.
       
       1- I don't support slavery. If you've ever bothered to read anything I"ve ever written on these forums or in my hubs, you'd clearly see that I'm against slavery.
       
       2- the "slavery" that you speak of is actually consensual contracts between two humans. Yes, sweat shops suck - but they pay upwards of 5 times the national average wage. Don't like it? THEN DON'T WORK THERE.
       
       3- You're arguments are astonishingly flawed. In fact, they're borderline racist:
       
       You use the term "shipped overseas" as if that's actually significant. Think about it-  What if your job was shipped 300 feet to the north of you. Would you still demand that people buy your expensive "made in mikelong" products? What if it were 600 feet to the east? 1 mile to the west? 50 miles northeast? ... none of this would bother you because, for WHATEVER reason, you value people who live in a land that has randomly been designated "the United States".
       
       But the second I ask you "what if I ship your job 5,000 miles east", you freak out and demand that "made in america" is the only thing you'll buy.
       
       What about that makes sense? Is there something magical about coming out of your mother in the coordinate 40 degrees north and 10 degrees west? really?
       
       Your argument can ONLY make sense if you're a racist.
       
       4- I'm having trouble responding to your posts because each one is a completely new post and I can't keep a running argument with you without losing track of which posts are connected to others. please use the reply button.
       
       5- just about every single railroad company relied on federal government hand outs. In fact, there is a strong argument to be made that federal grants of money to railroad companies was a leading cause of the genocide against the Native Americans.
       
       6- If the Chinese got paid more for their work, then the Americans would probably look for cheap labor elsewhere. See how that works? Costs go up, so it might not profitable to keep the jobs.   --- not that i'm against getting paid more money, I'm just saying that there's a trade off : you want more money? well, either prices go up, or people get fired. That's how "paying for things" works.
       
       7- No company was "keeping workers poor and disenfranchised", they were simply "not paying as much as the workers wanted". Unless you can link me to a news article discussing how, i dunno, Wal-Mart?, actually started beating their customers into submission (oh wait!! that was the socialist government doing that!!!), or ... jeez what else could a company do that isn't "refuse to hire people"?
       
       Governments are the ones that take away rights, not companies...  I don't remember wal-mart ever threatening to take away my right of Habeus Corpus.... but I do remember Lincoln doing so...
       
       8- think about it: you're demanding that we do things in america because it keeps jobs. But what else would take away jobs in the US? ...
       
       well, there's no one currently cleaning up horse poo on the streets of new york, so I suppose that Henry Ford was an "evil private interest who put thousands out of work".
       
       And there are no "oven fire makers" in pizzerias anymore, there are just pizza ovens - PIZZA OVENS PUT PEOPLE OUT OF JOBS!!!
       
       And the other day, I saw someone use a coffee grinder instead of hiring someone to manually smash the beans!! THAT CAPITALIST BASTARD!! HE OUTSOURCED THE JOB TO TECHNOLOGY!!!
       
       ..... Your arguments seem to make the assumption that technology is evil because it puts people out of work.
       
       ...

       replyreport
30. 60

    mikelongposted 14 years ago

    Evan....in the Inland Empire....that is where....  The cost of living is higher elsewhere...
    
    You don't have to take my word for it....do the research yourself....
    
    Though you probably have not even heard of the I.E. before, except through maybe that idiotic t.v. show, that region, no doubt, touches your life in some way...and it is serving as a model for logistics development occurring across this nation...
    
    You may like to read "Economic Crisis and the Logistics Industry" by Edna Bonacich.....the author, whom I've met, who also wrote "Getting the Goods"....a book I think you sorely need to read..
    
    

    replyreport
    1. 61

       Evan G Rogersposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       I'm sure I could easily destroy all of their arguments.
       
       check out "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt for my response to that book. --- here's a link to a synopsis of my book.
       
       http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VD28vNVovow
       
       Here are some other titles to read: the petition of the candlemaker, by frederick bastiat. http://bastiat.org/en/petition.html

       replyreport
31. 60

    mikelongposted 14 years ago

    The larger issue is that there are many people with "D"'s next to their names who are quite conservative themselves....  There are Democrats who have spoken out that the children of undocumented immigrans should be stripped of their citizenship....."D" doesn't mean majority.....there are deeper alliances and convictions that then run to the "R" side of the Legislature....

    replyreport
    1. 61

       Evan G Rogersposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       i think the bigger issue is that we designate people with a D or an R, but...
       
       ... they both have the same meaning.

       replyreport
32. 0

    ahorsebackposted 14 years ago

    Interesting forum,  a lot of truths and non- truths being pushed around as usual. This forum ,in action ,is the essence of the two party system in progress. Half truth and inuendo, The truth of the situation in America right now is the fault of the voters ,[non- voters ] that allowed corporate America to slip into the pockets of our "leaders", The immaturity of extremist idealists trading  polarizing jabs only continues this madness. When American voters finally wake up to the fact that we have been sold out by political rhetoric from both sides of the mouthes of many in congress and senate, and stop focusing on who the ineffective president of the month is ......it will be too late.

    replyreport
33. 68

    alternate poetposted 14 years ago

    After careful consideration and trying to follow this demented thread I have changed my mind - the answer to the OP is YES.

    replyreport
34. 60

    VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 14 years ago

    No one can be labelled as "idiot" in this world.  Sometimes, mind works and thinks differently, which cant be digested by others. Those affected and those who differ totally call others as idiots.

    replyreport