So the good part about Bush winning...

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Bingo@Nov 3 2004, 05:34 PM

but by UN standards Clinton's fore in Milosevic's backyard was illegal, and I think we can all agree that that was a pretty good idea.

The UN has proved itself to be useless in it's current state, crossing that body isn't a litmus test for what's right and wrong when it comes to actions.

Actually, I don't remember the U.N. getting involved or saying anything at all in the bombing of Serbia. I don't think there was any condemnation. The need for action was a lot more urgent, similar to the first Gulf War but not as severe.

[arsenal]

I never said they weren't making money off the oil-for-food scandal. Every country was. On the other hand, France, Germany and China had vested interest in keeping Saddam in power. Once the sanctions had been lifted, prime oil fields for each country. It is very concievable (sp?) that with a free Iraq, those countries would not recieve the oil fields promised. Is the US going to keep them? I honestly don't think so. The fields will be for the Iraqi's, and they can do with them what the please.

Yes, there is a monetary element to the invasion of Iraq, yet I strongly beleive that it was not the primary, secondary or tertiary (sp?) motivator. The threat of Saddam being in power, with out sanctions is too great for the region and the rest of the world. I personally do not want to sit around and wait for him to do something before the world acts.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction+Nov 3 2004, 05:38 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAddiction @ Nov 3 2004, 05:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Bingo@Nov 3 2004, 05:34 PM

but by UN standards Clinton's fore in Milosevic's backyard was illegal, and I think we can all agree that that was a pretty good idea.

The UN has proved itself to be useless in it's current state, crossing that body isn't a litmus test for what's right and wrong when it comes to actions.

Actually, I don't remember the U.N. getting involved or saying anything at all in the bombing of Serbia. I don't think there was any condemnation. The need for action was a lot more urgent, similar to the first Gulf War but not as severe. [/b][/quote]
In fact, NATO was given a mandate by the U.N to bring peace to the area.

http://www.nato.int/kfor/kfor/about.htm

[Flame On]

Hell bent hatred like that doesn't go away, it just regroups, I just wish American allies would see this as clearly as I guess I do.

What allies? But seriously, I think Bush exhibits every bit as much hatred and borderline crusade like motivations towards his enemies as ever the terrorits do. That just feeds into the hatred and helps recruitment drives, fund raising etc. I wish the US would see that as clearly as I do I guess.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Nov 3 2004, 05:30 PM

Weren't you whole heartedly supporting that neo-con agenda with both feet three years ago in the immediate aftermath of 9/11? Do you want to put that in the spotlight?

As an aside, a debate on the issue of outsourcing and whether its hurtful or beneficial.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/conte...34/b3846027.htm

Cowperson [/quote]
What ever turns you on Cow. Toss it out there if it makes you feel better. The comments in question were made three years ago, long before we had a pinch of the information we have now. Based on the information that was available I made those comments. Based on the information that has come available I have changed my stance accordingly. I would hope you have done the same as well.

As to off-shoring (outsourcing is the wrong concept IMO), I can speak to this quite well as it has affected me, my friends and my industry immensely. It is not pretty when you work your whole life to get to a certain level and then have the company you work for pull the rug out from under you and send your job to India. It sucks even more when its almost a whole industry. Those that have been lucky enough to find their way back into industry have found themselves taking substantially less money (60-70% cuts in pay) and lesser roles. I'm not sure how losing a six figure job, and the associated taxes and spending power, from the economy is good. But hey, I'm no economist and don't hold the same belief that corporate health equates to economic health.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Bingo@Nov 3 2004, 05:34 PM

Sure ...

but by UN standards Clinton's fore in Milosevic's backyard was illegal, and I think we can all agree that that was a pretty good idea.

The UN has proved itself to be useless in it's current state, crossing that body isn't a litmus test for what's right and wrong when it comes to actions.

Interesting, I thought that was in support of a UN force. I seem to remember that there were some friendly fire incidents there and the footage that was shown was on UN vehicles. Am I thinking of the wrong action in Serbia or are you saying that the US had their own military action that worked parallel to that of the UN?

[nfotiu]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Nov 3 2004, 05:30 PM

As an aside, a debate on the issue of outsourcing and whether its hurtful or beneficial.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/conte...34/b3846027.htm

Cowperson

Good article, Cow. So little is rationally presented about this topic. Both sides in the article admit that it is pretty much impossible to legislate against. And they both acknowledge that offshoring does have some positive consequences. People just tend to dismiss it as a bad thing. Maybe Lanny is getting a little brainwashed by all his left wing readings!

[Flame On]

I couldn't care less what the rest of the world thinks, it's an American election
Further, this in a nutshell is why there is not going to be any allies joining the US in their war or financial burden of Iraq. Because you don't care, nor do we. "Leaders of the Free world"!

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by nfotiu@Nov 3 2004, 06:05 PM
Good article, Cow. So little is rationally presented about this topic. Both sides in the article admit that it is pretty much impossible to legislate against. And they both acknowledge that offshoring does have some positive consequences. People just tend to dismiss it as a bad thing. Maybe Lanny is getting a little brainwashed by all his left wing readings!

Left wing readings? WTF? How about you try and explain to me how there is a tangible benefit to the economy when a job paying a person $100K disappears from the tax base and the marketplace? That's tax revenues that have disappeared. That is spending dollars that have disappeared, missing further tax possibilities. The individual all of a sudden can't meet their financial commitments because they aren't making any money and can't find a job, as they have been offshored or are considered too senior or over priced. This leads to further drain on the system and potential bankruptcy. The only one who benefits is the corporation who reduces costs. The reduction in costs is not passed back to the customer which means greater profits. Again, greater profits to the corporation. And for their trouble in off-shoring jobs and hurting the economy they get tax breaks!

Am I wrong in how this works? Where are the benefits for the average Joe in this equation? How does this help the little guy? What kind of left wing bend is it to question how this helps the economy?

[Bertuzzied]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Nov 3 2004, 05:31 PM
Actually arsenal, according to the UN it was an illegal invasion and is still described as such by the UN. The UN contended that sanctions were working (which they were) and did not see a need for a military action. The Security Counsil would not vote on the matter so the US took their case to the General Assembly and got voted down there as well. Face it, its an illegal occupation and the majority of the world sees it as such. And working the old UN Oil-for-Food scandal angle again? Sorry, been beaten to death and its been exposed that American companies were actually the ones who got the majority of the oil vouchers, making them as guilty as the next country. There's no longer a good angle there as the US implicates themselves in the "scandal", hence it being dropped from the media spotlight.

If it was an illegal invasion, and of course their main argument for invading was because Iraq had the mass destruction weapons, can Bush be tried for War crimes?

[Ro]

I was watching CNN well into the night, and they were calling the results a crushing blow to the Democrats.

Not only was the popular vote a massive surprise, but they also lost 3 seats in the Senate, and lost speaker Tom Daschle, who apparently was making things difficult for the Dem's in the Senate. A Republican they spoke to said that winning Daschle's seat would be like winning three seats. Now, they have (I think) a 55-45 majority in the house, and will use that to their advantage quite heavily in the next 2 years to pass even more tax cuts and they mentioned some other stuff about digging for Oil in Alaska and some other Bush-like activities.

Also mentioned that the Democrats were possibly going to have to rethink the party platform entirely, and that they needed to reach out to the rural voters and those voters who voted purely on moral, ethical, and religious issues.

IMO, that is what this election was all about. Rural and religious voters voted for Bush. Clinton nabbed many of those votes in 92 and 96 because he grew up in small churches, and had some familiarity with that life/background. And although he had different views on some issues, and was perhaps even more liberal than Kerry on some big ones, "down-home" voters felt comfortable with him. The Democrats got very little of that vote this year, and of course, George-talks-with-God-Bush did.

Oh yeah, they also mentioned that the 18-24 vote held steady at 17%. Brutal. Some more college kids come out, and a different result in a state or two might have been possible.

[arsenal]

Originally posted by Ro@Nov 3 2004, 12:38 PM
Oh yeah, they also mentioned that the 18-24 vote held steady at 17%. Brutal. Some more college kids come out, and a different result in a state or two might have been possible.

There were more total votes this year than back in 2000. So that 17% is actually a very large number. If you look at the actual numbers instead of a percentage, you will most likely see a fairly significant increase.

[Bingo]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Nov 3 2004, 11:54 AM
What ever turns you on Cow. Toss it out there if it makes you feel better. The comments in question were made three years ago, long before we had a pinch of the information we have now. Based on the information that was available I made those comments. Based on the information that has come available I have changed my stance accordingly. I would hope you have done the same as well.

So what you're saying is ...

You are using information from today to make a better decision yesterday? Man I bet, Bush, Clinton, and the rest all wish they had that ability. What a great tool to have ... hindsight.

[Lurch]

How about you try and explain to me how there is a tangible benefit to the economy when a job paying a person $100K disappears from the tax base and the marketplace?

Hey, if someone can do a job more cheaply than you, competition dictates you're on the way out of a job. At one point in my career, my job was outsourced to the US - part of the game, though it didn't feel like it at the time. It's no different than the guy that loses his job b/c someone invents a new machine to replace him. Plus, as a lefty, you should feel happy to help out the less fortunate of the world. Think of the alleged tax breaks as a world-wide welfare scheme paid for by the US taxpayer.

As for the benefits, if you can't see that the cost of many items are lower due to foreign competition, there is no point having a discussion.

[Bingo]

Here's a link talking about how Clinton with Nato went into Serbia without the UN's approval.

CNN

[Ro]

Originally posted by arsenal+Nov 3 2004, 11:45 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (arsenal @ Nov 3 2004, 11:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Ro@Nov 3 2004, 12:38 PM
Oh yeah, they also mentioned that the 18-24 vote held steady at 17%. Brutal. Some more college kids come out, and a different result in a state or two might have been possible.

There were more total votes this year than back in 2000. So that 17% is actually a very large number. If you look at the actual numbers instead of a percentage, you will most likely see a fairly significant increase. [/b][/quote]
Yeah, you could be right. And I'm not sure just exactly what that 17% refers to, but only that they were saying it "held steady."

However, they commented more than once that the 18-24 vote did not improve. And added a few potshots like "the kids'll party with Bruce Springsteen, but won't stand in line for 30 minutes."

Anyone dig up anything concrete on this?

[Flame On]

Originally posted by Lurch@Nov 3 2004, 11:46 AM

Hey, if someone can do a job more cheaply than you, competition dictates you're on the way out of a job. At one point in my career, my job was outsourced to the US - part of the game, though it didn't feel like it at the time. It's no different than the guy that loses his job b/c someone invents a new machine to replace him. Plus, as a lefty, you should feel happy to help out the less fortunate of the world. Think of the alleged tax breaks as a world-wide welfare scheme paid for by the US taxpayer.

As for the benefits, if you can't see that the cost of many items are lower due to foreign competition, there is no point having a discussion.

Can you name these magical places and products you speak of that the price has gone down? Name some. Clothing, cars, electronics perhaps? Yeah real rock bottom prices we're all seeing all over the place, cause you know, corporations like to sacrifice profit with labour savings and pass it on to consumers

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Bingo@Nov 3 2004, 06:47 PM
Here's a link talking about how Clinton with Nato went into Serbia without the UN's approval.

CNN

Well, it goes to show you what good diplomacy and working with allies can do, because the UN eventually did mandate NATO to look after the security of the region. If I remember correctly, only Russia really objected, but did not veto.

http://www.nato.int/kfor/kfor/documents/unscr1199.htm

[Bingo]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction+Nov 3 2004, 12:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAddiction @ Nov 3 2004, 12:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Bingo@Nov 3 2004, 06:47 PM
Here's a link talking about how Clinton with Nato went into Serbia without the UN's approval.

CNN

Well, it goes to show you what good diplomacy and working with allies can do, because the UN eventually did mandate NATO to look after the security of the region. If I remember correctly, only Russia really objected, but did not veto.

http://www.nato.int/kfor/kfor/documents/unscr1199.htm [/b][/quote]
That's beside the point.

The UN has shown again and again that it can't be trusted to actually do it's job as a global force for peace and humanity. Clinton ran up against it and so too did Bush.

I can't say how much of the oil for food scandal is true, and how much is spin, but where there's that much smoke there is certainly a lick or two of flame. Getting onside with the UN is a complete waste of time.

[Ro]

Originally posted by Lurch@Nov 3 2004, 11:46 AM
Hey, if someone can do a job more cheaply than you, competition dictates you're on the way out of a job. At one point in my career, my job was outsourced to the US - part of the game, though it didn't feel like it at the time. It's no different than the guy that loses his job b/c someone invents a new machine to replace him. Plus, as a lefty, you should feel happy to help out the less fortunate of the world. Think of the alleged tax breaks as a world-wide welfare scheme paid for by the US taxpayer.

Are you kidding?

As a lefty, I find it disgusting that sweatshops, labor factories, and a cheap foreign workforce are responsible for producing those goods, which in most cases are leaving those countires and their economies in worse shape than ever.

And that's a pretty weak argument. "Part of the game?" Well, as a person who has lost a job to outsourcing, I would think you'd be pretty angry at they guy responsible, and more likely to side with a guy who would provide you with a job. No?