# Taiwan/China Games or Practice?



## Annie (Aug 15, 2004)

Taiwan is uneasy:


Excerpt:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...716&e=13&u=/nm/20040815/ts_nm/taiwan_china_dc



> Taiwan Premier Says China Practicing for War
> 
> 17 minutes ago
> 
> ...


----------



## wade (Sep 5, 2004)

Jeeze,

Wasn't it you who jumped all over my ass when I suggested that China might use US over-extension in the mid-east as an opportunity to reclaim Tiawan?  Wern't you on the bandwagon of people saying this was an abserd contention and that China would never even think about such a thing?

Wade.


----------



## HGROKIT (Sep 5, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> Jeeze,
> 
> Wasn't it you who jumped all over my ass when I suggested that China might use US over-extension in the mid-east as an opportunity to reclaim Tiawan?  Wern't you on the bandwagon of people saying this was an abserd contention and that China would never even think about such a thing?
> 
> Wade.


I do not think she was stating or implying anything; just posting an article for discussion.

Are you feeling guilty about something?


----------



## Annie (Sep 5, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> Jeeze,
> 
> Wasn't it you who jumped all over my ass when I suggested that China might use US over-extension in the mid-east as an opportunity to reclaim Tiawan?  Wern't you on the bandwagon of people saying this was an abserd contention and that China would never even think about such a thing?
> 
> Wade.




  :baby: 

Really, I haven't bothered to reply to you several times, this is the last one.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Sep 6, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> Jeeze,
> 
> Wasn't it you who jumped all over my ass when I suggested that China might use US over-extension in the mid-east as an opportunity to reclaim Tiawan?  Wern't you on the bandwagon of people saying this was an abserd contention and that China would never even think about such a thing?
> 
> Wade.



It's not your facts and knowledge we abhor, wade;It's your erroneous weak-kneed conclusions we can't stand.  According to you, we should lay down and die.  That's just foolhardy.


----------



## wade (Sep 7, 2004)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> It's not your facts and knowledge we abhor, wade;It's your erroneous weak-kneed conclusions we can't stand.  According to you, we should lay down and die.  That's just foolhardy.



Not hardly.  We should however be smart about how and where we take action.  Most of you people do not think, you just mimic the bull shit you are told by your right-wing heros.  You make no effort to try to understand the other side, no matter what it is - your side is right and the other side does not matter.  But do you understand how foolish it is not to study and understand your enemy?

You should seek as much knowlege as possible about a situation BEFORE MAKING UP YOUR MIND ABOUT IT!

I enjoy discussions.  I use this board to make me think about the topics at hand from a different perspective, and often take positions that are not the same as my actual real life position because I want to see what arguments and info you guys will provide.  But you don't do your part.  You just babble tripe and throw insults rather than making arguments of substance.

I chose this board because it is not like my normal usenet discussion forums, which are dominated by acadamicians and scientists.  I had hoped to get some new and fresh perspectives - but all you people seem to do is regurgitate what can be had on FOX news.  I don't think you people actually read books.  It is getting very old very fast.

I had hoped you would give me some good right-wing arguments to use in predominatly left-wing discussions - but alas, it appears it is not going to happen.  

Wade.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Sep 7, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> Not hardly.  We should however be smart about how and where we take action.  Most of you people do not think, you just mimic the bull shit you are told by your right-wing heros.  You make no effort to try to understand the other side, no matter what it is - your side is right and the other side does not matter.  But do you understand how foolish it is not to study and understand your enemy?
> 
> You should seek as much knowlege as possible about a situation BEFORE MAKING UP YOUR MIND ABOUT IT!
> 
> ...



Blah. blah.  The fact remains, the war on terror is real.  It is not a practice in deception as the rabid left portrays.  

I understand why the tyrants of the islamic world have turned a generation of their youth into hate machines.  They see that their societies are weakened by their own tyrannical ways.  Economically they fail, because individuals are not empowered to bring their gifts to the world at large.  They see that free societies have a strength (much like the point to point nature of computer and neural networks) that will always make them stronger and better than top down autocracy.  Instead of giving their people freedom, empowering them to compete against free societies, they would rather destroy freedom where they find it, and they don't mind turning a generation of their youth into suicide bombers to do it.   Their own personal power is worth more to them than the very survival of their people. 

Did you see the thread on how the unemployment rate in Iran will be over 50% for ages 15-29 in the next two years?  Do you think this is by accident?  This is their jihad army.

As far as your alleged openmindedness, and intellectuality, I don't see it.  You're just another rabid lib.  No merit.  No conscience. No class.  Your in full bore reality denial mode.


----------



## wade (Sep 7, 2004)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Blah. blah.  The fact remains, the war on terror is real.  It is not a practice in deception as the rabid left portrays.
> 
> I understand why the tyrants of the islamic world have turned a generation of their youth into hate machines.  They see that their societies are weakened by their own tyrannical ways.  Economically they fail, because individuals are not empowered to bring their gifts to the world at large.  They see that free societies have a strength (much like the point to point nature of computer and neural networks) that will always make them stronger and better than top down autocracy.  Instead of giving their people freedom, empowering them to compete against free societies, they would rather destroy freedom where they find it, and they don't mind turning a generation of their youth into suicide bombers to do it.   Their own personal power is worth more to them than the very survival of their people.
> 
> ...



Let me first say however that I agree Islamic rule is backwards and cannot compete with the west.  As I've said before, all large scale organized religion is just a means to subjugate the minds of the masses.  Religion is responsible for far more evil than good.

I think you totally misunderstand the Islamic thinking.  Iranian unemployment rates are no conspiracy of the leadership - they are just the natural consequence of a population growing faster than an economy.  The same could be said for many nations - just look south.

Of course you cannot see it - you cannot see anything that does not fit into your narrow view of the world.  Or rather - you won't.

Wade.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Sep 7, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> Let me first say however that I agree Islamic rule is backwards and cannot compete with the west.  As I've said before, all large scale organized religion is just a means to subjugate the minds of the masses.  Religion is responsible for far more evil than good.


Wrong, communist religion basher.  Religion has also provided a prosocial structure for peaceful cooperation as well.  Considering humanity has never been isolated from religion in a manner to have a decent control group, your spurious assertions are unproveable.


> I think you totally misunderstand the Islamic thinking.  Iranian unemployment rates are no conspiracy of the leadership - they are just the natural consequence of a population growing faster than an economy.  The same could be said for many nations - just look south.


The leaders know full well that american style free markets and personal ownership would grow their economies.  The thing is, THEY DON"T WANT TO GIVE UP THAT AMOUNT OF POWER.  Oppressing people is why they become leaders.  It's very old school.  The eurolibs suffer from the same destructive despotic tendencies.


> Of course you cannot see it - you cannot see anything that does not fit into your narrow view of the world.  Or rather - you won't.
> 
> Wade.



You're the rabid, reality-denying ideologue here, Wade.  Please wise up, Schnookums.




Wade


----------



## NATO AIR (Sep 8, 2004)

We just completed our own war games (JASEX 04) with another aircraft carrier John C. Stennis (and are now back in port), which basically is a US-Japanese practice of what to do to retake Taiwan from the Chinese....  if the chinese want to try something (which sadly, i think they will,and soon, probably while i'm still here), we will do our best to be ready to rescue the taiwanese from Chinese domination.

i just hope that our nation's leadership (perhaps worried of the cost and consequences of a non-nuclear war with china) will not abandon the taiwanese to chinese oppression.

its crazy, but the chinese, in practicing these "Decapitation" strikes, are taking what they learned from the best: the US quick strikes in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq.


----------



## wade (Sep 8, 2004)

The idea of a non-nuclear war with China over Taiwan is pretty silly don't you think?

Wade.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Sep 8, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> The idea of a non-nuclear war with China over Taiwan is pretty silly don't you think?
> 
> Wade.



Don't you think it's a bit nationalist, pompous and evil for China to feel they have manifest destiny over taiwan?  Or do you save that viewpoint only for things American.  

You're transparent wade.  Go get some calcium and protein.  You're skin and bones! eat, boy! eat!


----------



## NATO AIR (Sep 8, 2004)

actually not

the chinese know they would be totally wiped out by a US nuclear response to a chinese nuclear attack on US forces or Japan.

henceforth, there will be a conventional war between China and the US, likely in the next three years

the culprits will be the unjust and unelected rulers of china, who are not held responsible to their people and have total power.

if they feel that taiwan is slipping away, they will move to take it.

they hope, if they take it with such overwhelming force, that the US and Japan will decide not to fight and just accept a chinese invasion of taiwan

let's hope the US and Japan decide to stand up for freedom and defend taiwan.


----------



## Annie (Sep 8, 2004)

NATO AIR said:
			
		

> actually not
> 
> the chinese know they would be totally wiped out by a US nuclear response to a chinese nuclear attack on US forces or Japan.
> 
> ...



Maybe I'm way off base, I hope so, but I just cannot see a conventional confrontation between US and China that does not escalate into something more. Personally, I think we will attack or have some sort of showdown over NK, not Taiwan, Which will result in closer relations with China. They are NOT ready for a real fight.


----------



## NATO AIR (Sep 8, 2004)

the chinese sure act like it though.  they're spending money on subs (our main weakness at sea, as they and all of our other enemies know very well now) like no tomorrow and with french and russian help are amassing large amounts of armaments and weapons systems.

i agree north korea is more likely, and i just don't see a happy ending with that crisis.


----------



## Annie (Sep 8, 2004)

NATO AIR said:
			
		

> the chinese sure act like it though.  they're spending money on subs (our main weakness at sea, as they and all of our other enemies know very well now) like no tomorrow and with french and russian help are amassing large amounts of armaments and weapons systems.
> 
> i agree north korea is more likely, and i just don't see a happy ending with that crisis.



Nato, you are an American and by the nature of the beast, you see the dealings with 'foreigners' by education and personal experience, that the best way to deal with 'outsiders' to be clear and transparent, (redundant I know, but we think necessary.) We have no desire to 'make war' with China, and want to make that perfectly clear. They may want different, but in all liklihood, they are sabrerattling. We don't really do that, unless England or France wish to war with us.


----------



## NATO AIR (Sep 8, 2004)

yea, they are saber rattling.

you know we are invited to visit shanghai next year (by their mayor and the chinese premier)  (our aircraft carrier and several small ships are invited for a several day port call)


i hope we do, maybe it will do the slightest of good for our relations.


----------



## wade (Sep 9, 2004)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Don't you think it's a bit nationalist, pompous and evil for China to feel they have manifest destiny over taiwan?  Or do you save that viewpoint only for things American.
> 
> You're transparent wade.  Go get some calcium and protein.  You're skin and bones! eat, boy! eat!



Ummm... I never said I in any way thought that China has any right to Tiawan.  That is not the point.  The point is that they think they do and have made it clear they intend to take it back - the only ? being when.

Go away Wing - I'm tired of your BS quips.  If you're not going to actually debate and you're not even going to try to support your arguments with anything but your own opinions, please stop replying to my posts.

I know your point of view - your just flooding this board with the same crap over and over - Your opinion along with juvinile insults.

Wade.


----------



## DKSuddeth (Sep 9, 2004)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Don't you think it's a bit nationalist, pompous and evil for China to feel they have manifest destiny over taiwan?  Or do you save that viewpoint only for things American.


does the term 'domestic, dependent nations' mean anything?


----------



## wade (Sep 9, 2004)

Kathianne said:
			
		

> Maybe I'm way off base, I hope so, but I just cannot see a conventional confrontation between US and China that does not escalate into something more. Personally, I think we will attack or have some sort of showdown over NK, not Taiwan, Which will result in closer relations with China. They are NOT ready for a real fight.



Exactly.  The US will simply make it clear that any war is a nuclear war, as has been policy for 50 years.

Wade.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Sep 9, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> Ummm... I never said I in any way thought that China has any right to Tiawan.  That is not the point.  The point is that they think they do and have made it clear they intend to take it back - the only ? being when.
> 
> Go away Wing - I'm tired of your BS quips.  If you're not going to actually debate and you're not even going to try to support your arguments with anything but your own opinions, please stop replying to my posts.
> 
> ...



What you call quips are pearls of wisdom,  sveinhund.

We know your point of view also.  You can't even be honest.  You seek to discourage america. And for that,  you are unamericanl.  You dress up your handwringing with scientific jargon, but it's still just the same old negativistic lib handwringing.  You go away.  I was here first.
 :happy2:


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Sep 9, 2004)

DKSuddeth said:
			
		

> does the term 'domestic, dependent nations' mean anything?




In some context I'm sure.  Please elaborate.


----------



## DKSuddeth (Sep 9, 2004)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> In some context I'm sure.  Please elaborate.



in an earlier post you said, "Don't you think it's a bit nationalist, pompous and evil for China to feel they have manifest destiny over taiwan? Or do you save that viewpoint only for things American."

so I responded with the domestic dependent nations remark, as in native american tribes and reservations.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Sep 9, 2004)

DKSuddeth said:
			
		

> in an earlier post you said, "Don't you think it's a bit nationalist, pompous and evil for China to feel they have manifest destiny over taiwan? Or do you save that viewpoint only for things American."
> 
> so I responded with the domestic dependent nations remark, as in native american tribes and reservations.



So you save that viewpoint only for things American?


----------



## DKSuddeth (Sep 9, 2004)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> So you save that viewpoint only for things American?



is that what you got out of that?

You asked if it was nationalist, pompous, and evil for china to feel they have manifest destiny over taiwan? I'm assuming you do since you asked it as a point of contention to wade. If you DO feel that it is indeed nationalist, pompous, and evil for china would you not feel that same way over america doing that very same thing over the native americans?


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Sep 9, 2004)

DKSuddeth said:
			
		

> is that what you got out of that?
> 
> You asked if it was nationalist, pompous, and evil for china to feel they have manifest destiny over taiwan? I'm assuming you do since you asked it as a point of contention to wade. If you DO feel that it is indeed nationalist, pompous, and evil for china would you not feel that same way over america doing that very same thing over the native americans?




Do you feel that way towards China?


----------



## DKSuddeth (Sep 9, 2004)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Do you feel that way towards China?



that its nationalist, pompous, and evil? absolutely

now answer mine, do you feel that way about america? at least in this instance?


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Sep 9, 2004)

DKSuddeth said:
			
		

> that its nationalist, pompous, and evil? absolutely
> 
> now answer mine, do you feel that way about america? at least in this instance?



Sorry gotta go.  My meatloaf is burning!  Hubby is due home any minute now and I get a hard five across the jowls if anything is imperfect!


----------



## DKSuddeth (Sep 9, 2004)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Sorry gotta go.  My meatloaf is burning!  Hubby is due home any minute now and I get a hard five across the jowls if anything is imperfect!



 :rotflmao: 

did anyone else just see a liberal drive-by?


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Sep 9, 2004)

DKSuddeth said:
			
		

> :rotflmao:
> 
> did anyone else just see a liberal drive-by?



But seriously folks.  The Native americans did get the short end of the peace pipe.  But hey, now they get to run casinos!


----------



## wade (Sep 9, 2004)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> What you call quips are pearls of wisdom,  sveinhund.
> 
> We know your point of view also.  You can't even be honest.  You seek to discourage america. And for that,  you are unamericanl.  You dress up your handwringing with scientific jargon, but it's still just the same old negativistic lib handwringing.  You go away.  I was here first.
> :happy2:



Hmmm... I've been a member since March 22, about 5 and a half months.  You've been a member of this board since Jan. 5th, about 8 months.   Over the course of our memberships, this is my 243rd post.  But you have made a wopping 5,108 posts.

That's 1.4 posts per day for me vs. 20.6 posts per day for you!

I don't have the kind of time you do to devote to this board.  I want to discuss and debate these issues with people who are intelligent enough to do so and who are willing to support their positions with facts, not pure opinion bolstered with insults, which is all you ever do.  You spam my posts preventing any real dialog from occuring, over and over no matter what the topic, no matter which section of this board they are in.

So please stop replying to my posts.

Wade.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Sep 9, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> Hmmm... I've been a member since March 22, about 5 and a half months.  You've been a member of this board since Jan. 5th, about 8 months.   Over the course of our memberships, this is my 243rd post.  But you have made a wopping 5,108 posts.
> 
> That's 1.4 posts per day for me vs. 20.6 posts per day for you!
> 
> ...



Quit your pissing and moaning.  You're just mad that I've determined your agenda to a "t":  To render americans apathetic with guilt and historical misinterpretation:  To bog us down in past issues.  An honest interpretation of history shows that we have done the most good and the least harm worldwide than other empires of equal proportional strength.  That's the truth.  we're the good guys.  So take your "blame america first"  crap and encode it with md5 and shove it, hex boy.


----------



## Annie (Sep 9, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> Hmmm... I've been a member since March 22, about 5 and a half months.  You've been a member of this board since Jan. 5th, about 8 months.   Over the course of our memberships, this is my 243rd post.  But you have made a wopping 5,108 posts.
> 
> That's 1.4 posts per day for me vs. 20.6 posts per day for you!
> 
> ...



I don't see where RWA is spamming. If you would like to discuss this in pm, feel free. You cannot however, prevent someone from replying, though you certainly do not have to answer.


----------



## DKSuddeth (Sep 9, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> Hmmm... I've been a member since March 22, about 5 and a half months.  You've been a member of this board since Jan. 5th, about 8 months.   Over the course of our memberships, this is my 243rd post.  But you have made a wopping 5,108 posts.
> 
> That's 1.4 posts per day for me vs. 20.6 posts per day for you!
> 
> ...



there is an ignore feature to this board wade. If you don't want to see someones replies, use that.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Sep 9, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> That's 1.4 posts per day for me vs. 20.6 posts per day for you!



More evidence that I'm better than you.  and more mature!


----------



## wade (Sep 9, 2004)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Quit your pissing and moaning.  You're just mad that I've determined your agenda to a "t":  To render americans apathetic with guilt and historical misinterpretation:  To bog us down in past issues.  An honest interpretation of history shows that we have done the most good and the least harm worldwide than other empires of equal proportional strength.  That's the truth.  we're the good guys.  So take your "blame america first"  crap and encode it with md5 and shove it, hex boy.



I have never said the USA was comparatively not a relatively enlightened society.  I agree, more than any nation we have in the past put principals over self-interest.  However, that is not much of a standard given that no nation in history except the US has really done so at all.

I simply seek to point out the difference between the cases where the US has acted rightly vs. the cases where the US has not.  You wish to pretend that everything and anything the US does is "good", and that is hardly the case.  For a short time - mostly during and immeadiately after WWII we practiced the principals which you hold so high.  But since then... well I'm still waiting for a single example in foriegn policy where the US did not seek it's own interest first and foremost.  You have yet to provide an example (I'm not saying there arn't a few, just that you have not presented one).

So go ahead msg board boy - lets see you try to present an actual argument rather than just spew crap.  If you cannot do so, please stop replying to my posts.

Wade.


----------



## wade (Sep 9, 2004)

Kathianne said:
			
		

> I don't see where RWA is spamming. If you would like to discuss this in pm, feel free. You cannot however, prevent someone from replying, though you certainly do not have to answer.



Kathianne,

Several times what were starting off as good debates have been destroyed by RightWing's incessant posting of pure drivel.  He does not argue the issue, he just calls me un-american and says the same things in every post.  And look at his volume of posts.

It is not right, should i set his nick on my desktop, check it every few minutes using a bot, and have that bot insert an inflamitory reply in order to disrupt any conversations he might be involved in?

Wade.


----------



## wade (Sep 9, 2004)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> More evidence that I'm better than you.  and more mature!



No, it just shows you're unemployed and have nothing better to do.


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 9, 2004)

It's impossible to help someone else without gaining personally .


oops--am I supposed to say "mother may I respond"?


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Sep 9, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> I have never said the USA was comparatively not a relatively enlightened society.  I agree, more than any nation we have in the past put principals over self-interest.  However, that is not much of a standard given that no nation in history except the US has really done so at all.


Exactly.  You have a double standard.


> I simply seek to point out the difference between the cases where the US has acted rightly vs. the cases where the US has not.  You wish to pretend that everything and anything the US does is "good", and that is hardly the case.  For a short time - mostly during and immeadiately after WWII we practiced the principals which you hold so high.  But since then... well I'm still waiting for a single example in foriegn policy where the US did not seek it's own interest first and foremost.  You have yet to provide an example (I'm not saying there arn't a few, just that you have not presented one).


We give tons of aid all over the world.  We fight for freedom.  Of course, our self interest is a factor, there is usually a way for a win win for all parties.  That's what we find.  The win win scenario.


> So go ahead msg board boy - lets see you try to present an actual argument rather than just spew crap.  If you cannot do so, please stop replying to my posts.
> 
> Wade.



I've given tons of great arguments.  You're just in denial about your own inadequacies.  I'll respond to whatever I want, thank you very much. 
   Go have a snack.:gross2:


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Sep 9, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> No, it just shows you're unemployed and have nothing better to do.



You think this isn't work?  Someone has to do it!


----------



## DKSuddeth (Sep 9, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> Kathianne,
> 
> Several times what were starting off as good debates have been destroyed by RightWing's incessant posting of pure drivel.  He does not argue the issue, he just calls me un-american and says the same things in every post.  And look at his volume of posts.
> 
> ...



no, you exercise the option I gave you above. 'ignore'.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Sep 9, 2004)

Wade.  You have a double standard for america.  You say we're better.  Then you use that to impose a higher standard on us.  Then you knock us back down with that higher standard.  It's bad logic.  I'm sorry.


----------



## wade (Sep 9, 2004)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> We give tons of aid all over the world.  We fight for freedom.  Of course, our self interest is a factor, there is usually a way for a win win for all parties.  That's what we find.  The win win scenario.



Hardly true - we usually do not seek the win-win scenario.  We seek the scenario that maximizes our benefit almost all the time.  If that benefits the other party all the better, but always the US benefits the most, and all to often the other party does not benefit at all.  The US pretends to its people that it behaves as you describe, but in fact it is almost never the case.

Example:

Bechtel Corporation and Bolivian Water - In the late '90's Bolivia's economy was in shambles.  The US lead World Bank coerced the Bolivian government to open its economy to private investment in order to get some support for its currency.  It forced various contracts to be accepted as a condition of this support, including a contract with Bechtel Corporation (San Francisco based) to privatize the water utilities.  Bechtel almost immediately increased the price of water two to three fold in most regions, including those incorporating the countries poorest people.  At the new prices water was running 40-60% of a families income.  Not only that, but the terms of the contract gave Bechtel Corporation complete rights to all water.  Villages which had dug their own wells at great effort by hand, often more than 100 feet deep, were now expected to pay for the water from the well, even though Bechtel had zero investment in providing that water.  The people rose up against this and drove Bechtel out of the country.  The World Bank, set up as arbitrator of the whole deal, is still entertaining a $25 million dollar damages suit by Bechtel Corporation.
http://www.democracyctr.org/waterwar/#12

Other examples include our policy of loaning $ to third world countries to encourage them to produce sugar, and then bankrupting them by subsidizing US sugar production and flooding the world market with cheap sugar, and then calling the loans in.

Or the fruit company policies in S. America and the Philippines where the companies took advantage of the local land owners who didn't understand interest or inflation.  They locked them into slavery on what had been their own land, picking fruit and never having any hope of getting out of debt, and never being able to leave their land until the debt was paid off.

Or our policy in Chile where we arraigned the assassination of a democratically elected leader because he stood for reform and replaced him with a bloody dictator who stood for greed.  The people there have suffered for over 30 years because our actions (not including the time before the US supported coup).

I can go on and on, there are hundreds of such examples of American companies, backed by the American government, pursuing policies of greed without any thought about right and wrong.

Point out some of your "win-win" scenarios that didn't come out of the immediate post WWII era.

The difference between us is that I want the US to be what you think it is.  You want to ignore what it is and pretend it is what you wish it were.  I believe that unless people like you are enlightened about the truth, this country can never be as great as it could and should be.

Wade.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Sep 9, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> Hardly true - we usually do not seek the win-win scenario.  We seek the scenario that maximizes our benefit almost all the time.  If that benefits the other party all the better, but always the US benefits the most, and all to often the other party does not benefit at all.  The US pretends to its people that it behaves as you describe, but in fact it is almost never the case.
> 
> Example:
> 
> ...



But you already admitted we were better.  You already agreed with me.  I'm not saying we're perfect.  But we're closer than all others.  Are you backpedalling?


----------



## wade (Sep 9, 2004)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> But you already admitted we were better.  You already agreed with me.  I'm not saying we're perfect.  But we're closer than all others.  Are you backpedalling?



No I will agree with that.  I never said anything different.  There is a lot to be proud of in this nations history, I admit that.  But, unlike you, I also admit there is a lot to be ashamed of.

Wade.


----------



## wade (Sep 9, 2004)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> You think this isn't work?  Someone has to do it!



LOL - you should come with me and install a geo-thermal tap in November - then you will see what real work is all about!  (I'm hoping to get that assignment, but may be assigned something else).


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Sep 10, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> No I will agree with that.  I never said anything different.  There is a lot to be proud of in this nations history, I admit that.  But, unlike you, I also admit there is a lot to be ashamed of.
> 
> Wade.



There is a political motive behind your pointless self flagellation.  You seek to infuse americans with self doubt, though you allegedly agree we're the greatest nation, even in a moral sense.

Since you're so open and honest, please tell us who you would prefer as president coming up here soon.


----------



## wade (Sep 10, 2004)

If I had my choice I'd choose to have either the house or senate go democrat with Bush as president.

If both the house and senate remain republican, then I'd rather see Kerry as president.

The only thing worse than the house, senate, and presidency being republican is for all three to be in the hands of the democrats.

 

Wade


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 10, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> If I had my choice I'd choose to have either the house or senate go democrat with Bush as president.
> 
> If both the house and senate remain republican, then I'd rather see Kerry as president.
> 
> ...


and the problem with all three in republican hands is?


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Sep 10, 2004)

Yep.  Libs always portray gridlock as the greatest good, because they know it's the best they can hope for.  Sad really.

So are you going to leave that crap answer on the table?  That is so lame.

Considering that you will not know what the future will be in the house and senate, how will you vote.  Please be a straight shooter instead of a mealy mouthed person.


----------



## wade (Sep 10, 2004)

dilloduck said:
			
		

> and the problem with all three in republican hands is?



The republicans are too much in the pockets of the corporations and the very rich.  They do not look out for the average american's interests.  They push through laws, often on the qt, which are very harmful to everyday life for most americans.  As an example consider Bush's "tort reform", which is really just a way to make it possible for corporations and doctors to know in advance the limit of their liabilty so they can make a "business decision" about whether or not to proceed on a course which they know will cost X lives per dollar of profits.  Only by having the costs unknown can we assure that proper value is attributed to american lives.

Another example is Bush's drug benifit for seniors, which benifits the rich and well-to-do but not the middle class or the poor (who cannot afford the $4000 to reach the benefit kick-in point).  Yet another example is Bush's "healthy forests" legislation, which is really about building roads into the wilderness so that in the future these areas can be opened to logging, mining, and oil exploration extremely quickly before the opposition can organize to stop it.  As it is now, it takes a good 7-10 years to exploit such resources because they are unaccessible - but after the roads are in place, it would take only 1-3 years to do so.

The democrats on the other hand tend to spend too much, tough recently the republicans seem to have outdone them in this regaurd, but I will asssume this is due to the war and democrat spending would probably have been high as well.

By having the power split, there must be negotiations, and at least the most important public interests are protected.

Wade.


----------



## wade (Sep 10, 2004)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Yep.  Libs always portray gridlock as the greatest good, because they know it's the best they can hope for.  Sad really.
> 
> So are you going to leave that crap answer on the table?  That is so lame.
> 
> Considering that you will not know what the future will be in the house and senate, how will you vote.  Please be a straight shooter instead of a mealy mouthed person.



I'm seriously considering not voting this election.  I really don't like either candidate.  And besides, very little of this effects me personally anyway.

Wade.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Sep 10, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> I'm seriously considering not voting this election.  I really don't like either candidate.  And besides, very little of this effects me personally anyway.
> 
> Wade.



You have no preference either way?  That's funny because their basic worldviews and characters are very different.  Having no preference makes me think you're just not a thoughful or analytical person.  I had hoped for better from you, wade.  I'm very disappointed in your spinelessness.  You break my heart.  You're no longer my son.  I'm ripping my clothing.  A Diamond has always been a cantor.


----------



## wade (Sep 10, 2004)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> You have no preference either way?  That's funny because their basic worldviews and characters are very different.  Having no preference makes me think you're just not a thoughful or analytical person.  I had hoped for better from you, wade.  I'm very disappointed in your spinelessness.  You break my heart.  You're no longer my son.  I'm ripping my clothing.  A Diamond has always been a cantor.



It is a very hard choice between rich assholes - Bush who is a sniggling little coward who ducked Vietnam and only talks big when others will do the fighting and dying on his behalf and seeks to enrich himself and his clique at any cost, and Kerry who will say or do whatever he thinks people want to hear to further his political ambitions.  Neither one has the basic strength of character to lead this nation.

And since I'm financially secure no matter which one wins the election, and no matter which is elected I see major negative consequences, and I expect to be in the boonies at the time of the election anyway, I may just not bother to vote (I'll have to get an absentee ballot if I do decide to vote).

I don't want to see Bush win - but I don't want to see Kerry win either.  And Nader?  LOL he's a total joke.

Wade.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Sep 10, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> It is a very hard choice between rich assholes - Bush who is a sniggling little coward who ducked Vietnam and only talks big when others will do the fighting and dying on his behalf and seeks to enrich himself and his clique at any cost, and Kerry who will say or do whatever he thinks people want to hear to further his political ambitions.  Neither one has the basic strength of character to lead this nation.
> 
> And since I'm financially secure no matter which one wins the election, and no matter which is elected I see major negative consequences, and I expect to be in the boonies at the time of the election anyway, I may just not bother to vote (I'll have to get an absentee ballot if I do decide to vote).
> 
> ...



Well I guess if you have yours, why should you care?  Good point.    Your warmth and compassion is very  touching.


----------



## wade (Sep 11, 2004)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Well I guess if you have yours, why should you care?  Good point.    Your warmth and compassion is very  touching.



It's not a matter of whether I care or not, it's a matter of not knowing which is truly the lesser of the two evils we have to pick from.  Given that I'm unlikely to be effected whichever is elected, it is hard to give a vote to someone who may turn out to have a very big effect on someone elses life.

Wade.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Sep 11, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> It's not a matter of whether I care or not, it's a matter of not knowing which is truly the lesser of the two evils we have to pick from.  Given that I'm unlikely to be effected whichever is elected, it is hard to give a vote to someone who may turn out to have a very big effect on someone elses life.
> 
> Wade.



So which do you think is the lesser of two evils for the nation as a whole ?  Sorry I'm not familiar with your idiosyncratic form of idiotspeak.  Why don't you just be a person.  We know you're not afraid to share your opinions.  You just don't want to admit you support Kerry.


----------



## wade (Sep 11, 2004)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> So which do you think is the lesser of two evils for the nation as a whole ?  Sorry I'm not familiar with your idiosyncratic form of idiotspeak.  Why don't you just be a person.  We know you're not afraid to share your opinions.  You just don't want to admit you support Kerry.



I think that unless regulated by a democrat congress or senate, Bush is the greater threat to the US in most respects - the environment, economy, health care, etc...

With Kerry, well the problem I have with him is I still don't really know where he stands on the economy.  I think if he gets elected he will surpise everyone by being very quick to conduct "revenge" attacks after we are attacked.  I don't think he will be so likely to invade other countries as Bush, but I think he is more likely to use force in the short term.

If I must vote, I would probably vote for Kerry.  I might do so anyway, but I'm leaning toward simply not voting for either as I don't like either one.  Don't I have the right to vote for neither RWA?

Wade.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Sep 11, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> I think that unless regulated by a democrat congress or senate, Bush is the greater threat to the US in most respects - the environment, economy, health care, etc...
> 
> With Kerry, well the problem I have with him is I still don't really know where he stands on the economy.  I think if he gets elected he will surpise everyone by being very quick to conduct "revenge" attacks after we are attacked.  I don't think he will be so likely to invade other countries as Bush, but I think he is more likely to use force in the short term.
> 
> ...



You can do what you want.  But in reality, it will be one of the two. 

Bush's policies are stellar,  by the way.  
Tax cuts work to grow the economy, it's proven.

He will institute tax free saving accounts for health care.  Socialized medicine will ruin our nation.


----------



## wade (Sep 11, 2004)

Bush's policies will certainly make the richest Americans richer.

Tax cuts do grow the economy, but I think you will find the paradimes have shifted somewhat, and they won't grow our economy as much as expected.  Especially if they are targeted towards the richest few percent of tax payers, who more easily spend/invest their $ abroad than the rest of the population.

I agree pure socialized medicine would not be a good thing.  What I'd like to see would be full socialized medicine for children, and some level of limited socialized medicine for everyone.  Besides, we already have socialized medicine for what is by far the biggest part of our health care costs - the elderly.  Its just been done in such a way that costs are out of control.

Wade.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Sep 11, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> Bush's policies will certainly make the richest Americans richer.
> 
> Tax cuts do grow the economy, but I think you will find the paradimes have shifted somewhat, and they won't grow our economy as much as expected.  Especially if they are targeted towards the richest few percent of tax payers, who more easily spend/invest their $ abroad than the rest of the population.
> 
> ...



They invest more in their businesses which means more jobs for those of us who are just looking for a job from someone else and are too fearful to come up with a complete plan for adding value to the lives of others.

Tort reform!


----------



## wade (Sep 11, 2004)

But will they invest it in their business in the USA or in Mexico?

Tort reform = encouraging companies to put profits above life.

Wade.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Sep 11, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> But will they invest it in their business in the USA or in Mexico?
> 
> Tort reform = encouraging companies to put profits above life.
> 
> Wade.



If americans develop superior skillsets and get over their entitled attitude, maybe.

Tort reform=stopping trial lawyers from using the legal system and envy to bilk unwarranted billions in punitive damages from  corporations.  All this internalized/externalized cost talk is just accountant speak for socialism.


----------



## wade (Sep 11, 2004)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> If americans develop superior skillsets and get over their entitled attitude, maybe.



Superior skillsets?  Come on, our educational advantage is gone.  We have foolishly allowed our technical innovations to be exported for 40+ years at the core level.  The USA is now primarily a service economy, and even this kind of work is increasingly being exported.



			
				rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Tort reform=stopping trial lawyers from using the legal system and envy to bilk unwarranted billions in punitive damages from  corporations.  All this internalized/externalized cost talk is just accountant speak for socialism.



By limiting judgements companies can very easily calculate the risk potential of decisions which endanger the public.  If an action will kill some number of people a year, the cost/risk analysis will know for certain if the action is or is not profitable.  Only by having the costs unknown can the public be protected from corporate greed.  And corporations are duty bound to their stock holders to be greedy - all corporations are by definition psychpathic in their discision making process.

Tort reform is fundimentally socialist.  In socialism you cannot sue the state owned companies or socialized medical institutions and doctors.  Why do you oppose a fundimental principal of capitalism RWA?  Have you fallen for the corporate bull shit?

Wade.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Sep 11, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> Superior skillsets?  Come on, our educational advantage is gone.  We have foolishly allowed our technical innovations to be exported for 40+ years at the core level.  The USA is now primarily a service economy, and even this kind of work is increasingly being exported.


Too bad.  Economic isolationism and protectionism is not the answer.  We will only further backslide.  Do you think the third world should just be left out of the modern world?  Screw the chines and indians?  That doesn't seem very enlightened.  Running from competition is always merely a temporary solution.


> By limiting judgements companies can very easily calculate the risk potential of decisions which endanger the public.  If an action will kill some number of people a year, the cost/risk analysis will know for certain if the action is or is not profitable.  Only by having the costs unknown can the public be protected from corporate greed.  And corporations are duty bound to their stock holders to be greedy - all corporations are by definition psychpathic in their discision making process.


Risks should be calculable.   Trial lawyers make everything too expensive and the unlimited risk potential just keeps society from progressing and new and inventive products and services from coming to market.  Plus the little guy is completely squeezed out of the market from an inability to afford amazingly high insurance.


> Tort reform is fundimentally socialist.  In socialism you cannot sue the state owned companies or socialized medical institutions and doctors.  Why do you oppose a fundimental principal of capitalism RWA?  Have you fallen for the corporate bull shit?
> 
> Wade.



It's not socialist.  It's fair.  Settlements should be limited to proveable damages.  And the purely punitive stuff, should be totally gone.  you've bought the "lawyers are the protecters of society" b.s.  

There ya go.   Have fun.  You're wrong.


----------

