John Kerry, why him? Share with me

Is There a Balance?

08-14-04

Originally Posted by Krackalackin

So this means you'll shutup now?

*joy*

__________________

Δύο άτομα. Μια μάχη. Κανένας συμβιβασμός.

Yoda

Administrator

08-14-04

Originally Posted by Krackalackin

That's a pretty untruthful, unpatriotic thing to say. This is not an advancement in technology over the other like you said using the lightbulbs verses the candle example. That doesn't apply here and just to let you in on a little something Yoda, my dear friend, the stats are showing that new cars put out now are quality-wise pretty much the same.

I'm going to have to call your bluff: what "stats" are you speaking of, and how do they measure automobile quality? And what does it matter, anyway: shouldn't people be allowed to buy whatever they want? It's their money, after all.

Originally Posted by Krackalackin

And if the Japs have such an edge over your own country, how come they don't let us sell our cars in their country, huh? And how come the two top-selling cars worldwide are American. It's anti-Amercan to buy Japanese cars in this country and is an insult the hard-working people in this economy struggling to keep people from buying those cracker-boxes.

Maybe they don't let us sell our cars over there because some Japanese men have the same beliefs that you do. After all, if you had your way, the opposite would be true. But the fact of the matter is that Japanese cars sell well, and they sell well because they're worth buying. I've been in both American and Japenese cars. Both can be quite nice, but in general, Japan makes more affordable, longer-lasting cars, in my peronal experience. If they were pieces of crap, they wouldn't be selling many, and we wouldn't be talking about them right now.

Originally Posted by Krackalackin

And not to mention that we are the ones who come out with all the innovations. Not the japs. It is the Japs who copycat our style and advertise their cars in the american fashion. They even go as far as to cover up that their cars are of a Japanese origin. Don't underestimate what America can do. Have pride in your country and have faith in it. I will never buy a Japanese car and Sony can kiss my ass. All their stuff's foundation is American. So how dare you talk about technological progression.

Of course they try to make them in the American style; they're selling many of them to Americans! If I were selling a product overseas, I'd try to design and promote it in such a way as to appeal to that culture, as well. That's not sneaky or wrong; it's just good business sense.

Frankly, it doesn't really matter who invents the car, and who imitates whose style; do you pick your soft drink based on which came out first, or which tastes better to you?

You talk about underestimating America, but on the contrary, it is you who's doing that: why else would you be so ambivalent towards the idea of global competition? The only country that should fear free trade is the country which cannot compete with the rest of the world. So if I'm the one who lacks confidence in American ingenuity, then why are you the one who doesn't want a global marketplace?

Krackalackin

Registered User

08-15-04

Originally Posted by Yoda

The top selling car in the world belive it or not, is the Ford Focus. Don't ask me why it is, I see nothing special about, nor do I like Ford but it is. The second is the Ford Pickup. I think the reason why this is and both are made by the same company is because as you know, Ford has a massive collection of factories all over the world. I don't really think that's right but in the poorer countries, where can they can't even think to compete with the American big three, it provides jobs and raises their economy substantially, not to mention Ford was known for their low, affordable prices many years (not to the same extant anymore obviously). If you want me to dig up the stats, I'd be happy to.

Originally Posted by Yoda

Maybe they don't let us sell our cars over there because some Japanese men have the same beliefs that you do. After all, if you had your way, the opposite would be true. But the fact of the matter is that Japanese cars sell well, and they sell well because they're worth buying. I've been in both American and Japenese cars. Both can be quite nice, but in general, Japan makes more affordable, longer-lasting cars, in my personal experience. If they were pieces of crap, they wouldn't be selling many, and we wouldn't be talking about them right now.

I don't have a problem with the Japanese selling their cars here. I didn't say everyone should buy american cars if they liked a Japanese one more than the rest. Personal preference undoubtebly is very important when you're buying a car. However, the real reason why I think the Japs don't allow us to sell our cars there is not because they believe their cars are better. If that were true, you could safely say their shoving thier cars down the people's throats like we were doing severely in the 60's and 70's. I think they are really just looking for economic domination of the world, somewhat because of what we did to them during the Second World war. I think they figured (because Japs still hate us ofcourse and think they're better than us, especially now since they have a modern government) well, we can't get back at them militarily so we'll be the next best thing or in many ways better, we'll drive them out economically. After all, it was the United States that poured money into their country in the early 20th century to industrialize them. Remember? The great white fleet expedition? And since I believe the major corporations are anti-American in their economic thinking (except for what sells and what they can copy to their economic advantage) I think they don't want to expose Japan to our competing american products, ultimately the American culture itself as shown through their commercial policies.

Me believing this, that they are mean-spirited toward's us competitively, is the foundation for my reasoning that they should not be able to build their cars here. It is competitively a privilige they don't diplomatically deserve IMO. So it is not fitting to call it free trade IMO because the Japanese have an economical advantage regardless of the quality the cars they sell are which are very good.

For other reasons I don't like this on the financial side is since Japanese competition with the Big three is practically now a corporate war, it decreases the American profits domestically, leading to our own companies having to unfairly (given my view before) be contempt with decreasing profits, forcing them to cut back on many things they would probably use strategically to develop better cars which they are deperately trying to do now more than ever. This goes back further and I'm going to explain my take on the whole thing so you guys can see that I'm not totally biased against the japanese economy.

You already probably know all this but I want you to understand the rationale I believe that forms my opinion...

After the Second World War, when the American Economy was booming, The Big three were the unquestionable rulers of the automotive industry profit wise. Hands down, no debate. Salaries were rising, inflation was down and the American culture continued to develop and blossom. The American cars became a symbol of the American way of life that was the envy of the world. The styles they came out with were more than extraordinary and superior to any European car or anywhere else. Performance wise in muscle, they were either the ruler of their class or one of the rotating champions. However, the American car at the time was never built to last. Fords for example were purposely designed to rust up in 3-5 years so the company could take advantage of the booming economy by forcing them to buy a new one. This was not a terrible drawback however, because the cars were still gorgeous so it didn't bother enough people for any sort of automotive movement. This continued for years and The Big Three became more arrogant coincidentally and were pretty much dictating to the public what they were going to buy. A big belief in many of the companies was the American people above everything wanted a bigger bigger car (seemingly making them worth the money) however actually cheaper to make, curtailing the cars style and performance (not to mention the emmisions). The big economic change came in when the Gas Crisis hit and the Japanese decided to full-heartedly infiltrate the American Market with cheap cars that were much closer to what people wanted at the time and what people needed. They weren't great cars by today's standards but they got great gas mileage and they were built well. They were ugly and cramped but people didn't care and I agree with that too.

Eventually, The American car companies changed their marketing tactics but never beat the Japanese cars on their own ground, their own expertise. Over time though, the American cars began to improve, figuring out how to still get horsepower out of an emission infested car, and began to imrpove the cars quality. The Gas crisis ended and people were beginning to look back at American cars as the comfortable, bigger cars once again, but not to a huge degree which can only be accomplished competitively. Then the real-tide turned when President...I can't remember (probally thinking it was a diplomatic gesture0 decided to let the Japanese build their cars here. I personally believe it was to water-down the sourness between us after WW2. What a mistake that was. It didn't change anything diplomatically. WE still can't sell our cars in their little country and their building them right here in a market where you should have to fight to get into instead of somebody just handing you a free pass. So you see, it's not free trade Globally IMO. The Japanese want nothing to do with us IMO except our money. There's also other things we could argue about lile how the Japanese build their cars here when we build them in Canada and Mexico. Sure, that's not right but atleast most of the profit stays here (even though I'm against that) This is ultimately my belief and what I stand by when it comes the automotive industry. I'm sure there are some things I've mentioned you'd like me to clarify. Keep it short please.

Originally Posted by Yoda

I seriously doubt we would change our styling if we could sell them in Japan. We would probably offer our smaller cars more vigorously but all the Asian countries see the same cars. It's cheaper anyway.

Originally Posted by Yoda

Frankly, it doesn't really matter who invents the car, and who imitates whose style; do you pick your soft drink based on which came out first, or which tastes better to you?

You have a good point but for every Japanese car, there's an American car in it's class I'd much rather prefer (even though we're imitating more than ever European styling. [Give me a break. Socialist styling now? ])

Originally Posted by Yoda

You talk about underestimating America, but on the contrary, it is you who's doing that: why else would you be so ambivalent towards the idea of global competition? The only country that should fear free trade is the country which cannot compete with the rest of the world. So if I'm the one who lacks confidence in American ingenuity, then why are you the one who doesn't want a global marketplace?

I never said I didn't want a Global market place and my answer to this is above.

This is my own stance on cars like I mentioned before. We can still debate a little bit but don't expect me to lend a hand to the Japanese Economy. example: All Tv's I own, All Zenith and Philips.

Good talk Yoda. You're a good guy and it's a pleasure discussing issues with you. AS for Equilibrium,

Good talk.

Equilibrium

Is There a Balance?

08-15-04

Originally Posted by Krackalackin

Since Yoda is always civil and has an inquisitive mind as myself, I'll be fair to clear up what I already said because of no fault of your own, some of the points you base your argument are not reflective of mine.

The top selling car in the world belive it or not, is the Ford Focus. Don't ask me why it is, I see nothing special about, nor do I like Ford but it is. The second is the Ford Pickup. I think the reason why this is and both are made by the same company is because as you know, Ford has a massive collection of factories all over the world. I don't really think that's right but in the poorer countries, where can they can't even think to compete with the American big three, it provides jobs and raises their economy substantially, not to mention Ford was known for their low, affordable prices many years (not to the same extant anymore obviously). If you want me to dig up the stats, I'd be happy to.

I don't have a problem with the Japanese selling their cars here. I didn't say everyone should buy american cars if they liked a Japanese one more than the rest. Personal preference undoubtebly is very important when you're buying a car. However, the real reason why I think the Japs don't allow us to sell our cars there is not because they believe their cars are better. If that were true, you could safely say their shoving thier cars down the people's throats like we were doing severely in the 60's and 70's. I think they are really just looking for economic domination of the world, somewhat because of what we did to them during the Second World war. I think they figured (because Japs still hate us ofcourse and think they're better than us, especially now since they have a modern government) well, we can't get back at them militarily so we'll be the next best thing or in many ways better, we'll drive them out economically. After all, it was the United States that poured money into their country in the early 20th century to industrialize them. Remember? The great white fleet expedition? And since I believe the major corporations are anti-American in their economic thinking (except for what sells and what they can copy to their economic advantage) I think they don't want to expose Japan to our competing american products, ultimately the American culture itself as shown through their commercial policies.

Me believing this, that they are mean-spirited toward's us competitively, is the foundation for my reasoning that they should not be able to build their cars here. It is competitively a privilige they don't diplomatically deserve IMO. So it is not fitting to call it free trade IMO because the Japanese have an economical advantage regardless of the quality the cars they sell are which are very good.

For other reasons I don't like this on the financial side is since Japanese competition with the Big three is practically now a corporate war, it decreases the American profits domestically, leading to our own companies having to unfairly (given my view before) be contempt with decreasing profits, forcing them to cut back on many things they would probably use strategically to develop better cars which they are deperately trying to do now more than ever. This goes back further and I'm going to explain my take on the whole thing so you guys can see that I'm not totally biased against the japanese economy.

You already probably know all this but I want you to understand the rationale I believe that forms my opinion...

After the Second World War, when the American Economy was booming, The Big three were the unquestionable rulers of the automotive industry profit wise. Hands down, no debate. Salaries were rising, inflation was down and the American culture continued to develop and blossom. The American cars became a symbol of the American way of life that was the envy of the world. The styles they came out with were more than extraordinary and superior to any European car or anywhere else. Performance wise in muscle, they were either the ruler of their class or one of the rotating champions. However, the American car at the time was never built to last. Fords for example were purposely designed to rust up in 3-5 years so the company could take advantage of the booming economy by forcing them to buy a new one. This was not a terrible drawback however, because the cars were still gorgeous so it didn't bother enough people for any sort of automotive movement. This continued for years and The Big Three became more arrogant coincidentally and were pretty much dictating to the public what they were going to buy. A big belief in many of the companies was the American people above everything wanted a bigger bigger car (seemingly making them worth the money) however actually cheaper to make, curtailing the cars style and performance (not to mention the emmisions). The big economic change came in when the Gas Crisis hit and the Japanese decided to full-heartedly infiltrate the American Market with cheap cars that were much closer to what people wanted at the time and what people needed. They weren't great cars by today's standards but they got great gas mileage and they were built well. They were ugly and cramped but people didn't care and I agree with that too.

Eventually, The American car companies changed their marketing tactics but never beat the Japanese cars on their own ground, their own expertise. Over time though, the American cars began to improve, figuring out how to still get horsepower out of an emission infested car, and began to imrpove the cars quality. The Gas crisis ended and people were beginning to look back at American cars as the comfortable, bigger cars once again, but not to a huge degree which can only be accomplished competitively. Then the real-tide turned when President...I can't remember (probally thinking it was a diplomatic gesture0 decided to let the Japanese build their cars here. I personally believe it was to water-down the sourness between us after WW2. What a mistake that was. It didn't change anything diplomatically. WE still can't sell our cars in their little country and their building them right here in a market where you should have to fight to get into instead of somebody just handing you a free pass. So you see, it's not free trade Globally IMO. The Japanese want nothing to do with us IMO except our money. There's also other things we could argue about lile how the Japanese build their cars here when we build them in Canada and Mexico. Sure, that's not right but atleast most of the profit stays here (even though I'm against that) This is ultimately my belief and what I stand by when it comes the automotive industry. I'm sure there are some things I've mentioned you'd like me to clarify. Keep it short please.

I seriously doubt we would change our styling if we could sell them in Japan. We would probably offer our smaller cars more vigorously but all the Asian countries see the same cars. It's cheaper anyway.

You have a good point but for every Japanese car, there's an American car in it's class I'd much rather prefer (even though we're imitating more than ever European styling. [Give me a break. Socialist styling now? ])

I never said I didn't want a Global market place and my answer to this is above.

This is my own stance on cars like I mentioned before. We can still debate a little bit but don't expect me to lend a hand to the Japanese Economy. example: All Tv's I own, All Zenith and Philips.

Good talk Yoda. You're a good guy and it's a pleasure discussing issues with you. AS for Equilibrium,

Good talk.

You obviously have some sort of issue with Japanese people, or foreigners. Some of the stuff I can quote from every post you make can make you sound very racist. Sometimes, I wonder if your just here to joke with us and see what people say, because honestly, I don't take you seriously at all. As far as I'm concerned, I'm done with this thread.

Urban Cowboy

Bad Morther****er

08-17-04

Krack how can you say the Japanese are taking American jobs, when American jobs are being created by Japanese companies? Second, the fact that there is a trade disparity is no reason to attack free trade, rather an argument to enhance it by the lifting of trade barriers. Free trade, an outsorcing work both ways. It don't make sence to say Americans can outsource to other countries, but other counties can't outsource to the US. Last, I get the feeling that the reason you don't like Japanese companies outsourcing to the US, has more to do with the fact that it happened under Clinton's administration than anything else IMO.

__________________
Justice will be served/ And the battle will rage/ This big dog will fight/ When you rattle his cage/ And you�ll be sorry that you messed with the U.S. of A./ Cause we`ll put a boot in your ass/ It`s the American way.
Courtesy Of The Red, White & Blue - Toby Keith

Krackalackin

Registered User

08-18-04

Originally Posted by Equilibrium

Racist? You call yourself educated? If one country, filled mainly with the same race supports something you disagree with, does that mean you hate them because of their race? I'm like all people. I judge people on the individual, to figure my own stance on that person as a what to me. The country itself, regardless of their race, I am very disdainful and why should'nt I be? The Japanese don't just hate us, they think their superior to pretty much everybody. But you think that's gonna stop most people from buying their cars? Hell no. People really don't care, as I've seen. Most people don't look at the big picture and would rather care about how their hair looks or how big their next pay-check is. And don't get me started on the Japanese's patent practices (or malpractices for that matter) and their view on Economic competition. A lot of reasons (and I'm not going into a new thesis here) things have occured the way I disprove of is also the handling of the issues with our government. No, I'm not a racist. If you live in this country (given their still not loyal to their Emperor like that scare in WW2) and are a citizen, pay your taxes, support the economy, you're an American to me.

Krackalackin

Registered User

08-18-04

Originally Posted by Urban Cowboy

Do you really think the Japanese are creating more jobs then their exterminating? Did you know that 1 third of all the cars bought in the United States are Foreign?

Second, do you consider the Japanese building their cars here while we can't even sell ours in their country free trade? I call it an economical strangling. And there's nothing wrong with free trade. Everyone knows that. If it were'nt for free trade, we wouldn't be able to buy tunafish for God's sake. Free trade is very important.

Originally Posted by Urban Cowboy

It don't make sence to say Americans can outsource to other countries, but other counties can't outsource to the US.

I don't think you understand what happened here. The reason why most people don't outsource to the United States is because it's -at the very least- too competitive a market (unless they have something no one else
does.) The American Market is notoriously hard to effectively penetrate because at one time, America was the pioneer of almost everything (besides resources and other stuff). And this wasn't because we ran everybody out of the market, it's because we had the freedom and the smart people to be pioneers in almost everything. Consequently, we have the highest standard of living and ultimately sought-after money. Outsourcing is usally not something done as we know to penetrate a market. It's typically done for cheaper manufacturing as everyone knows. This is obviously going into a bigger picture here so I'm going to broaden my argument to ecompass all high end Japanese equipment (Not tunafish). As I've stated before, most all of the industries the Japanese dominate today were not only started by the United States but was also patented by individuals living in the United States. I don't know why this is so but our government has not interfered with the Japanese breaking patenting laws which was necessary to do to build any of their early equipment. You see, in my view and in many others, the Japanese see business as war. If they could violate patent laws (several of them for one product many times) to build something they have no right to, they will. And when the Japanese decided to take on The American Market (which was flourishing at the time, with companies all over the place, manufacturing goods like TV's and radios) they decided to build their products and sell them so cheap that they put the American companies out of business. They didn't make profit, and thoudsands of Americans lost their jobs but what did they care? It wasn't that they could sell their products cheaper for some reason. They did it personally to kill off all our companies. They did that and then they owned the market, on stuff we originally invented and patented, (which they stole). Now, what do you think of that gentlemen? Is that not enough reason to not buy their products? It is for me. And after we gave them the means from scratch to be a modern country...

And it gets worse. Since they own the market more or less, now, no country can infiltrate it or has infiltrated it remarkebly. Their companies now have all the money (Probably more than half of it from us) to build and design new products and charge whatever they like because of a technology they stole.
And I don't buy that nonsense that the United States can't build a superior product. Maybe people think that because the Japanese have a stranglehold on the American Economy. And moreover, no American company can successfully compete or depend on the loyalty of their country atleast, which we haven't given.

And last but least, it has nothing to do with Clinton personally. Do you really think Clinton's administration hurt the country more than the Japanese have? True, I do think Clinton is the worst President ever and he did hurt the integrity of the country and the office, but that's not because he did it that I disagree with it. One of the reasons why I do hate him is that I do disagree with almost every major thing he did. Once again, I'm a Republican but I have nothing wrong with a Democrat that supports something I feel is good for the Country. I'm not interested in the politicians. I'm interested in what I feel is good for the Country, that's why I'm in the Republican party because I think their the most sensible. I don't just back the Republican party because I want them in power and I'm a member. I support them because I believe in many of their issues, which IMO are sensible, and factual, and moreover, keep this country as the land of oppurtunity and not the land of free hand-outs.

So concluding this argument, (and I don't give a damn what self-centered, unpatriotic, liberal opinion you give me) understanding this, the bigger picture, in this/my perspective on events, it's hard and unrealistic to not be disdainful of the Japs that wouldn't like anything more than to put the American Economic power out of business and dominate the world economy.

Godsend

I wipe my ass with your feelings

08-19-04

I'm sure the time it takes you to write those...pargaphs, you could take the time to get the right answer. Here, I'll help ya: www.google.com

I try my hardest to read your post...but then the faintest smell of crap comes blowing through my nose. Do you really think that other countries haven't helped us...holy. You'd be surprised how many families actually move to different countries and live there to...live. They get a good job and they get to interact. Fantastic. And what the hell are yot hinking about?

You call yourself a patriot? You give America a bad name. Do you think we're really that damn powerful, especially when we can't control the murders and other crap, along with political crap, inside of this country?

Sure, you could say we should put that to the side, but we can't. Then to go on and bash other countries because they're...in business. Wow, I smell "jealousy" coming from the soles of your shoes. Can you back that statement up?

Okay krak, I have a mission for you. Don't get your panties in a bunch, it's pretty easy:

Take every article of clotching, every product, anything in its entireity that was made/produced/thought of in foriegn countries such as Japan and China, and just chuck that sombitch out the window...cause you don't need it at all.

Clinton didn't **** up America. Are you insane, there was a huge job droppage in other Bush's term, and it went bouncing down when Clinton came into term. To say that we took money from our army is sort of quite acceptable; especially when it took place in base closings, which HELPED us contain more money for other uses. Do you know how much money was getting poured down the drain because of those bases?

Us, pioneers at everything? haha, my god. After the World Wars, we held a stint of power for a little over some decades, and we slowly started to disregard most of the other countries admist, while we took our power driven selves to the "top", only to be targeted by others cause of our greed.

Krackalackin

Registered User

08-19-04

Originally Posted by Godsend

Pardon my french but you're a retard. You sir obviously haven't listened to a damn thing I've said and I don't care. You talk like you are the representative of the correct opinion and I'm some radical hack. We could debate about this back and forth because I see SOOOO much stuff I could debate you on which made little sense but to be honest, I really don't want to go into it. There are people who agree with me and there are the rest that don't and there's no way to change that or their opinion. So it's pointless to debate because you'll never agree with me if my evidence was irrefutable because everyone bases their decisions partly or majorly on feelings. You feel the way you do because you do and nothing's gonan change it so keep buying Japanese products. It's hard not to to anyway. I really don't give a damn.

Last edited by Krackalackin; 08-19-04 at 04:20 PM.

Piddzilla

I am having a nervous breakdance

08-19-04

Can't we all just get along and have some freedom fries?

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

Krackalackin

Registered User

08-21-04

I'm moving on because we're getting off topic here.

I think that's enough about the Japs and all that other stuff. Back to John Kerry, Kerry never graduated Yale because he went to Vietnam. He had his own personal camera crew there and stayed for four months on a swift boat (small gun-ship). While he was there, he was decorated with four medals, then went back to The United States to Protest the war. When I first learned that, it didn't make me cry foul or anything but it was a real surprise to say the least. This didn't bother me too much until I heard afterward how exactly he was involved in the protests. John Kerry personally led a Committee who's purpose was to set up a case to the Federal Government on why we had to end the war. During his plea, he lied about events and slandered the United States Army. He said he was personally involved in killing and rapings that the army made him do under orders. He talked about burning villages, cutting off heads, blowing up bodies, killing and raping children, pretty much everything you could think of the most distasteful. It was all a lie. It never happened. There was once incident in Myan that was somewhat in the same ballpark but Kerry was on a God-damn swift-boat. I personally now hold him partially responsible for why the American people were so uncaring and sometimes abhorrant of our Veterans after they returned. He slapped his fellow comrades in the face and not by backstabbing, worse, by sheer lies. And this person is running for President? I wish they had one of these cute smiley face guys over here that could repeatedly gag. This man is totally anti-military and pro-socialist. After all, he did spend many years in Europe after the war was over. Eventually, he settled in the senate, voting against every militarily beneficial bill and defense proposal for the last twenty years. Looking back at some of the things he voted for, I can't say I don't understand any choices he made but most are just liberal madness. It's amazing how many people assume he's a good candidate because he's running against Bush which they probably know not much about anyway. I can't believe people call Kerry a Leader when he's against using any kind of military force, no matter what the motive or intention and worst of all, changes issues manicly to hopefully pull in the most votes. A leader doesn't change his oppinions. That's why people follow leaders. They are able to make choices and stick with them. The leaders, in which their choices turn out the most effective are branded as the best but its hard to tell these days because there's so much chatter and controversy in the media. I personally can't believe people are already forgetting about that one day.........You know the one. It was the day when a certain two objects destroyed two other objects and a third gave the pentagon a new face lift as well. I haven't forgotten, and I'll be damned if I let some weasel like Kerry run this country. He doesn't deserve it and he hasn't earned it. He's a lying, paper-thin sleazeball politician. No President, that's without a doubt. I can't wait 'till they debate but unfortunately it might be too late by then. People might've already figured him out. They're definitely starting to come around. The polls show it. Judging by this evidence which is all absolutely true, no matter what you think of Bush, you're an absolute fool to vote for Kerry. People who aren't leaders make bad choices and there's no telling what JFK would do.

Anyone up for some ketchup?

Golgot

there's a frog in my snake oil

08-21-04

Originally Posted by Krackalackin

Anyone up for some ketchup?

Oh dear, only Republican ketchup is acceptable on the freedom fries it seems

---

Kerry's intent was to criticise the management of the Vietnam war, not the soldiers (although the 'Swift Boat'-ad style objections to his accounts seem to be prompted by the belief that he was primarily belittling the soldiers)

Under your rational for dealing with the aftermath of 9/11 we should never ask questions of flawed policies or reveal their failings. Very Bush*te of you.

And what has he lied about incidently?

This article does a good job of breaking down the uncertainties surrounding his time in Vietnam:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Aug21.html

What seems to be clear is that the main accusations that he deliberately over-stated his actions are unfounded. His accidental butt-wounding wasn't used to conflate his injuries in action, as is claimed. There's no evidence that Kerry influenced the wording on Thurlow's Bronze Star citation which sites heavy enemy fire, as is claimed.

Basically, it seems clear that the likes of Kerry and Rassman did believe there was enemy arms fire. In any case, their boat was attacked by some kind of heavy explosive, that much is clear, but they don't seem to have deliberately over-stated the nature of the enemy fire. They were afraid, and we'll never really know for sure, but they clearly believe there was also arms fire coming in from the banks.

At least they were there, trying to make the best of a flawed policy. If Kerry is going to be forced to justify his every move during the foul process that is war, let's hear Bush's justifications for skipping out on it in the first place.

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here

Last edited by Golgot; 08-21-04 at 05:07 PM.

Yoda

Administrator

08-23-04

I don't believe the attack on Kerry is fair; I believe asking questions about his medals can be, but from what I've seen beyond the headlines, it sounds like the attack is probably not a justifiable one.

However, one injustice does not justify another, which we have in the Kerry campaign's repeated attempts to link Bush to these ads. In reality, no official ties have been discovered or exposed, and the Bush/Cheney camp has even gone as far as to DISMISS a VOLUNTEER who participated in the ads. Attempts have been made to "link" them via political donation habits. It's all very Fahrenheit 9/11; somebody gave money to one group and is the client of someone who gave money to the other, therefore the two groups are in cahoots. Clearly nonsense, to anyone with any understanding of how highly connected most businesses (and businesspeople) are.

Kerry has benefitted from this kind of indirect, third-party support far, far more than Bush has. I find his sudden distaste for these things, then, to be borderline hypocritical.

Golgot

there's a frog in my snake oil

08-23-04

Originally Posted by Yoda

Kerry has benefitted from this kind of indirect, third-party support far, far more than Bush has.

Heheheh. Probably why Bush is now suggesting all independantly-funded groups should be prohibited

. Because they're working against him on the whole.

Originally Posted by Yoda

I find his sudden distaste for these things, then, to be borderline hypocritical.

Here's the big issue for me. Content. I don't see Kerry's distaste for this particular ad as hypocritical, seeing as he feels (as you and i do it seems) that it's on such poor factual ground. Such poor factual ground that he's prepared to sue the makers, as i understand it.

So...what claims have been made by independent Democrat groups that the Bush admin has been able to sue? None it seems. Guess that means the Swift Boat ads are a particularly low and deceptive example of the trend, and that the Dem groups have been reasonably accurate with their assertions

Originally Posted by Yoda

However, one injustice does not justify another, which we have in the Kerry campaign's repeated attempts to link Bush to these ads.

It'll be interesting to see if they can back this up. I agree that most of the speculative connections cited so far by the press are not proof of connection to the Whitehouse, or particularly valid. There is one connection however that suggests dodginess to me, depending on its accuracy...

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/inter...288247,00.html

Bob Perry, one of the initial donors, is apparently a close friend of Karl Rove. Although far from conclusive, that for me is enough to cause concern. Anyone who knows anything about Karl Rove should smell a rat immediately

.

But that's just coz Karl Rove is well known for his dirty tricks.

Yoda

Administrator

08-24-04

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure Bush has been opposed to 527 organizations for quite some time now. And, to his credit, he remains opposed to them even now that one of them appears to be giving him a boost.

As for lawsuits: lots of factual errors go unsued, and frivelous lawsuits are not particularly rare. The mere presence of a suit doesn't really tell us anything. We both gripe about how Bush doesn't engage issues as often as we'd like; well, on the flip side, he doesn't pay much attention to smear groups, either. The fact that he hasn't sued them could indicate nothing more than apathy. It'd certainly be consistent with his attitude towards such things so far.

Anyway, I don't find that "connection" to be very convincing, either. It's to be expected that the same people who donate to groups like these are going to be either donors to, or know someone high up within, the Republican party, or the Bush administration. Anyone with money who feels strongly about these issues would surely have already gotten involved in such matters, and therefore will inevitably have various ties to the establishment. Hell, the Democratic National Committee, I believe, has made no secret of the fact that they're somewhat partnered with MoveOn.org.

Yoda

Administrator

08-24-04

By the way, for those who haven't already seen it, the GOP has released a rather clever "documentary" on Kerry's mutating position on Iraq. It's almost entirely made up of video footage of Kerry on various talk shows. I know many dubious claims are referred to by their makers as "irrefutable," to make them sound more convincing, but this comes pretty close to earning that label:

http://www.kerryoniraq.com

The video could've been better, however; I saw a chance at weaving a narrative of sorts through some of the comments. Still, it's a pretty damning indictment on this particular issue. I'd encourage those planning to vote for Kerry to visit it, come back, and tell everyone what you think.

Piddzilla

I am having a nervous breakdance

08-25-04

Originally Posted by Urban Cowboy

While I can say that I'm not totally on board with all of Bush's economic policy, I think he has this one right. With outsourcing all parties involved are helped out. It is an issue of competitive advantage. I think the mistake many people make is to state american jobs are lost, and forigen workers are underpaid. In many cases, workers, while making less than their american couterparts, make more than fair wages in their own countries. This grows their national economy's and eventually grows the standard of living. Onm the home front, we benefit in many ways. First, the cost of goods and services decreases. People like to complain about losing jobs, until they can't afford a plane ticket, or a new computer. Second, we are able to "specialize" and produce goods and services that we have an advantage at. I'm not sure if you know it but Japan is outsourcing to the US right now. As to the point of 3rd world countries not being able to establish themselves, I simply point to the "Asian Tigers" of the 80's now have some of the fastest growing economies in the world. In the long-run outsourcing really does help everyone.

Good post and you are indeed mentioning some positive sides of outsourcing. Didn't say it was onesidedly negative or negative all the the time.

A few things though.

I can't see how someone without a job would be able to afford plane tickets and new computers in the first place and that is kind of beside the point. A lot of things are always cheaper in the country where they are being made. Volvo merging with Ford and their move of some of their production to America has not decreased prices on Volvo automobiles in Sweden. It may have effected the Volvo stocks, I really can't say, but it hasn't lead to cheaper cars.

The asian tigers are not 3rd world countries and the tigers were being tigers on the asian markets before they entered the american and european markets. When I talk about hypocrisy concerning Free Trade in America and Europe I think primarily about agriculture. A lot of very poor countries in the 3rd world are dependent on their agriculture products since they have no modern industry. Their agriculture products are just fine and also much cheaper than the agriculture products from the rich countries. But instead of applying real Free Trade and buy the best and cheapest products the rich countries agree between each other to buy each other's products instead. And this even though most modern countries produce a surplus of agriculture products. This is nothing less than protectionism and anti Free Trade and anti good globalization.

Originally Posted by Yoda

You're being somewhat vague. Which liberal business regulations "create a healthier climate on the market," and which of Bush's politics have encouraged the opposite? And what do you mean by "fully vertically integrated"?

You're speaking in generalities, but I've been repeatedly asking for specifics. Without specifics, there's no way for anyone to contend with what you're saying. Once you make a claim supported by evidence that can be either proven or disproven, then we can have a discussion about whether or not what you're saying is true.

Well, I don't know the correct ideological label is "liberal". I was just putting it in comparision to the conservative politics that Bush stands for.

What I mean with regulations is that I think the market should be free but within certain frames. The whole purpose with a free market is that it should remain free and firstly create healthy competition and in the longrun serve the consumers, i.e. the people, the best way without active involvement from the state. A market climate where it is possible for a few corporations to swallow the entire market and knock out small market actors creates conformity, products with lower quality and higher price tags and fewer options for the consumers.

Concerning Bush's politics I can only speak about what I have studied a little more carefully, and that is the media world. If I have been informed correctly there has been some regulations withing the american media industry in the past with purpose to promote as many different voices as possible to be heard, so to speak. These regulations that, again if I have been correctly informed, the Clinton administration if not was responsible for then at least protected, made it impossible for big conglomerats to own too many levels of the media market.

Which leads me to the concept of vertical integration. (Chris, I know I have told you this before...).

If a media company is vertically integrated it means that it owns all parts or levels in the information chain so to speak. If we talk about a movie, in the 40's the vertically integrated film companies owned the production company, the distribution company and the movie theater chain. The so called Big Five divided the market between themselves. This ended in, I think it was 1949, when The Supreme Court decided that this was a kind of monopoly and proclaimed it to be illegal to own all three levels of the market.

Today, we have a few of enormous media conglomerats that own production companies, distribution companies, video rental chains, magazines, newspapers, radio and tv channels, music companies, interactive services and so on. The whole purpose is to make as much money on the single product as possible from the start until the end. If you own all the companies in the process you never lose any money through buying anything from other companies from outside of the conglomerat. And to make a very long story a little bit shorter, this is a form of monopoly that I don't like.

To be honest though, America without a doubt still has one of the world's most free and open media markets. But why change that?

But you can only determine ideology through statements and actions. So if someone has an ideology, you should be able to point to specific instances of it, either through what Bush has said, or else through what Bush has done.

I think I just tried to did that above.

Huh? Conservatism isn't unlike Communism? I don't know what kind of definition the word "conservative" has, to you, but it doesn't even remotely resemble the meaning of the word as I've come to know it.

Where I come from, conservatives are generally pushing for freer, more open markets; the exact opposite of Communism. American liberals, on the other hand, are often the ones who think that constant government intereference is necessary. Seems to me that the party in favor of increased governmental regulations is the one far more concerned with control.

Well, I just told you why theoretically communism and conservatism isn't that unlike each other, didn't I? Communism after having taken power by revolution and thereafter created a communist state isn't radical. On the contrary, it is very conservative and desires no change. Conservatists claim to be working for an open market but their passivity on the market only leads to that allready powerful companies ensure their position on the market. This leads to fewer but bigger and mightier actors on the market which resembles of communistic monopoly.

You seem to be for a market as free as possible. But you assume this is only accomplished by allowing some kind of market anarchy. I would like to ask you what the purpose of an open market is. Is it to make sure that a few people make as much money as possible or is it to create lots of jobs and good products?

He is. He wants to actively discourage global employment because he naively believes that the free market approach works within America, but not worldwide.

What I think he is saying (I have never heard him speak about it, just assuming he is being the average liberal about it) is that first you see to your own house, that it is standing on solid ground, then you expand.

I really shouldn't speak about Edwards. I can only say what my general thoughts on the subject is.

And what happens when it continues? The more demand there is for "cheap labor," the quicker it stops being cheap. The market, if left wide open, eventually balances itself out.

Imagine if you could only get Germany's fine automobiles if you were German, or if you could only get French food if you lived in France. The world's a better place because of trade; it makes the best products in the world available to people all over the world, regardless of where they live. You used to only hear the best singers in your town; now we can all enjoy the best singers in the world.

This is clearly a very good thing, yet when it comes to jobs, people throw reason out the window, and start getting emotional. But, economically, there's no difference between sharing jobs, and sharing products. Do you want to keep your job over a cheaper, better worker somewhere else? Okay, then the price of the products you make is going to be a bit higher for everyone else. Most economists acknowledge that there's no active difference between the two, but that doesn't stop people like Kerry and Edwards from preying on worried Americans with warnings about how they're going to ship all the American jobs overseas.

Hmmm.. The first to paragraphs in this segment really does not make sense. Why can't I buy a german car in Sweden even if it was made in Germany? And french chefs are free to work wherever they like and that hasn't much to do with the product, the food, they are making.

When you move production from one country to another you do it to increase the profit. By spending less on salaries you can earn money because as opposed to what you seem to be thinking, prices don't go down when you outsource to other countries. The prices always go up or at the best stay the same, but the company makes more money. And there's nothing wrong with that. But unlike you I think there is a big big difference between jobs, which ultimately is the same as people, and products but I am not surprised that you, as a conservative, think so.

Golgot