Obama's Export Plan

[houndawg]

The good news is that when the Chinese assume control of our economy they will undoubtedly run it better.

Everybody wants to blame the tiny fraction of US labor that is unionized but the simple fact is that the Chinese are better businessmen than we are for no other reason than their ability to think beyong the next quaterly P&L statement.

In California it is the public sector employee unions which have destroyed the state.

85% 0f labor is NOT unionized, nathan, can't you understand that simple fact. America's problem is NOT labor, it's management. That's why them asiatics is kicking the bejeezus out of us economically, they are better managers.

The highest standard of living the US has ever had occured when union membership was at its peak. When blue collar families could afford to send their kids to college without mortgaging their home. There is none so blind as he who will not see, norman.

[kalm]

Well, well, well, better late than never I suppose.

For years I tried to tell that pin-head we had for Prez that it made a hell of a lot more sense to take Venezuela's oil than incur the astronomical debt it would cost to go halfway around the world. But he and his ilk, such as yourself, assured us that Iraqi oil would pay for both invasions.

Me and any six people from this very forum could have taken Venezuela in an afternoon armed with baseball bats. Anybody seen any of the eye-rackee oil that was going to pay for these quagmires?

houndawg...suggesting invading another country?

Damn, you and kalm really are closet conservatives!

And if the Republican Party wasn't controlled by Jesus freaks, chickenhawks, and neo-feudalists, I might vote that way more often.

[YoUDeeMan]

houndawg...suggesting invading another country?

Damn, you and kalm really are closet conservatives!

And if the Republican Party wasn't controlled by Jesus freaks, chickenhawks, and neo-feudalists, I might vote that way more often.

Agreed.

[houndawg]

Well, well, well, better late than never I suppose.

For years I tried to tell that pin-head we had for Prez that it made a hell of a lot more sense to take Venezuela's oil than incur the astronomical debt it would cost to go halfway around the world. But he and his ilk, such as yourself, assured us that Iraqi oil would pay for both invasions.

Me and any six people from this very forum could have taken Venezuela in an afternoon armed with baseball bats. Anybody seen any of the eye-rackee oil that was going to pay for these quagmires?

houndawg...suggesting invading another country?

Damn, you and kalm really are closet conservatives!

You tell me, cluck: Let's say you're President and your cabinet has decided to invade a foreign country to take their oil, but you need an excuse. Both targets for invasion have beaucoup oil, do you: a) go halfway around the world at astronomical expense (to the taxpayers, not the oil companies your cabinet members sit on the boards of), on a pretext that nobody on the planet believes, or do you b) go right next door where there is a handy leftist government, a weak military, you already have a track record of interfering, and nobody would be surprised? (Cue W, singing "If I only had a brain").

[houndawg]

houndawg...suggesting invading another country?

Damn, you and kalm really are closet conservatives!

And if the Republican Party wasn't controlled by Jesus freaks, chickenhawks, and neo-feudalists, I might vote that way more often.

Throw in the gay family values hypocrites and it's a no brainer.

[YoUDeeMan]

houndawg...suggesting invading another country?

Damn, you and kalm really are closet conservatives!

You tell me, cluck: Let's say you're President and your cabinet has decided to invade a foreign country to take their oil, but you need an excuse. Both targets for invasion have beaucoup oil, do you: a) go halfway around the world at astronomical expense (to the taxpayers, not the oil companies your cabinet members sit on the boards of), on a pretext that nobody on the planet believes, or do you b) go right next door where there is a handy leftist government, a weak military, you already have a track record of interfering, and nobody would be surprised? (Cue W, singing "If I only had a brain").

Trick question. I wouldn't invade either...I'd have a couple snipers or drones take out their leaders and let the next folks in line know that they can live if they give us oil. Eventually we'd find someone who would cooperate. Oh, and of course I'd have our boys drop a few bombs on some bad guys that the majority of the population hates just for effect (every country has to have their OctoMom or something similar). Oh, and drop some food, condoms, and video games in public areas to win over the masses.

However, I am surprised that you advocate invading any country. Usually, instead of invading a country, a liberal would want to put union jobs to work trying to scrape oil out of a cloud.

[houndawg]

You tell me, cluck: Let's say you're President and your cabinet has decided to invade a foreign country to take their oil, but you need an excuse. Both targets for invasion have beaucoup oil, do you: a) go halfway around the world at astronomical expense (to the taxpayers, not the oil companies your cabinet members sit on the boards of), on a pretext that nobody on the planet believes, or do you b) go right next door where there is a handy leftist government, a weak military, you already have a track record of interfering, and nobody would be surprised? (Cue W, singing "If I only had a brain").

Trick question. I wouldn't invade either...I'd have a couple snipers or drones take out their leaders and let the next folks in line know that they can live if they give us oil. Eventually we'd find someone who would cooperate. Oh, and of course I'd have our boys drop a few bombs on some bad guys that the majority of the population hates just for effect (every country has to have their OctoMom or something similar). Oh, and drop some food, condoms, and video games in public areas to win over the masses.

However, I am surprised that you advocate invading any country. Usually, instead of invading a country, a liberal would want to put union jobs to work trying to scrape oil out of a cloud.

But I'm not a liberal, cluck, that's your word. I'm all for guns, the death penalty (as long as it is carried out by the victim's family), and a cash bounty for the hides of Senators and Wall Street execs.


We've tried your method dozens of times, dozens and dozens of times, cluckster....... the Shah of Iran, Saddam, Noriega, Pinochet, and on and on....; we know it doesn't work because our thugs won't stay bought and we just have to do it over, at further cost to the taxpayers. Noriega is a perfect example - he started out just like we wanted, but then the greedy little fcvk couldn't be happy with his rightful squeeze and started wanting a bigger share of the CIA's cocaine profits. So we invade, get rid of him, and we're back at square 1 all over again..... where is the fiscal restraint in that crap? No wonder we're broke.

[GannonFan]

In California it is the public sector employee unions which have destroyed the state.

85% 0f labor is NOT unionized, nathan, can't you understand that simple fact. America's problem is NOT labor, it's management. That's why them asiatics is kicking the bejeezus out of us economically, they are better managers.

The highest standard of living the US has ever had occured when union membership was at its peak. When blue collar families could afford to send their kids to college without mortgaging their home. There is none so blind as he who will not see, norman.

The bolded part is just a weird, twisted logic thought. First of all, back then, people didn't really go to college in large numbers, so the idea that gobs of blue collar families were sending their kids to college just isn't reality - college attendance rates have skyrocketed in just the past 20 years or so, well after union membership peaked. And what does union membership rates have to do with the cost of a college education? There's no tie in between the soaring costs of college education (soaring because of both large demand for a college education and an open-ended government subsidy of student loans that pretty much encourages colleges to raise their tuitions as much as possible) and union membership rates. That's like saying the Earth's proximity to Halley's Comet is a deciding factor in standard of living rates since we peaked out the last time the comet came around.

[YoUDeeMan]

Trick question. I wouldn't invade either...I'd have a couple snipers or drones take out their leaders and let the next folks in line know that they can live if they give us oil. Eventually we'd find someone who would cooperate. Oh, and of course I'd have our boys drop a few bombs on some bad guys that the majority of the population hates just for effect (every country has to have their OctoMom or something similar). Oh, and drop some food, condoms, and video games in public areas to win over the masses.

However, I am surprised that you advocate invading any country. Usually, instead of invading a country, a liberal would want to put union jobs to work trying to scrape oil out of a cloud.

But I'm not a liberal, cluck, that's your word. I'm all for guns, the death penalty (as long as it is carried out by the victim's family), and a cash bounty for the hides of Senators and Wall Street execs.


We've tried your method dozens of times, dozens and dozens of times, cluckster....... the Shah of Iran, Saddam, Noriega, Pinochet, and on and on....; we know it doesn't work because our thugs won't stay bought and we just have to do it over, at further cost to the taxpayers. Noriega is a perfect example - he started out just like we wanted, but then the greedy little fcvk couldn't be happy with his rightful squeeze and started wanting a bigger share of the CIA's cocaine profits. So we invade, get rid of him, and we're back at square 1 all over again..... where is the fiscal restraint in that crap? No wonder we're broke.

See...I knew I should have used a smiley, but I thought the, "Oh"s and references to OctoMon, condoms, and video games would win the day.

I am not into invading a bunch of other countries. If they screw with us, then by all means wipe the floor with them and get the hell out. Not much into the swapping out of dictators either, although I would publicly take out any leading trouble makers if it meant not having to wipe the floor with the rest of the country.

Nope. I am all in favor of using our knowledge to generate more ways of producing power locally rather than relying on other country's resources. No need to pay trillions for other people's fossil fuels.

Big business has blocked that...along with the politicians...and some environmentalists...and union organizations. The shame is that there is not one group that can independently look at a situation to provide the best guidence for our country...instead, everyone is focussed on, "Me, me, me!.

The reason, in my mind, that you are a liberal, is that you are WAY to locked up on the trouble with management (good call) while ignoring the problems with unions (bad call) and lazy people in general.

[Grizalltheway]

China has a few other advantages: they don't give a rat's ass about polls that show that Europeans or Americans don't like them; they have little use for intellectual property rights (or the costs that are involved in developing new ideas); they care little about global warming or environmental costs, they won't hesitate to take over an industry (hey, Obama might be on the same page with the Chinese!); safety protocalls...what are they?; balance their currency...not a chance...the list goes on.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35868432/ns ... ngton_post" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Obama...getting his ass kicked by reality one day at a time.

So should we just say 'fuck it', and lower our standards so they're in line with the Chinese?

[native]

Trick question. I wouldn't invade either...I'd have a couple snipers or drones take out their leaders and let the next folks in line know that they can live if they give us oil. Eventually we'd find someone who would cooperate. Oh, and of course I'd have our boys drop a few bombs on some bad guys that the majority of the population hates just for effect (every country has to have their OctoMom or something similar). Oh, and drop some food, condoms, and video games in public areas to win over the masses.

However, I am surprised that you advocate invading any country. Usually, instead of invading a country, a liberal would want to put union jobs to work trying to scrape oil out of a cloud.

But I'm not a liberal, cluck, that's your word. I'm all for guns, the death penalty (as long as it is carried out by the victim's family), and a cash bounty for the hides of Senators and Wall Street execs.

We've tried your method dozens of times, dozens and dozens of times, cluckster....... the Shah of Iran, Saddam, Noriega, Pinochet, and on and on....; we know it doesn't work because our thugs won't stay bought and we just have to do it over, at further cost to the taxpayers. Noriega is a perfect example - he started out just like we wanted, but then the greedy little fcvk couldn't be happy with his rightful squeeze and started wanting a bigger share of the CIA's cocaine profits. So we invade, get rid of him, and we're back at square 1 all over again..... where is the fiscal restraint in that crap? No wonder we're broke.

Actually in the case of Pinochet, dawg, the result was the most robust and stable economy and democracy in South America. And it's hard to say the Shah was worse than what took over. Everyone on your list was not a creature of the CIA. Noriega certainly was such, but Saddam, was just a big ass tiger we thought we could ride if we fed him.

But it does highlight a very important question. What is the appropriate US response to world development? The thugs who are not our clients are often just as bad or worse than the ones who are our clients.

Should we just step back as in Rwanda and Sudan?

Should we encourage te NGOs that apply band aids but ultimately just feed the cancer?

[native]

But I'm not a liberal, cluck, that's your word. I'm all for guns, the death penalty (as long as it is carried out by the victim's family), and a cash bounty for the hides of Senators and Wall Street execs.


We've tried your method dozens of times, dozens and dozens of times, cluckster....... the Shah of Iran, Saddam, Noriega, Pinochet, and on and on....; we know it doesn't work because our thugs won't stay bought and we just have to do it over, at further cost to the taxpayers. Noriega is a perfect example - he started out just like we wanted, but then the greedy little fcvk couldn't be happy with his rightful squeeze and started wanting a bigger share of the CIA's cocaine profits. So we invade, get rid of him, and we're back at square 1 all over again..... where is the fiscal restraint in that crap? No wonder we're broke.

See...I knew I should have used a smiley, but I thought the, "Oh"s and references to OctoMon, condoms, and video games would win the day.

I am not into invading a bunch of other countries. If they screw with us, then by all means wipe the floor with them and get the hell out. Not much into the swapping out of dictators either, although I would publicly take out any leading trouble makers if it meant not having to wipe the floor with the rest of the country.

Nope. I am all in favor of using our knowledge to generate more ways of producing power locally rather than relying on other country's resources. No need to pay trillions for other people's fossil fuels.

Big business has blocked that...along with the politicians...and some environmentalists...and union organizations. The shame is that there is not one group that can independently look at a situation to provide the best guidence for our country...instead, everyone is focussed on, "Me, me, me!.

The reason, in my mind, that you are a liberal, is that you are WAY to locked up on the trouble with management (good call) while ignoring the problems with unions (bad call) and lazy people in general.[/quote]

+1