# George W. Bush



## Decker (Jul 13, 2005)

January 18, 2001


WASHINGTON, DC???Mere days from assuming the presidency and closing the door on eight years of Bill Clinton, president-elect George W. Bush assured the nation in a televised address Tuesday that "our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is finally over."

"My fellow Americans," Bush said, "at long last, we have reached the end of the dark period in American history that will come to be known as the Clinton Era, eight long years characterized by unprecedented economic expansion, a sharp decrease in crime, and sustained peace overseas. The time has come to put all of that behind us."

Bush swore to do "everything in [his] power" to undo the damage wrought by Clinton's two terms in office, including selling off the national parks to developers, going into massive debt to develop expensive and impractical weapons technologies, and passing sweeping budget cuts that drive the mentally ill out of hospitals and onto the street.

During the 40-minute speech, Bush also promised to bring an end to the severe war drought that plagued the nation under Clinton, assuring citizens that the U.S. will engage in at least one Gulf War-level armed conflict in the next four years.

"You better believe we're going to mix it up with somebody at some point during my administration," said Bush, who plans a 250 percent boost in military spending. "Unlike my predecessor, I am fully committed to putting soldiers in battle situations. Otherwise, what is the point of even having a military?"

On the economic side, Bush vowed to bring back economic stagnationby implementing substantial tax cuts, which would lead to a recession, which would necessitate a tax hike, which would lead to a drop in consumer spending, which would lead to layoffs, which would deepen the recession even further.

Asked for comment about the cooling technology sector, Bush said: "That's hardly my area of expertise."

Turning to the subject of the environment, Bush said he will do whatever it takes to undo the tremendous damage not done by the Clinton Administration to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He assured citizens that he will follow through on his campaign promise to open the 1.5 million acre refuge's coastal plain to oil drilling. As a sign of his commitment to bringing about a change in the environment, he pointed to his choice of Gale Norton for Secretary of the Interior. Norton, Bush noted, has "extensive experience" fighting environmental causes, working as a lobbyist for lead-paint manufacturers and as an attorney for loggers and miners, in addition to suing the EPA to overturn clean-air standards.

The speech was met with overwhelming approval from Republican leaders.

"Finally, the horrific misrule of the Democrats has been brought to a close," House Majority Leader Dennis Hastert (R-IL) told reporters. "Under Bush, we can all look forward to military aggression, deregulation of dangerous, greedy industries, and the defunding of vital domestic social-service programs upon which millions depend. Mercifully, we can now say goodbye to the awful nightmare that was Clinton's America."

"For years, I tirelessly preached the message that Clinton must be stopped," conservative talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh said. "And yet, in 1996, the American public failed to heed my urgent warnings, re-electing Clinton despite the fact that the nation was prosperous and at peace under his regime. But now, thank God, that's all done with. Once again, we will enjoy mounting debt, jingoism, nuclear paranoia, mass deficit, and a massive military build-up."

An overwhelming 49.9 percent of Americans responded enthusiastically to the Bush speech.

"After eight years of relatively sane fiscal policy under the Democrats, we have reached a point where, just a few weeks ago, President Clinton said that the national debt could be paid off by as early as 2012," Rahway, NJ, machinist and father of three Bud Crandall said. "That's not the kind of world I want my children to grow up in."

Bush concluded his speech on a note of healing and redemption.

"We as a people must stand united, banding together to tear this nation in two," Bush said. "Much work lies ahead of us: The gap between the rich and the poor may be wide, be there's much more widening left to do. We must squander our nation's hard-won budget surplus on tax breaks for the wealthiest 15 percent. And, on the foreign front, we must find an enemy and defeat it."

"The insanity is over," Bush said. "After a long, dark night of peace and stability, the sun is finally rising again over America. We look forward to a bright new dawn not seen since the glory days of my dad."

Source: The Onion...Bullseye.


----------



## goandykid (Jul 13, 2005)

lol, good post


----------



## GFR (Jul 13, 2005)




----------



## god hand (Jul 13, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

>


Uh-oh! What gonna happen next? Is Bush gonna try in kill six million blacks?


----------



## HANK-VISSER (Jul 13, 2005)

haha george bush is such an idiot:


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jul 13, 2005)

I have one word for you...Strategery.


----------



## busyLivin (Jul 13, 2005)




----------



## HANK-VISSER (Jul 13, 2005)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> I have one word for you...Strategery.




hahah learn how to spell


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jul 13, 2005)

I have a question...Who wears short shorts?


----------



## CANIBALISTIC (Jul 13, 2005)

*please explain*



			
				Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> I have one word for you...Strategery.



Strategy?    What does that mean anyway, please elaborate.


----------



## CANIBALISTIC (Jul 13, 2005)

Explain.


----------



## busyLivin (Jul 13, 2005)

HANK-VISSER said:
			
		

> haha george bush is such an idiot:



Smart enough to be elected the most powerful man in the world... twice


----------



## CANIBALISTIC (Jul 13, 2005)

I agree.  Please excuse Hank-visser He is a socialist.  Anti-America pro terrorism.  All of his post are condescending and Anti-America related propaganda, so sad.  Some people have no respect and never will, for nothing.

He's a name caller and will never use facts to support his arguments.  I sent him a little message about his name calling but some people will never learn.

Hank-Visser- stick to bodybuilding not emotional based arguments. You just removed all credibility, once again.   Hank,  arguments are based on facts, not what you feel.

Left brain----------------------------- Right Brain

FACT (real)--------------------------- Emotions (based on experience, not real)

J.


----------



## HANK-VISSER (Jul 13, 2005)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> Smart enough to be elected the most powerful man in the world... twice




hahah you don't have to be smart for that, his daddy makes sure he(George) has got a good team of advisers around him. And in America it's all about saying what the people want to hear, and you have got it in the pocket

simple as that, the one who is spending the most money on advisers and a good/strong campaign wins


----------



## CANIBALISTIC (Jul 13, 2005)




----------



## CANIBALISTIC (Jul 13, 2005)

Hank that's key to good management.


----------



## HANK-VISSER (Jul 13, 2005)

CANIBALISTIC said:
			
		

> I agree.  Please excuse Hank-visser He is a socialist.  Anti-America pro terrorism.  All of his post are condescending and Anti-America related propaganda, so sad.  Some people have no respect and never will, for nothing.
> 
> He's a name caller and will never use facts to support his arguments.  I sent him a little message about his name calling but some people will never learn.
> 
> ...




OH MY GOD, I THINK YOU HAVE TO READ MY POSTS AGAIN    , ORE MAYBE YOU SHOULD GO BACK TRYING TO BE A COWBOY


----------



## HANK-VISSER (Jul 13, 2005)

CANIBALISTIC said:
			
		

> Hank that's key to good management.



than it has got nothing to do with the person self, just the who has the most money available


----------



## CANIBALISTIC (Jul 13, 2005)

You just proved my point Hankie.


----------



## CANIBALISTIC (Jul 13, 2005)

Not true.


----------



## HANK-VISSER (Jul 13, 2005)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> I have a question...Who wears short shorts?



hahah that would be george, but look even better at the picture and you see he can not drive his machine to


----------



## CANIBALISTIC (Jul 13, 2005)

And, I'm not a cowboy.  I'm from California.  Have you ever been here?


----------



## CANIBALISTIC (Jul 13, 2005)

*Hey*



			
				HANK-VISSER said:
			
		

> hahah that would be george, but look even better at the picture and you see he can not drive his machine to



I can't see...


----------



## CANIBALISTIC (Jul 13, 2005)

Oh no, I see now.


----------



## HANK-VISSER (Jul 13, 2005)

CANIBALISTIC said:
			
		

> And, I'm not a cowboy.  I'm from California.  Have you ever been here?




read better, i said TRYING TO BE A COWBOY     


just stop it, you lost the conversation hahaha(maybe you should watch the dvd: fahrenheit 9/11)


----------



## busyLivin (Jul 13, 2005)

HANK-VISSER said:
			
		

> read better, i said TRYING TO BE A COWBOY
> 
> 
> just stop it, you lost the conversation hahaha(maybe you should watch the dvd: fahrenheit 9/11)


oh yeah, all factual information in that MOVIE


----------



## CANIBALISTIC (Jul 13, 2005)

I saw the movie, it was well dierected but nothing interesting especially since it's main objective was to deface the value of our, Chief and Commander (President) George W.

Hank please re-read your replies prior to posting them.  

Then, read "Lies, and The Lying, Liars who Tell Them" ok, After that Read "Savage Nation"  

Once, your done with all that research conservatism, socialism, democracy, and fascist.  Then, and only then you may have a better understanding of what is going on.  Atleast you will be more balanced instead of being  one sided and carrying a liberal based view point.

Oh,  The "Cowboy" remark is called deflection and is standard garbage.  BS.  You are name calling again,  What was your point in calling me that anyway.

J


----------



## CANIBALISTIC (Jul 13, 2005)

I was trying to put directed.  Hope you got my point


----------



## HANK-VISSER (Jul 13, 2005)

CANIBALISTIC said:
			
		

> I was trying to put directed.  Hope you got my point




your are right about, that you should read multiple books(ore what ever) before you can develop your own opinion    You should also be more open to other ways of thinking, you will find it interesting   

and for the ''name calling'' don't be so quick offended


----------



## CANIBALISTIC (Jul 13, 2005)

I'm not.


----------



## CANIBALISTIC (Jul 13, 2005)

That's a good point and I said the same thing by listing two books.  One from an ultra-left wing liberal Al Franken, and an Ultra right wing Conservative Michael Savage.


----------



## maniclion (Jul 13, 2005)

How about we all read Karl Roves pink slip.(or will it be a Letter of Commendation)


----------



## Decker (Jul 13, 2005)

CANIBALISTIC said:
			
		

> That's a good point and I said the same thing by listing two books. One from an ultra-left wing liberal Al Franken, and an Ultra right wing Conservative Michael Savage.


Those books are good for a laugh or two.  Today's contemporary writers are nothing better than delivery boys.  For depth of thought and worthwhile reading hit up the big boys....de tocqueville, jefferson, plato, machiavelli, Locke, Marx/Lenin, Rousseau, Nietzsche, Limbaugh---wait a minute, now you see the obvious joke here.

Noam Chomsky is a favorite also.


----------



## Decker (Jul 13, 2005)

maniclion said:
			
		

> How about we all read Karl Roves pink slip.(or will it be a Letter of Commendation)


I'd wager a Presidential letter of Commendation is on the way.  After all, George Tenet admittedly dropped the fucking ball w/ shitty intelligence operations--he got the Medal of Freedom, I think.

Condoleezza Rice was handed a report entitled, "Bin Laden determined to strike w/in the US."  She was a complete fuck up yet she was promoted to Sec. of State.  

You just wonder what it takes to fuck up in this administration so bad that, god forbid, you might be held accountable for your actions.


----------



## Flex (Jul 13, 2005)

That's some funny shit.

Too bad much of it is (sadly) true


----------



## Decker (Jul 13, 2005)

Flex said:
			
		

> That's some funny shit.
> 
> Too bad much of it is (sadly) true


It is sad and it's eerie how prescient this article was.


----------



## CANIBALISTIC (Jul 13, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> Those books are good for a laugh or two.  Today's contemporary writers are nothing better than delivery boys.  For depth of thought and worthwhile reading hit up the big boys....de tocqueville, jefferson, plato, machiavelli, Locke, Marx/Lenin, Rousseau, Nietzsche, Limbaugh---wait a minute, now you see the obvious joke here.
> 
> Noam Chomsky is a favorite also.



I agree but I was simply making the point to Hank that their is something out there more than just a socialist stand point.

J.

I know about all of the authors you stated and feel they only served purpose for the development of what we call modernism. Great philosophers and they served a purpose.  

Don't crack me I agree with you.


----------



## CANIBALISTIC (Jul 13, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> I'd wager a Presidential letter of Commendation is on the way.  After all, George Tenet admittedly dropped the fucking ball w/ shitty intelligence operations--he got the Medal of Freedom, I think.
> 
> Condoleezza Rice was handed a report entitled, "Bin Laden determined to strike w/in the US."  She was a complete fuck up yet she was promoted to Sec. of State.
> 
> You just wonder what it takes to fuck up in this administration so bad that, god forbid, you might be held accountable for your actions.




good point.  Everyone is vulnerable when your back is turned.  Who's on top now?


----------



## GFR (Jul 13, 2005)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> oh yeah, all factual information in that MOVIE


About the same as on Fox News.


----------



## Decker (Jul 13, 2005)

CANIBALISTIC said:
			
		

> good point. Everyone is vulnerable when your back is turned. Who's on top now?


Couldn't agree more.  I wasn't fucking with you...sorry if my written tone gets across that way.

Reminds me of a joke...The special prosecutor showed a picture of Monica Lewinsky to Bill Clinton and asked, "do you recognize this woman, Mr. President?"
To which Clinton replied, "Yes....yes I've come across her face once or twice."

For a well founded essay on the merits of socialism, read Albert Einstein's, 'Why Socialism."  I understand he was fairly intelligent.


----------



## CANIBALISTIC (Jul 13, 2005)

That's good...LOL


----------



## cappo5150 (Jul 13, 2005)




----------



## Eggs (Jul 13, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> For a well founded essay on the merits of socialism, read Albert Einstein's, 'Why Socialism."  I understand he was fairly intelligent.



Einstein had his problems  Sure was good at that science thingie though.


----------



## Eggs (Jul 13, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> It is sad and it's eerie how prescient this article was.



As prescient as any satire site is a couple of years after the fact 

I actually prefer this article: http://www.theonion.com/opinion/index.php?issue=4128

Call your grandma and tell her you love her


----------



## busyLivin (Jul 13, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> About the same as on Fox News.


Fox News


----------



## Decker (Jul 14, 2005)

Eggs said:
			
		

> I actually prefer this article: http://www.theonion.com/opinion/index.php?issue=4128


At first I thought this article was about Flex.




			
				Eggs said:
			
		

> As prescient as any satire site is a couple of years after the fact


This statement's a little off the mark.  Not all satire subsequently mirrors reality.  I'm sure you've read A Modest Proposal...satire, yes...prescient, no.  I was just goofing on how that speech really hit it on a few points.  You have to admit that.


----------



## THEUNIT(XXL) (Jul 14, 2005)

CANIBALISTIC said:
			
		

> Hank please re-read your replies prior to posting them.
> 
> Then, read "Lies, and The Lying, Liars who Tell them"


Hey stop trying to sell your autobiographic book here. no advertisement.


----------



## Eggs (Jul 14, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> At first I thought this article was about Flex.



Heh, yeah... I thought about that too.



> This statement's a little off the mark.  Not all satire subsequently mirrors reality.  I'm sure you've read A Modest Proposal...satire, yes...prescient, no.  I was just goofing on how that speech really hit it on a few points.  You have to admit that.



Ah, well let me rephrase. I didn't mean to state that all satire is prescient... just that in this case it wasn't, as it was after the fact. The speech did indeed encapsulate some of the things that have happened in the past two terms. Of course, it did so in the flippant manner that satires are quite capable of, which doesn't really do justice to any party involved.

The Onion is certainly good for an occasional laugh though.


----------



## CANIBALISTIC (Jul 14, 2005)

Eggs said:
			
		

> As prescient as any satire site is a couple of years after the fact
> 
> I actually prefer this article: http://www.theonion.com/opinion/index.php?issue=4128
> 
> Call your grandma and tell her you love her




I think that was a little of topic.  If not please explain because I missed how you could associate that article to what everyone was talking about.


----------



## Eggs (Jul 14, 2005)

CANIBALISTIC said:
			
		

> I think that was a little of topic.  If not please explain because I missed how you could associate that article to what everyone was talking about.



Alright, let me break it down for you. That is a satire site. This thread, the entire bases for it, is a fake article that was posted on a site that deals in satires. The fact that its a shitty little story made up to humor people is mirrored in the link that I pasted... a satirical article made up by the same site. In other words, you can put as much stock in the article that I posted as in the first that was.

While it is off-topic, it does point out the nature of the site that created the article. Need I explain more?


----------



## CANIBALISTIC (Jul 14, 2005)

that's good but how did this pertain to the thread?


----------



## CANIBALISTIC (Jul 14, 2005)

*Ok, No problem*



			
				THEUNIT(XXL) said:
			
		

> Hey stop trying to sell your autobiographic book here. no advertisement.




Wasn't trying to but I see what you are saying.


----------



## THEUNIT(XXL) (Jul 14, 2005)

CANIBALISTIC said:
			
		

> Wasn't trying to but I see what you are saying.


You were not trying, no no, that's not what it looks like buddy!!
Better check yourself!!!


----------



## HANK-VISSER (Jul 14, 2005)

THEUNIT(XXL) said:
			
		

> You were not trying, no no, that's not what it looks like buddy!!
> Better check yourself!!!




die gast gaat er nog serieus op in ook hahahahaha


----------



## Eggs (Jul 14, 2005)

CANIBALISTIC said:
			
		

> that's good but how did this pertain to the thread?



Alright, stfu before you annoy me. Act like a retard and everyone will treat you like one.

If you cant see how that pertains to the thread, then fine. As is, it isnt your thread... you didn't start it, so piss off and whine in your own threads about what you dont think pertains to them.

That isnt the case with this one, so do me a favor and shut your pie hole.


----------



## THEUNIT(XXL) (Jul 15, 2005)

HANK-VISSER said:
			
		

> die gast gaat er nog serieus op in ook hahahahaha


Ja man, hij is niet in orde   
Maar hij schrijft steeds die shit, die nergens op slaat.
FLIKKER!!!!!(kunnen ze toch niet verstaan!)


----------



## SJ69 (Jul 15, 2005)

HANK-VISSER said:
			
		

> haha george bush is such an idiot:




FUK YOU again, idiot!!
International Terrorist? WTF
IF America quit helping other countries they'd be srewed.
How much aid does America provide?
How much aid does Amsterdam provide?
Bush sent more money to Africa for AIDS relief than any other pres or any other country, including yours, is that a terrorist? idiot


----------



## HANK-VISSER (Jul 15, 2005)

SJ69 said:
			
		

> FUK YOU again, idiot!!
> International Terrorist? WTF
> IF America quit helping other countries they'd be srewed.
> How much aid does America provide?
> ...




hahaha LET'S JUST GIVE SOME MONEY AND IT'S ALL GOOD   

don't be so naive little boy, think before you make yourslf look like an idiot


----------



## SJ69 (Jul 15, 2005)

"Little boy" are you fuckin nuts?, call me little boy on the internet, I'm sure you wouldn't say that to my face, I'd whoop your ass and bitch slap you like the little bitch you are, asshole!


----------



## SJ69 (Jul 15, 2005)

I'm going to try to stop now before I end up getting banned.  You know how I fell, enough said.


----------



## HANK-VISSER (Jul 15, 2005)

SJ69 said:
			
		

> I'm going to try to stop now before I end up getting banned.  You know how I fell, enough said.




HAHAHA wow you just maked a fooll of yourself twice, and you are a PUSSY     


DAMN you really ARE a fucked-up LITTLE BOY


GIRLY-MAN


----------



## Witmaster (Jul 15, 2005)

This message is hidden because *HANK-VISSER* is on your ignore list.</SPAN> 
     Oh my God this is so great!


----------



## THEUNIT(XXL) (Jul 15, 2005)

Witmaster said:
			
		

> This message is hidden because *HANK-VISSER* is on your ignore list.</SPAN>
> Oh my God this is so great!


This message is hidden because witmaster is on your ignore list.</SPAN>


----------



## CANIBALISTIC (Jul 15, 2005)

*Eggs*



			
				Eggs said:
			
		

> Alright, stfu before you annoy me. Act like a retard and everyone will treat you like one.
> 
> If you cant see how that pertains to the thread, then fine. As is, it isnt your thread... you didn't start it, so piss off and whine in your own threads about what you dont think pertains to them.
> 
> That isnt the case with this one, so do me a favor and shut your pie hole.




Eggs- I wasn't whining just asking a simple question.  You got off topic. End of discussion, you're wrong.  Why get irrational?


----------



## CANIBALISTIC (Jul 15, 2005)

Eggs no one treated me like a retard.  Bud.


----------



## CANIBALISTIC (Jul 15, 2005)

*Hey*



			
				Eggs said:
			
		

> Alright, stfu before you annoy me. Act like a retard and everyone will treat you like one.
> 
> If you cant see how that pertains to the thread, then fine. As is, it isnt your thread... you didn't start it, so piss off and whine in your own threads about what you dont think pertains to them.
> 
> That isnt the case with this one, so do me a favor and shut your pie hole.



You are acting like a little child throwing a temper tantrum.  A failure to articulate should never lead to abusive language but what should I expect from you?  Arrange an argument and we will have one, but a battle of the wits will be arranged. 

Do yourself a favor and learn how to control your feelings, articulate your thoughts, and then form an argument.  Then please proof read your replies, stop quoting books to look intelligent and stealing ideas from other people


----------



## Eggs (Jul 17, 2005)

Dont PM me canibalistic.. I've nothing to say to you in PMs.



> hey bud
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ...



If you dont want it to happen again dont ask stupid questions like a dumb shit and then when I answer them to show you what I'm saying ask the same stupid question that you wasted my time with in the first place.


----------



## Eggs (Jul 17, 2005)

CANIBALISTIC said:
			
		

> Do yourself a favor and learn how to control your feelings, articulate your thoughts, and then form an argument.  Then please proof read your replies, stop quoting books to look intelligent and stealing ideas from other people



just a little FYI, I articulated very well my feelings on the subject. As before, as I feel now... stfu because you're annoying. As to proofing replies, I'm not the kind of dumb shit that needs to worry about whether you approve of my spelling or grammar 

Lastly, what the hell are you talking about quoting books and stealing ideas? Who the hell here quoted a book? Hellooooo, what are you even talking about?


----------



## curiousity (Jul 17, 2005)

SJ69 said:
			
		

> FUK YOU again, idiot!!
> International Terrorist? WTF
> IF America quit helping other countries they'd be srewed.
> How much aid does America provide?
> ...





Yes it is very true that we have "helped" so many countries (mostly to further our own needs.)  Some of the aid is fantantic and will help promote health and stability, but we have also acted at times with complete disregard to international law.  All you have to do it sit down and start reading the history of our interaction in South America for the last several decades to see this.

I noticed that we really helped out with the genocide in the Congo too.  Oh well.


If you want to discuss terrorists, let discuss Afganistan.  We trained "terrorist" forces in Afganistan to fight the Soviets.  When we didn't need them anymore, we completely left Afganistan and left a power vacuum for our trained "terrorists" to fill.


----------



## curiousity (Jul 17, 2005)

CANIBALISTIC said:
			
		

> I agree.  Please excuse Hank-visser He is a socialist.  Anti-America pro terrorism.  All of his post are condescending and Anti-America related propaganda, so sad.  Some people have no respect and never will, for nothing.
> 
> He's a name caller and will never use facts to support his arguments.  I sent him a little message about his name calling but some people will never learn.
> 
> ...





I don't know if there is a history between you and Hank-visser, but it seems to me that you are a hypocrite. 

When I first started reading this thread, I thought you were joking around.  Now I think you were serious.

Name calling?  I love how you start attacking (a very "emotional" attack BTW) Hank-visser's position by using anti-American and pro-terrorism.  WTF?

This is the reaction of a child (as you later ask that Hank-visser not to act like.)

America, as a whole, is losing it ability to hold rational discussion.  Discussions degrade into emotional arguments (while the whole time strongly denying that it is an emotional argument.)


----------



## Eggs (Jul 17, 2005)

curiousity said:
			
		

> Yes it is very true that we have "helped" so many countries (mostly to further our own needs.)  Some of the aid is fantantic and will help promote health and stability, but we have also acted at times with complete disregard to international law.  All you have to do it sit down and start reading the history of our interaction in South America for the last several decades to see this.
> 
> I noticed that we really helped out with the genocide in the Congo too.  Oh well.
> 
> ...



Sometimes International Law needs to be disregarded. Just because other people around the globe something is right for us to do does not necesitate that it is.

South Americas is by and large mess... I certainly wouldn't blame the US for many of their past actions down there. They've made a mess of most of them, and I can blame them for that... but not for the intentions. Take for instance the Nuclear problems we had with Cuba. Do you think we'd taken the wrong approach against Castro? There have been many instances when we've had to work to do what is best for the US. Considering the nations and the problems in them, its not surprising that we've done so. Perhaps you think that the US has come to its position as the foremost superpower in the world through twiddling our thumbs and sucking on stalks of grass. Hardly so.. and much of what we have done has helped the world.

As far as the Congo, like some other places the US has made mistakes. Unfortunately I dont think the various government agencies understood the lifecycle of the governments they worked to put into place. Regardless, currently the US is trying to help over there. The US has various times done things and pushed for the Congo to receive various aid, etc, as it has for much of Africa. Obvsiously that doesn't make up for the the past negligence in what officials have done, but I think their actions are more attributable to lack of insight into what was really taking place. And of course thats never a good place to be making decisions.

Hrmm, trained terrorist forces in Afghanistan. Yes and no... that'd be like saying if we went to take over Canada, and the Dutch helped train them to fight back, that they were training terrorists. http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/s/so/soviet_invasion_of_afghanistan.htm
At the time we trained them, they couldn't really be considered terrorists. However, at a later date it certainly seems like many became that way. The Taliban weren't even terrorists really. They just allowed terrorists to operate within their borders, and that posed a security threat to us... so we acted upon that. Anways, the US in Afghanistan and what we were trying to achieve was a whole lot different than Russias.

We do make bad decisions regarding leaving power vacuums though. I hope we have learned from that, because it generally comes back around and bites us.


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Jul 17, 2005)

I have come to believe that Eggs is bi-polar.  He is very prone to blowing up for no reason.

Just like when that guy called his hoe a bitch, with in reason.
He exploded, and even when I was clearly being sarcastic.

Don't worry about him, he's a very immature little man.
With a small penis....


----------



## Eggs (Jul 17, 2005)

And yet you suck that penis daily, dont you little bitch?

Go milk a bull ass hole.

oh, and btw.. I may be an immature little man.. but at least I'm not an immature little man with a little intellect. Then I'd be you  Tell me, since I'm curious, is it inbreeding?


----------



## GFR (Jul 17, 2005)

This is one of the most entertaining threads on this site.


----------



## Eggs (Jul 17, 2005)

It gets two thumbs up in my book!


----------



## CANIBALISTIC (Jul 18, 2005)

curiousity said:
			
		

> I don't know if there is a history between you and Hank-visser, but it seems to me that you are a hypocrite.
> 
> When I first started reading this thread, I thought you were joking around.  Now I think you were serious.
> 
> ...



And you proved my point of most of these arguments based on facts bud.  I'm going to disregard what you said and just reply to every other aspect to your point, excluding you "voice of reason" approach.  Which was devastating.

I like hank-visser I appreciate his points.  This is a board for everyone  to say what they want.  It's fun.  Anyhow, what you said was true at first I was joking around but I have this natural propensity to expalin myself, which comes across as someone who is upset. 

Everything else you said, well...I disagree.  And it shows you must be in with eggs or something.

Oh, eggs.  Nothing personal and this reply was for you to.


----------



## CANIBALISTIC (Jul 18, 2005)

myCATpowerlifts said:
			
		

> I have come to believe that Eggs is bi-polar.  He is very prone to blowing up for no reason.
> 
> Just like when that guy called his hoe a bitch, with in reason.
> He exploded, and even when I was clearly being sarcastic.
> ...


----------



## Eggs (Jul 18, 2005)

CANIBALISTIC said:
			
		

>



Your boy myCats has a bull with your name on it too... so go make yourself look busy


----------



## maniclion (Jul 18, 2005)

Eggs has the habit of stooping to the level of those he's trying to debate just to allow for an even playing field.


----------



## CANIBALISTIC (Jul 18, 2005)

Eggs said:
			
		

> Sometimes International Law needs to be disregarded. Just because other people around the globe something is right for us to do does not necesitate that it is.
> 
> South Americas is by and large mess... I certainly wouldn't blame the US for many of their past actions down there. They've made a mess of most of them, and I can blame them for that... but not for the intentions. Take for instance the Nuclear problems we had with Cuba. Do you think we'd taken the wrong approach against Castro? There have been many instances when we've had to work to do what is best for the US. Considering the nations and the problems in them, its not surprising that we've done so. Perhaps you think that the US has come to its position as the foremost superpower in the world through twiddling our thumbs and sucking on stalks of grass. Hardly so.. and much of what we have done has helped the world.
> 
> ...




EGGS well said.


----------



## CANIBALISTIC (Jul 18, 2005)

Eggs said:
			
		

> Your boy myCats has a bull with your name on it too... so go make yourself look busy




Could you explain?


----------



## Eggs (Jul 18, 2005)

maniclion said:
			
		

> Eggs has the habit of stooping to the level of those he's trying to debate just to allow for an even playing field.



I do dont I... damnit 

Haha, I always thought it was fun carrying on a conversation while insulting each other. Of course it gets carried away at a point, and thats the time to stop.

Sinking to others levels is my specialty though.

Bastard


----------



## Eggs (Jul 18, 2005)

CANIBALISTIC said:
			
		

> Could you explain?



Nah, lets just leave it with that.


----------



## DOMS (Jul 18, 2005)

International Law is like professional wrestling, it's all fake and only children believe in it.


----------



## da jock (Jul 18, 2005)

I'm a Dem & gave him a chance, we all want the USA to do well, etc...
I think living a guilded life in a political & financial artistocracy & his 1 term as TX gvnr have not served him well in preperation for the presidency.
Afghanistan aside (good job!),his administraion has just f'd up foriegn policy so badly and he's surrounded by hawks with blinders on regarding the rest of the world. He, Cheney & Rumsfeld don't even seem to know what the other says publicly about our status @ Iraq.
I hope the massive deficit spending works...they treat the updated (-$300 billion) deficit like a huge success story (remember when the GOP closed down the gvt to force a balanced budget amendment vote?), inasmuch as it's generating nominal job gains, it doesn't look good.
Also he goes on&on about Social Security when his huge, unfunded Medicare bill (who's cost projections tripled within a year after being passed) is going to absolutely bankrupt the economy 20 yrs down the line, there's GAO #'s on it. The legislation was a deceitful gimme for the pharmaceutical industry.
He makes his dad look like Einstein & Reagan look like Jesus.


----------



## ABLQ2 (Jul 18, 2005)

(if you are sensative to anything at all, avert your eyes or you will be offended and pissed)


you were warned....






















as far as im concerned arguing over politics is sorta like the special olympics.  even if you win....

your still   |2 3 +/\+3|).


----------



## Decker (Jul 19, 2005)

Eggs said:
			
		

> Sometimes International Law needs to be disregarded. Just because other people around the globe something is right for us to do does not necesitate that it is.


Ignoring laws that do not suit our own purpose(s) is UnAmerican in principle.  Are we civilized or not (i.e., law of jungle)?  I say we are a civilized nation of laws and should act that way.

Off the top of my head:

We the people in order to form a more perfect union, *establish justice*, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity do ordain and establish this constitution.
  --Preamble

*We hold these truths* to be self-evident, *that all men are created equal*, that they are *endowed by their Creator* *with* certain unalienable *rights,* that among these are *life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness*.  That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted amon men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed....(i.e., Democracy)
  --Declaration of INdependence

According to these principles, all men have a right to basic human dignities--not just Americans.  The aggregation of men in societies can effectuate those basic rights only within a construct of a system of government where Justice is evidenced by rational/enlightened laws and every man has a say in that determination.  Ignoring laws that do not suit you, on any level, runs counter these principles. 

Casual dismissal of the rule of law for base self-interest is Un-American.  As is the trampling of other people's rights just for the sake of getting what you want, another's natural resources for example--base, unenlightened self-interest.



			
				Eggs said:
			
		

> South Americas is by and large mess... I certainly wouldn't blame the US for many of their past actions down there.


What about the 1973 assassination of Salvador Allende, the democratically elected leader of Chile?  The US murdered him b/c his views on nationalizing Chile's natural resources in the interests of the Chilean people clashed w/ the US's investor class interests in making money off of those same resources.

What about the US backing of the atrocities in Argentina in the mid 1970s--where Henry "Black Bag" Kissinger played a role? 

What about the recent Hugo Chavez Coup fuck up where Bush et. al. supported the military overthrow of that nationalistic president?  I assure you that Bush used more than bad thoughts to help that failed coup along.

Let's not even get into the righteous US 'drug war' down their.


----------



## GFR (Jul 19, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> International Law is like professional wrestling, it's all fake and only children believe in it.


This is the best post yet.    
All the rest is just masturbation.


----------



## maniclion (Jul 19, 2005)

ABLQ2 said:
			
		

> as far as im concerned arguing over politics is sorta like the special olympics.  even if you win....
> 
> your still   |2 3 +/\+3|).


Retated?  Do you mean "retarded".


----------



## Eggs (Jul 19, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> Ignoring laws that do not suit our own purpose(s) is UnAmerican in principle.  Are we civilized or not (i.e., law of jungle)?  I say we are a civilized nation of laws and should act that way.



What has defending our people and their assets have to do with being uncivilized? As to the law of the jungle, is it not civilized in some way? Thats why its called the law of the jungle. There are certainly levels of civilization below that.



> We the people in order to form a more perfect union, *establish justice*, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity do ordain and establish this constitution.
> --Preamble



But you dont think that protecting US Citizens assets is something a country should be concerned with? Do you think its *just* that other countries steal our assets and screw us over? Thats a funny outlook on being civilized and on justice  Justice in my book doesn't allow people to creep into my house and steal my belongings... and it certainly doesn't allow a country to act as a place that is safe for investors only to turn around and *steal* that investment from them. But if you think that is acceptable, please post your address up and I'll send some buddies over to steal you shit. Cause obviously I should "nationalize" (ie. steal) it for my own good 



> *We hold these truths* to be self-evident, *that all men are created equal*, that they are *endowed by their Creator* *with* certain unalienable *rights,* that among these are *life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness*.  That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted amon men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed....(i.e., Democracy)
> --Declaration of INdependence



Just because men are assumed to be equal does not mean that they can act without regard for their actions. Do we have people in jail in the US? But that limits their freedom, thats not right *snivels* Thats not life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness at all *whines some more* Yeah, thats life. We put the government into position not just to insure that people have an equal basis, but to insure justice and freedom for those that benefit society. Those that don't, well we put those in jail generally. Whether or not they are "human beings" and whether or not "they didn't mean to shoot the guy 10 times" or whether they were turned into a bad person because "their momma didn't buy them a barbie doll when they were 10 and it turned them into a psycho killer". Back in the day when the Declaration was written they were all about punishing those who deserved to be. Last I checked, just to put the "Declaration" in perspective.. I'm quite sure that it didn't inhibit a good many of the people then from owning slaves. Perhaps even quite a few of the signers themselves. So one could assume by that, they more than likely meant it for them.. and those they deemed acceptable to it. Because the Native Americans and the African Americans kinda got the *shaft* with that little Declaration.

 Anyways, I went off on a little tangent there.. but no where in the Declaration do I see it say that the US should not protect its citizens and their assets.



> According to these principles, all men have a right to basic human dignities--not just Americans.  The aggregation of men in societies can effectuate those basic rights only within a construct of a system of government where Justice is evidenced by rational/enlightened laws and every man has a say in that determination.  Ignoring laws that do not suit you, on any level, runs counter these principles.



 As brought up previously, I dont think your definition is inline with that the founders actually meant or acted upon at all. Anyways, once again... so do rational/enlightened people not act for the best interest of their country? Of their people and of their belongings? Should we put up a sign on our borders that says "plz come rape us!". I think not, and I certainly think that the government has an obligation to protect us. I might ignore laws, but at the least I am not recreating them to suit my own purposes 



> Casual dismissal of the rule of law for base self-interest is Un-American.  As is the trampling of other people's rights just for the sake of getting what you want, another's natural resources for example--base, unenlightened self-interest.



Just out of curiosity, what have you ever done for your country? Not saying you havent done anything, but I'm just wondering. Besides that, wh are you to creae rules of what is and what is not American? I have seen no laws anywhere that say that *Decker is the stronghold for all things good, lawfull, and patriotic in the US* But I would be interested in seeing such a law on paper if you have it handy.

You're right.. its not right of us to steal natural resources from other countries. As far as I know, those were paid for by our companies, and the governments in those countries in many cases invited our companies in so that they could get some of that good old fashioned cash. I know you're trying to say that we're killing people left and right all over the world.. but as I see it, these people are trying to steal what is mine and they have lied and wronged us. Some ass hole that tries to steal my shit should be shot.



> What about the 1973 assassination of Salvador Allende, the democratically elected leader of Chile?  The US murdered him b/c his views on nationalizing Chile's natural resources in the interests of the Chilean people clashed w/ the US's investor class interests in making money off of those same resources.



Thats right, do you know the situation regarding US investment in Chile? Did we go down there and murder and force the population to work our oil rigs and make us burritos? Hardly. I'm glad somebody killed that thieving mofo.



> What about the US backing of the atrocities in Argentina in the mid 1970s--where Henry "Black Bag" Kissinger played a role?



Whoops.



> What about the recent Hugo Chavez Coup fuck up where Bush et. al. supported the military overthrow of that nationalistic president?  I assure you that Bush used more than bad thoughts to help that failed coup along.



Whoops again, I hate it when they screw it up.



> Let's not even get into the righteous US 'drug war' down their.



The drug war is good in many ways. In other ways its a failure. It doesnt exactly work how I want it to.. but I really think that we need to crack down on the drug trade. Of course, that also counts all the damn meth labs all over the US. However, if South America refuses to control that shit and take care of it... then by all means we should offer to give them a hand. Sometimes even if they dont want it.

Once again, this country is created *FOR US*. This isnt the United Stated of America... plus Mexico, Canada, Chile, Brazil, etc. Yes we need to act like respectable human beings. That does not and should not prevent us from acting in a manner consistant with the protection of our citizens. The US government isnt here as a source of aid for Africa, or to send USAID workers to South America, or to give Tsunami relief to the Western Pacific regions. Those are things we do because we are nice people. That does not change the fact that the US government was created for, and still exists for, its citizens.


----------



## CANIBALISTIC (Jul 19, 2005)

Eggs said:
			
		

> What has defending our people and their assets have to do with being uncivilized? As to the law of the jungle, is it not civilized in some way? Thats why its called the law of the jungle. There are certainly levels of civilization below that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





I like what you said but where did you get all of this info?  You didn't just come up with this off of the top of your head did you?  Just a question.


----------



## Eggs (Jul 19, 2005)

CANIBALISTIC said:
			
		

> I like what you said but where did you get all of this info?  You didn't just come up with this off of the top of your head did you?  Just a question.



It was one ounce information, 15 ounces logical argument. When put together you get a nice 1lb steak, though one that is based mostly on argument and not necessarily on facts. In that it is quite subjective. As most is in regards to argument


----------



## Decker (Jul 20, 2005)

Eggs said:
			
		

> What has defending our people and their assets have to do with being uncivilized? As to the law of the jungle, is it not civilized in some way? Thats why its called the law of the jungle. There are certainly levels of civilization below that..


Your distinction marking grades of 'law' is interesting but irrelevant. You assert that international law can and should be ignored when US interests are at stake. That's plain wrong. It also happens to be the way the US does business, but the underlying principle of Justice memorialized in legal codes runs counter to your assertion.




			
				Eggs said:
			
		

> But you dont think that protecting US Citizens assets is something a country should be concerned with? Do you think its *just* that other countries steal our assets and screw us over? Thats a funny outlook on being civilized and on justice  Justice in my book doesn't allow people to creep into my house and steal my belongings... and it certainly doesn't allow a country to act as a place that is safe for investors only to turn around and *steal* that investment from them. But if you think that is acceptable, please post your address up and I'll send some buddies over to steal you shit. Cause obviously I should "nationalize" (ie. steal) it for my own good ..


Most of this paragraph is a straw argument. No one is asserting what you are and no one in their right mind does not believe in property rights, self defense laws. No one claimed that the US should not protect the interests of its citizens. Law puts into place procedures for handling the wrongful acts of others on our citizenry at home and abroad. 

Look, the US has been using our military and the CIA to prop up the worst human scum, like Hussein, to make investment in foreign countries safe for our elite. That is a fact that dates back to the 1800s--War is a Racket. The callous opportunism and RISK--it's all part of investing abroad--is a way of 'stealing' their indigenous properties first. 



			
				Eggs said:
			
		

> Just because men are assumed to be equal does not mean that they can act without regard for their actions. Do we have people in jail in the US? But that limits their freedom, thats not right *snivels* Thats not life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness at all *whines some more* Yeah, thats life. We put the government into position not just to insure that people have an equal basis, but to insure justice and freedom for those that benefit society. Those that don't, well we put those in jail generally. Whether or not they are "human beings" and whether or not "they didn't mean to shoot the guy 10 times" or whether they were turned into a bad person because "their momma didn't buy them a barbie doll when they were 10 and it turned them into a psycho killer". Back in the day when the Declaration was written they were all about punishing those who deserved to be. Last I checked, just to put the "Declaration" in perspective.. I'm quite sure that it didn't inhibit a good many of the people then from owning slaves. Perhaps even quite a few of the signers themselves. So one could assume by that, they more than likely meant it for them.. and those they deemed acceptable to it. Because the Native Americans and the African Americans kinda got the *shaft* with that little Declaration...


I'm not sure what your point is in this paragraph. It seems that you are overstating the significance what equality means. That's not the point. All men..endowed by their Creator/God have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Living in a hellhole society/world governed by individual whim instead of law makes the effectuation of those God-given rights impossible....it runs counter to the high principles of our constitution

Some of the Framers were hypocrites so we all can be???? They owned slaves and slaughtered indians. Ooopsy??? Let's continue in that grand tradition? I don't know what your point is.





			
				Eggs said:
			
		

> As brought up previously, I dont think your definition is inline with that the founders actually meant or acted upon at all. Anyways, once again... so do rational/enlightened people not act for the best interest of their country? Of their people and of their belongings? Should we put up a sign on our borders that says "plz come rape us!". I think not, and I certainly think that the government has an obligation to protect us. I might ignore laws, but at the least I am not recreating them to suit my own purposes ...


Once again, this is a straw argument. You go way too far in your rhetoric. Laws put in place procedure for handling wrongdoing...sometimes they are prophylactic sometimes they work after the fact and sometimes there are bad laws created for questionable ends. How does that reconcile with your blanket statement to ignore all international law?




			
				Eggs said:
			
		

> Just out of curiosity, what have you ever done for your country? Not saying you havent done anything, but I'm just wondering. Besides that, wh are you to creae rules of what is and what is not American? I have seen no laws anywhere that say that *Decker is the stronghold for all things good, lawfull, and patriotic in the US* But I would be interested in seeing such a law on paper if you have it handy....


Once again, your statements border on nonsensical. I offer up the principles of our constitution that say what it means to be an American. Where did I claim that I am the repository of all things good in the US? According to you, my claims are horseshit, even though I am supported by the US Constitution, and you are correct b/c....well, just b/c you are correct. Right?




			
				Eggs said:
			
		

> Thats right, do you know the situation regarding US investment in Chile? Did we go down there and murder and force the population to work our oil rigs and make us burritos? ....


That's exactly what we did. I suppose you put your unyielding support behind Augusto Pinochet. Look up war crimes in the dictionary and his picture is posted....this is piece of shit the US propped up b/c he was friendly to US interests. Look we use the vast majority of world resources....this economic gravy our country pursues to benefit the elite is wrong. Does that mean all foreign investment is wrong? Of course not, but damn it, much of the US's foreign ventures have been nothing short of terrorist war crimes. I have a list of countries we fucked for profit...I can post it. 



			
				Eggs said:
			
		

> Once again, this country is created *FOR US*. This isnt the United Stated of America... plus Mexico, Canada, Chile, Brazil, etc. Yes we need to act like respectable human beings. That does not and should not prevent us from acting in a manner consistant with the protection of our citizens. The US government isnt here as a source of aid for Africa, or to send USAID workers to South America, or to give Tsunami relief to the Western Pacific regions. Those are things we do because we are nice people. That does not change the fact that the US government was created for, and still exists for, its citizens.


This country was not created for us. According to Madison, this country was created to protect the propertied class. But Madison also thought that the propertied class would be something like Plato's philosopher king...they would rule judiciously and wisely and fairly. Little did he know that the propertied class would turn into predator motherfuckers like the Bush clan. Not to sound like John H., but read a book called American Dynasty written by Kevin Phillips. He's a former Nixon official who lays out with detail how Bush and clans like the Bush clan have created a much less safer world through the comingling of government force and foreign investment.


----------



## Eggs (Jul 20, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> Your distinction marking grades of 'law' is interesting but irrelevant. You assert that international law can and should be ignored when US interests are at stake. That's plain wrong. It also happens to be the way the US does business, but the underlying principle of Justice memorialized in legal codes runs counter to your assertion.



Not really, as you mentioned "law of the jungle", and I just put it into perspective. There are different degrees of law... some nicer than others, some more fair, some that benefit the weak and fuck the strong, and so on. Just because something is International Law does not mean that it is right. That'd be like saying "Because so many Christians believe in it, then it must be right." Just because other people want everyone else to act a certain way does not in any way make it right, it merely means that is the way they want us to act. 



> Most of this paragraph is a straw argument. No one is asserting what you are and no one in their right mind does not believe in property rights, self defense laws. No one claimed that the US should not protect the interests of its citizens. Law puts into place procedures for handling the wrongful acts of others on our citizenry at home and abroad.



So was much of Socrates BS.  Its really merely a roundabout way of proving a point. But see, that is what you're claiming, because you know as well as I do that if a country truly "nationalizes" our assets in their country then we are screwed over. Nobody is going to back us up in some court. And even if they did, what are we going to do to get back? Shut down that countries dictators $2.5 million bank account in the US? Thats a pittance. When working through the law you have to accept that both parties are willing to adece to the rule of that law... or in the least that a 3rd party has something of value to the offending party and you can convince them of your plight. But how often does that truly happen? You're probably well traveled, as am I... can you point me to situations in the world where we've been helped out of a mess caused my nationalization?



> Look, the US has been using our military and the CIA to prop up the worst human scum, like Hussein, to make investment in foreign countries safe for our elite. That is a fact that dates back to the 1800s--War is a Racket. The callous opportunism and RISK--it's all part of investing abroad--is a way of 'stealing' their indigenous properties first.



I do agree with that. We have particularily bad taste when it comes to installing and supporting dictators. I'm not an elite, and yet my investments deal with foreign countries and I would suffer if somebody were to screw over one of the companies that I'm invested in. In this day and age, its not just he elite investing.. but your average US citizen. War is in many ways a racket. Its not always used as that, unfortunately at times it is to a large degree. As stated before, we're not stealing anything. Well, we're stealing it in as much as investors in their countries are stealing property from us when they invest in our real estate, or whatever else. Its an investment. Just because its in another country does not mean that its stealing something from them. If they didn't want to sell that shit, then they should utilize some self control and not sell it.



> I'm not sure what your point is in this paragraph. It seems that you are overstating the significance what equality means. That's not the point. All men..endowed by their Creator/God have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Living in a hellhole society/world governed by individual whim instead of law makes the effectuation of those God-given rights impossible....it runs counter to the high principles of our constitution



We have little to do with whether a country somebody lives in is a hell hole. In some cases were are responsible, as we help install or support the bastard at the head... but just like the US in our war with England, we had to do what was right and many people lost their lives fighting. I feel some sympathy for people who live in shit countries ruled by scum, but on the other hand I also feel like if they don't like it, then they should fight to change it. The truth of the matter is, most are willing to eek by and have shitty existences because thats the easier, safer way. Thats their decision.



> Some of the Framers were hypocrites so we all can be???? They owned slaves and slaughtered indians. Ooopsy??? Let's continue in that grand tradition? I don't know what your point is.



Exactly! Nah, not really. I dont see us slaughtering any groups of people or making slaves of anyone. But it is very real that a good many of the people who supported those grand and noble words in both the Declaration and the Constitution did not actually mean them... or at least they only meant them in a limited manner. Should we espouse to achieve its true meaning as the words describe? Certainly. But lets not forget where it came from. I think I perhaps have a much less romantic view of the constitution and declaration than you do.



> Once again, this is a straw argument. You go way too far in your rhetoric. Laws put in place procedure for handling wrongdoing...sometimes they are prophylactic sometimes they work after the fact and sometimes there are bad laws created for questionable ends. How does that reconcile with your blanket statement to ignore all international law?



Nah, I hardly go far enough. And your argument here is as much if not more of a straw man than mine. No where did I make a blanket statement that we should ignore all international law. My statement is merely that we must defend ourselves, and not allow other countries to abuse us because the "law" wont affect them if they do. International Law is quite impotent. To use it for everything would be silly, and ineffective. So we shouldn't ignore all of it, and I never said we should. But we must realize its limits and do what we can to protect ourselves from those limits and other countries abuses of them.



> Once again, your statements border on nonsensical. I offer up the principles of our constitution that say what it means to be an American. Where did I claim that I am the repository of all things good in the US? According to you, my claims are horseshit, even though I am supported by the US Constitution, and you are correct b/c....well, just b/c you are correct. Right?



You stated that something was "unAmerican". I simply wanted to know by what right you declared something to be so. The constitution only supports you as you twist its meaning to your own purposes. Like all words, it can be distorted as such. I could just as easily say it backed me up... and that the justices it implies are ours to see to.



> That's exactly what we did. I suppose you put your unyielding support behind Augusto Pinochet. Look up war crimes in the dictionary and his picture is posted....this is piece of shit the US propped up b/c he was friendly to US interests. Look we use the vast majority of world resources....this economic gravy our country pursues to benefit the elite is wrong. Does that mean all foreign investment is wrong? Of course not, but damn it, much of the US's foreign ventures have been nothing short of terrorist war crimes. I have a list of countries we fucked for profit...I can post it.



Please do post the list of countries we have "fucked" for profit. If I'd know bordellos were so succesful I would have become an investor years ago  Regardless, as I said before, its not just the elite whose investments reach to other nations, but your every day average american. Should we prop up War criminals and ass holes whole back us? Nope... but in the same way, we cant just let some dick come along and "nationalize" our assets in their country because they are a schmuck. Which leaves us in a difficult position, because often times the only people available to run these countries are the ass hole dictators and the schmuck thief nationalizers.



> This country was not created for us. According to Madison, this country was created to protect the propertied class. But Madison also thought that the propertied class would be something like Plato's philosopher king...they would rule judiciously and wisely and fairly. Little did he know that the propertied class would turn into predator motherfuckers like the Bush clan. Not to sound like John H., but read a book called American Dynasty written by Kevin Phillips. He's a former Nixon official who lays out with detail how Bush and clans like the Bush clan have created a much less safer world through the comingling of government force and foreign investment.



 Yeah, Plato did have some romantic ideas. This one obviously didn't quite work out, as we've all seen that powerful positions tend to attract people that are interested in that power and what it can do for them. Unfortunately for us, there arent really any parties that are different than that. Kerry would have been an opportunistic bastard in his own right, and Bush is... well, Bush. The US has long had a policy of pissing off the world in promotion of foreign investment. Some of it necessarily, but we do rather need to keep ourselves in better check than we do. Which makes me wonder, whose running for the next election.


----------



## Decker (Jul 20, 2005)

Eggs said:
			
		

> Not really, as you mentioned "law of the jungle", and I just put it into perspective. There are different degrees of law... some nicer than others, some more fair, some that benefit the weak and fuck the strong, and so on. Just because something is International Law does not mean that it is right. That'd be like saying "Because so many Christians believe in it, then it must be right." Just because other people want everyone else to act a certain way does not in any way make it right, it merely means that is the way they want us to act. .


???Law of the jungle??? is sort of a joke b/c there is no law (i.e., no degrees)???.might makes right is no law???I was awkwardly trying to state that.  Like I said, there???re good laws and bad laws, international and local, and that???ll never change.  The most we hope for is striving for the fairest laws.  International law is a sticky subject b/c it is generally the product of much negotiation btn the interested parties so there is rarely the one-sided, unfair, firm rebuke that you state.




			
				Eggs said:
			
		

> So was much of Socrates BS.  Its really merely a roundabout way of proving a point. But see, that is what you're claiming, because you know as well as I do that if a country truly "nationalizes" our assets in their country then we are screwed over. Nobody is going to back us up in some court. And even if they did, what are we going to do to get back? Shut down that countries dictators $2.5 million bank account in the US? Thats a pittance. When working through the law you have to accept that both parties are willing to adece to the rule of that law... or in the least that a 3rd party has something of value to the offending party and you can convince them of your plight. But how often does that truly happen? You're probably well traveled, as am I... can you point me to situations in the world where we've been helped out of a mess caused my nationalization?.


A country can nationalize it???s own natural assets???coal, oil, sugar etc., This can be done to help its squalid, dirt poor citizen???s or it???s own investor class.  Usually when a political figure or movement want to better the conditions for the country???s poor, they can???t b/c the US beat them to the punch by propping up any leader???hussein, shah of iran, Pinochet???that will grant the US investor class preferred treatment, ironclad property rights, and assurances that anyone attempting to organize labor (unionizing) will be crushed/murdered.  
There's a case regarding the use of death squads by a US softdrink's foreign subsidiary to crush unionizers--it's either Coke or Pepsi, I can't recall.  The US investor class isn???t exclusive to it???s own countrymen???look at the billionaires of Mexico that have ties w/ US interests.  Monied interests are not bigoted where other monied interests are concernec--see Bush and the House of Saud.  
The instance of neoliberal interference that is evil is when foreign investors mingle w/ brute military force or psyops or both to effect cheap labor (slave/indentured labor) and little or no regulation or restrictions and political control to ensure that the gravytrain keeps running???sort of like locust on a corn crop.



I guess in a country like the US, which was founded on conquering indigenous peoples, it???s hard to conceive of the justice involved in looking at a poor country where the labor is paid nothing, working conditions are abominable, mortality rates are sickening and puppet governments are the norm and saying, ???gee, maybe the investor class elites of the US, through manipulation of foreign governments by force, are doing some evil nasty stuff to poor peasants by ???buying??? the natural resources and ???employing??? the indigenous people.???  Just a thought, they were there first and the US comes along looking for a few more dollars that???ll never ???trickle down??? to the worker and bastardize the free market by strong-arming the local government.



An aside, the reason why the US wouldn???t let Hussein be tried under the jurisdiction of the World Court is b/c the US is #1 on the docket for war crimes/terrorism by Reagan/Bush in Nicaragua.  The US simply ignores the world court???s jurisdiction.



I have to go Eggs but as always, it has been fun talking with you.  Here???s your (partial) list of countries that the US has exploited through outright brute force (not choice of preference by the elites) or finesse tactics (hiring death squads, rigging elections, terrorizing civilians, etc.) in an attempt to make foreign investing safe or safer:



Mexico, Cuba, Haiti, Greece, Italy, China, Argentina, Chile, Venezuela, Iran, Iraq, Guatemala, Viet Nam, Philippines, Laos, Zaire (Congo), Ecuador, Brazil, Indonesia, Dominican Republic, Cambodia, Nicaragua???.there are more, but you get the point.  These examples span really only this century too.  I have the documentation to support these examples.  I???d have mentioned pre-war Germany, but those bastards were more than willing to go along with the DuPonts, GE, ITT, Standard Oil etc.  You know, traitors to our country.


----------



## Eggs (Jul 20, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> ???Law of the jungle??? is sort of a joke b/c there is no law (i.e., no degrees)???.might makes right is no law???I was awkwardly trying to state that.  Like I said, there???re good laws and bad laws, international and local, and that???ll never change.  The most we hope for is striving for the fairest laws.  International law is a sticky subject b/c it is generally the product of much negotiation btn the interested parties so there is rarely the one-sided, unfair, firm rebuke that you state.



 I see what you're saying, and I know its a joke.. but I do believe that "might makes right" can and often is a law. The rule of the strong... and the weak generally suffer for it. Anyhow, I'm not a huge fan of it, because the strong don't do whats best for the people and the world, and generally limit progress (technologically, etc)



> A country can nationalize it???s own natural assets???coal, oil, sugar etc., This can be done to help its squalid, dirt poor citizen???s or it???s own investor class.  Usually when a political figure or movement want to better the conditions for the country???s poor, they can???t b/c the US beat them to the punch by propping up any leader???hussein, shah of iran, Pinochet???that will grant the US investor class preferred treatment, ironclad property rights, and assurances that anyone attempting to organize labor (unionizing) will be crushed/murdered.



Yes, and no. I do think that if a country allows our investors in they should honor any agreements they have with us regarding those. Even through a change of government. As to property rights, I do believe those shouldnt just be taken away from investors. I understand that a country wants to help its people (at least many do), but the right way to do so isnt to steal. If anything they need to address the issue with the "stakeholders" and come to an agreement. I think many will do that rather than lose everything in that country, and both parties would more than likely benefit from it. Government run businesses tend not to do so well, and when the government nationalizes businesses there is a decent chance they will run them into the ground soon there after.



> There's a case regarding the use of death squads by a US softdrink's foreign subsidiary to crush unionizers--it's either Coke or Pepsi, I can't recall.  The US investor class isn???t exclusive to it???s own countrymen???look at the billionaires of Mexico that have ties w/ US interests.  Monied interests are not bigoted where other monied interests are concernec--see Bush and the House of Saud.
> The instance of neoliberal interference that is evil is when foreign investors mingle w/ brute military force or psyops or both to effect cheap labor (slave/indentured labor) and little or no regulation or restrictions and political control to ensure that the gravytrain keeps running???sort of like locust on a corn crop.



There are billionaires here in the US, as well as there being the dirt poor. That shouldn't allow the poor to steal from the rich as they see fit. Of course I am a capitalist, so that is my opinion... a socialist or a communist would probably have quite a different one. However, I dont think either of us will hold to that position. I'm not a huge fan of the US government assassinating people for business interests, but there needs to be some sort controls in place that do a more effective job than International Law seems to do. We in the past have tended to utilize fear as our tool to keep people walking the straight and narrow, but as can be seen over the past couple centuries we've made a mess of that.



> I guess in a country like the US, which was founded on conquering indigenous peoples, it???s hard to conceive of the justice involved in looking at a poor country where the labor is paid nothing, working conditions are abominable, mortality rates are sickening and puppet governments are the norm and saying, ???gee, maybe the investor class elites of the US, through manipulation of foreign governments by force, are doing some evil nasty stuff to poor peasants by ???buying??? the natural resources and ???employing??? the indigenous people.???  Just a thought, they were there first and the US comes along looking for a few more dollars that???ll never ???trickle down??? to the worker and bastardize the free market by strong-arming the local government.



 Oh, its not so hard to imagine. As stated before, I'm decently well traveled. I've really only spent about half my life in the US, so I've seen countries where people were dirt poor, etc. Theres no doubt that the US and the businesses here have at times acted rather poorly. However, I'm not so sure the people would be much better off in their country if we had not been there. There have been plenty of governments in South America that have come to force of their own power that have screwed the people over royally. Companies that invest in those countries IMO do owe a social debt, but on the other hand they also deserve to not be stolen from in return. That is my contention, that these countries are acting no better in their theft of our assets than we are in sending somebody down to whack them.



> An aside, the reason why the US wouldn???t let Hussein be tried under the jurisdiction of the World Court is b/c the US is #1 on the docket for war crimes/terrorism by Reagan/Bush in Nicaragua.  The US simply ignores the world court???s jurisdiction.



Nicaragua was a bit of a fiasco wasnt it? Hrm, anyways, I am wary of allowing a world court to push its agenda/beliefs on us. If we bow to it, then we do lose a large degree of the power we currently hold. Most modern countries are guilty of their own list of atrocities... and I'm sure we can find them, from the French to the English, etc. Look at Russia, China, and so on. On a list of bastards in the world, I dont think we rank nearly as high as some of the others out there. Of course that doesn't excuse our actions, but perhaps there is a bit of a corrolation between excercising ones power on an international scale and increasing that power. Anyhow, international entities, such as the UN and so on, are often at odds with us, and what they think is right or wrong might not fall into what we believe to be so.



> I have to go Eggs but as always, it has been fun talking with you.  Here???s your (partial) list of countries that the US has exploited through outright brute force (not choice of preference by the elites) or finesse tactics (hiring death squads, rigging elections, terrorizing civilians, etc.) in an attempt to make foreign investing safe or safer:
> 
> Mexico, Cuba, Haiti, Greece, Italy, China, Argentina, Chile, Venezuela, Iran, Iraq, Guatemala, Viet Nam, Philippines, Laos, Zaire (Congo), Ecuador, Brazil, Indonesia, Dominican Republic, Cambodia, Nicaragua???.there are more, but you get the point.  These examples span really only this century too.  I have the documentation to support these examples.  I???d have mentioned pre-war Germany, but those bastards were more than willing to go along with the DuPonts, GE, ITT, Standard Oil etc.  You know, traitors to our country.



Yeah, the list is actually a bit longer than that I believe. As to Germany.. well, they do know how to make their own messes. And dont forget to include IBM in those companies  Anyhow, like I said before, I'm not a huge fan of going out and whacking people who don't agree with our investors, but there has to be something that protects them. Anyhow, as always it has been fun, thanks for the discussion!


----------

