Taiwan/China Games or Practice?

[rtwngAvngr]

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

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

 

[DKSuddeth]

Kathianne,

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

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

Wade.

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

 

[rtwngAvngr]

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

 

[wade]

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

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

Example:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wade.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

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

Example:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wade.

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

 

[wade]

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

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

Wade.

 

[wade]

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

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

 

[rtwngAvngr]

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

Wade.

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

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

 

[wade]

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

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

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



Wade

 

[dilloduck]

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

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

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



Wade

and the problem with all three in republican hands is?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

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

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

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

 

[wade]

and the problem with all three in republican hands is?

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

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

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

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

Wade.

 

[wade]

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

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

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

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

Wade.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

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

Wade.

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

 

[wade]

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

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

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

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

Wade.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

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

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

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

Wade.

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

 

[wade]

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

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

Wade.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

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

Wade.

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

 

[wade]

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

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

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

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

Wade.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

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

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

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

Wade.

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

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

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