Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

This Is What Globalization Was All About

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • This Is What Globalization Was All About

    I know the lefties here want to make globalization into some kind of business bashing scheme dreamed up by the evil Capitalists but the truth is, it was started by lefties back in the late 60's as an effort to spread the wealth around the world. They were on continual rants about how much of the world's resources the U.S. used compared to the rest of the world and how we lived so much better than third world countries. This was seen by them as abusive and as something that needed to be addressed by government. Well, they can celebrate now as this is the result:

    wordpoverty2-600x387.jpg

    Chart of the greatest and most remarkable achievement in human history, and one you probably never heard about | AEIdeas

    This was their goal. This is what they pushed and marched for. Now that it has resulted in a decline in the standard of living of this country,(one of their goals) they want to blame it on evil corporations who are taking advantage of the poor to line their pockets with wealth. Once the global track was decided upon, by government, there was no going back. Businesses had to accommodate or go under. The businesses in this country were not pushing for this, Ross Perot warned against it and yet the progressives got it passed. It may eventually be a good thing but people need to understand that it was not the efforts of big business that got this ball rolling.

    Just as CRA created the housing bubble snowball, the progressives with government help, created this one. If they want to take credit for the improvement in world poverty rates, they need to take the blame for the decline here.
    Last edited by OldmanDan; 01-05-2014, 05:46 AM.

  • #2
    Re: This Is What Globalization Was All About

    This being the case, then there are a lot of now better off countries that owe the US some gratitude and some consideration, if nothing else.

    It'll never come, so I won't hold my breath.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #3
      Re: This Is What Globalization Was All About

      Yeah, OMD hit a homerun with this one. The far left did want this, and now it seems they are not happy they have gotten it.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #4
        Re: This Is What Globalization Was All About

        Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
        I know the lefties here want to make globalization into some kind of business bashing scheme dreamed up by the evil Capitalists but the truth is, it was started by lefties back in the late 60's as an effort to spread the wealth around the world. They were on continual rants about how much of the world's resources the U.S. used compared to the rest of the world and how we lived so much better than third world countries. This was seen by them as abusive and as something that needed to be addressed by government. Well, they can celebrate now as this is the result:

        [ATTACH=CONFIG]15050[/ATTACH]

        Chart of the greatest and most remarkable achievement in human history, and one you probably never heard about | AEIdeas

        This was their goal. This is what they pushed and marched for. Now that it has resulted in a decline in the standard of living of this country,(one of their goals) they want to blame it on evil corporations who are taking advantage of the poor to line their pockets with wealth. Once the global track was decided upon, by government, there was no going back. Businesses had to accommodate or go under. The businesses in this country were not pushing for this, Ross Perot warned against it and yet the progressives got it passed. It may eventually be a good thing but people need to understand that it was not the efforts of big business that got this ball rolling.

        Just as CRA created the housing bubble snowball, the progressives with government help, created this one. If they want to take credit for the improvement in world poverty rates, they need to take the blame for the decline here.
        It would make sense, if not for the FACT that the republicans were driving this, with the formulation of NAFTA done under a republican president, and introduced in congress by republicans. So republican want to spread the wealth? Obviously, LOL. Since we know that they indeed DON'T, and when we look at what globalization has done in regards to the income going upwards, a great disparity, well, following who benefitted the greatest will lead you to the culprits. But you won't do that.



        I do not have any doubt that the far left, the lunatics, have wanted to spread the wealth of others across the globe to pull up the poor. And I can just envision the heads of MNCs sitting down with right wing economists, saying that the Left wanted to bring up the poor in the world by sharing america's wealth(the wealth, income of our middle class) so dammit, let's do that! And we can do it in a way that sends more income to our elites, and it sinks American workers into poverty from the lack of a living wage job. So, the left wants this sharing(although the elites are not sharing shit, which is what the left really wanted) so lets give it to them!

        NAFTA was simply a way to reduce labor costs for the elites, thereby increasing their own income and wealth. That is actually what drove it, since it convened under a republican president, who couldn't sign it, so Clinton did, even after Perot had made such a big deal out of it. If the dems were on board with it, Clinton would not have had to work so hard to get them to vote for it. The majority of the repubs were already gonna vote for it because it was indeed a pro business deal.

        That some men would want to twist this up, to make this something created by the left is absurd. Sure some of those lefties wanted to share America's gold with the poor in the world, but they wanted to share the elite's wealth, being the proper socialists that they are.

        You are straining out gnats oldman, and allowing the elephants to pass on through, because you for some reason don't want to accept the fact that your team are the pro business team, even to a fault.

        If the MNCs went to china to bring up her poor, they would have paid them more than 80 cents an hour to do an American middle class job. That they used this to benefit their profits points to the real reason as to why they helped to concoct this thing called free trade, that went far beyond free trade, as a device to max out the income of a few. Because this is exactly the results of free trade, and the elites knew this, and the real reason we have free trade. All you got to do is to follow the money, but on this issue you just refuse to acknowledge the validity of doing so.

        If the goal of dems was to share the wealth, why was NAFTA devised by republicans under a republican admin? I reckon the repubs actually are liberal, socialistic dems?

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #5
          Re: This Is What Globalization Was All About

          Originally posted by Imawhosure View Post
          Yeah, OMD hit a homerun with this one. The far left did want this, and now it seems they are not happy they have gotten it.

          The far left wanted the wealth of the elites shared. So they did not do it.

          You guys are brain dead. Or so ideological blind as to be incapable of seeing from whence party NAFTA originated.

          It did not originate from the liberal dems. It came to fruition under a republican, was voted for by the majority of republicans, who introduced it to congress. The dems had to have their arms twisted by the republican Clinton, in order to get the vote. Clinton later on said his reason for signing it was because he actually believed it would create better jobs here, to replace those living wage jobs lost. He was utterly wrong. But I don't think he actually believed it would do what he thought. He is smarter than that. And Perot was correct, with his giant sucking sound analogy.

          I believed Perot because it was self evident, if you have a healthy brain. And what Perot said would happen, happened. Which led to the rise of the Virtual State, and the demise of America's middle class. But hey, the elites got richer, so it's all good! And that was the intent of free trade that allowed offshoring of jobs to exploit some poor people. Sure, they are not as poor as prior, but hardly even lower middle class.

          What you believe oldman is just like a liberal dem blaming the republicans for the creation of social security. That in fact, they created it, simply because some republicans voted in favor of it back when it became law.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #6
            Re: This Is What Globalization Was All About

            Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
            You guys are brain dead.
            Only the truly brain dead could willfully* ignore:

            With much consideration and emotional discussion, the House of Representatives approved NAFTA on November 17, 1993, 234-200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. NAFTA passed the Senate 61-38. Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; it went into effect on January 1, 1994.[3][4] Clinton, while signing the NAFTA bill, stated that "NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement."


            *"Willfully" ignorant because I have told you these FACTS before.

            North American Free Trade Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #7
              Re: This Is What Globalization Was All About

              Originally posted by tsquare View Post
              Only the truly brain dead could willfully* ignore:


              I believe you are the one doing the willfully ignoring T. It is documented that Clinton had to work hard to get democratic support.




              *"Willfully" ignorant because I have told you these FACTS before.

              North American Free Trade Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
              There you go using facts out of context. I feel this is clever propaganda.

              But who introduced it to congress? A dem or a repub? Who's administration was it concocted under, although it was not complete until after Clinton took office? Bush was working hard to sign it himself, but couldn't get it done in time. These are facts sir, and why will you not acknowledge them?

              The idea that this free trade deal was concocted by the socialistic dems is pure fancy. There is no question they ended up voting with the repubs after Clinton did what ever he did to get them on board with it. But they did not create it. It was concocted by republicans, under Bush Sr. How hard is that to grasp?

              Question is, and I am curious here, and it might help you, is, were the moderate repubs the ones that did not vote for it, or was it the cons who did not vote for it in the republican party? Do you know?

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #8
                Re: This Is What Globalization Was All About

                Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                There you go using facts out of context. I feel this is clever propaganda.

                But who introduced it to congress? A dem or a repub? Who's administration was it concocted under, although it was not complete until after Clinton took office? Bush was working hard to sign it himself, but couldn't get it done in time. These are facts sir, and why will you not acknowledge them?

                The idea that this free trade deal was concocted by the socialistic dems is pure fancy. There is no question they ended up voting with the repubs after Clinton did what ever he did to get them on board with it. But they did not create it. It was concocted by republicans, under Bush Sr. How hard is that to grasp?

                Question is, and I am curious here, and it might help you, is, were the moderate repubs the ones that did not vote for it, or was it the cons who did not vote for it in the republican party? Do you know?
                The facts are also that a significant number of Democrats supported the legislation and voted for it.

                Blame shifting it all to the Republicans of the time is not only factually inaccurate, it also smacks of a partisan blinders view point.

                Fairest really would be to blame those that voted for the legislation as well as who signed it into law.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #9
                  Re: This Is What Globalization Was All About

                  Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                  There you go using facts out of context. I feel this is clever propaganda.

                  But who introduced it to congress? A dem or a repub? Who's administration was it concocted under, although it was not complete until after Clinton took office? Bush was working hard to sign it himself, but couldn't get it done in time. These are facts sir, and why will you not acknowledge them?

                  The idea that this free trade deal was concocted by the socialistic dems is pure fancy. There is no question they ended up voting with the repubs after Clinton did what ever he did to get them on board with it. But they did not create it. It was concocted by republicans, under Bush Sr. How hard is that to grasp?

                  Question is, and I am curious here, and it might help you, is, were the moderate repubs the ones that did not vote for it, or was it the cons who did not vote for it in the republican party? Do you know?
                  This post smacks of propaganda... and with no cleverness at all.

                  Now I'll give you one point:

                  The idea that this free trade deal was concocted by the socialistic dems is pure fancy.
                  True enough... we know this because they don't have the wit for it.

                  More on that later...

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #10
                    Re: This Is What Globalization Was All About

                    Originally posted by tsquare View Post
                    This post smacks of propaganda... and with no cleverness at all.

                    Now I'll give you one point:



                    True enough... we know this because they don't have the wit for it.

                    More on that later...
                    Of course the loony left doesn't have the business wit to pull this off so well, with so little resistance from the American public.

                    This change to the American economic model was driven by business interests, in the seeking to max out profits, at whatever it takes. This hasn't been a democratic tenet, although one would think this is a tenet that they share with the pro business republicans these days.

                    The liberals that you guys talk about would have to remain true to their core socialistic beliefs and go in the opposite direction. They want more of the profits of business to spread out, which doesn't happen when income is kept offshore as to avoid taxation. They would want to own those businesses, taking them out of the hands of the elites. That is what socialism is, and since you say they are all a bunch of socialists, we must expect them to act like that. They gotta act like socialists, ya know?

                    I think free trade, in the way that it was concocted, was driven by business interests, big business interests, and the great desire to max out profits, which was impossible to do in America, given what we demand of our businesses. Responsibility. This is the driving force behind this so called free trade, and the ear it used was the republican ear. Because your party has been pro business for quite a spell. What is good for GM is good for America, that mindset that favors a few at the top.

                    I also think that for people to refuse to acknowledge this is almost approaching criminality. Not criminal, as we should be able to believe what we want, but that it creates dangerous mischief within the society in which it occurs. It's believing in lies, non facts.

                    If you cannot discern, observe what it going on, you only contribute to the problem. I think you guys here who believe this was a creation of the loony left are contributing to the problem. You don't want your team as being responsible for the devastation. Understandable.

                    I have never gave the dems who had their arms twisted by Clinton a hard time here, instead I have went after the very source of this madness. And the source isn't difficult to see, if only one could look without the ideological blindness. But those dems need to be given a hard time, which I have never heard voiced here. No one talks of it. These dems at this point in time, if not sooner, stopped representing the average American. And while this may have been a late illustration of that change, the change did occur. I am not one of these modern democrats. They have been infected with the same thing that infects the hard right of the republican party. Incoherence, basically. And a refusal to represent the best interests of the average American. This is the group that my democratic party used to represent. And when this party stopped doing that, we got Nafta and MFN for china, bringing them in line with the pro business republicans. This is what my perceptions tell me, what observation of "what is" tells me.

                    And so the party that stopped representing the best interests of the average American, sided with the republicans in their support of big business, yielding the blight of globalization. A new way of doing a very old thing. Maxing out the amount of income that goes to a few, at the top. This is the reality of all of these changes. And this is dangerous for our form of gov't , not to mention American society itself, and not to mention that it weakens a nation in an era when wars are won by industrial might. The American people are less safe from this profit driven deindustrialization, less secure, because the degree of manufacturing is essential in winning wars. That will never change, even given nuclear war. The more we know about nuclear war, the less apt we are to ever engage in it.
                    Last edited by Blue Doggy; 01-05-2014, 01:46 PM.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #11
                      Re: This Is What Globalization Was All About

                      Oh, Blue Doggy, you are amusing.

                      What President pushed NAFTA through and then signed it, saying "NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement"? Hint - his name was Bill Clinton, and he was a Democrat. IIRC, you proudly voted for him.

                      So if you want to assign blame for NAFTA and what followed, start by looking in a mirror.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #12
                        Re: This Is What Globalization Was All About

                        Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
                        The facts are also that a significant number of Democrats supported the legislation and voted for it.

                        Blame shifting it all to the Republicans of the time is not only factually inaccurate, it also smacks of a partisan blinders view point.

                        Fairest really would be to blame those that voted for the legislation as well as who signed it into law.
                        No blinders at all. I am seeking the source of this. I say everything points to the correct source, big business and a republican administration. You guys refuse to admit it, and play around on the periphery, in the more superficial.

                        This is all that I have really said. I have admitted the dems, enough of them got on board, but it is important that at first they did not, and had to be coaxed into it, by whatever carrot Clinton used.

                        But I think it is significant to know, of the republicans(who brought this deal in, NAFTA) was it the less pro business moderates, or the conservatives that voted NO? I don't know that answer, but my intuition tells me it was probably the conservatives that voted more for it, than moderates.

                        If so, this would imply that it was the conservatives who wanted to spread the wealth to first mexico and then china, instead of the far left democrats. Does anyone know which part of the republican party voted against free trade?

                        And it seems like I recall the so called socialists amongst the democrats in that particular congress voted against free trade. People like Kucinich. One could envision the blue dogs in that congress siding with the republicans on this issue.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #13
                          Re: This Is What Globalization Was All About

                          Originally posted by MattInFla View Post
                          Oh, Blue Doggy, you are amusing.

                          What President pushed NAFTA through and then signed it, saying "NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement"? Hint - his name was Bill Clinton, and he was a Democrat. IIRC, you proudly voted for him.

                          So if you want to assign blame for NAFTA and what followed, start by looking in a mirror.
                          Why is it, that the origination of this is of no import to you? That sir, is surreal, at least to this mind.

                          Perhaps I am cursed with the lessons taught growing up on a farm, where clear observation was important for your crops coming in, in abundance. Which makes me seek the roots, the causes, the origination of a particular thing that would forever change my nation's economic model. For if I know from when this insanity arose, I would never vote for one of those insane men again. Perhaps this is the motivation of those here who simply refuse to acknowledge the obvious? I don't know, but something strange is going on here, with you guys. For if the republican party and big business, and let's not leave out banking, is the originator, and you don't like globalization, you could never vote for one ever again. So, we must trick our own minds, into not accepting facts. Is that it? Is that why this is going on, even to the point of oldman trying to blame this on the socialists in the democratic party?

                          In my book, (and its an easy to read book) the originator of nafta is of great importance, regardless of how many dems had to have their arms twisted to side with this free trade deal. That the dems conceded and voted yes is an issue too, but it does not distract from the point I have made in regards to the origination of nafta.

                          The best course, and the most honest course is simply to say that it was a big business, banking, republican scheme, which Clinton believed in to the degree that he had to change democratic minds in order for it to get out of congress. That is what the facts say. And Perot correctly knew damn well what it would do to our employment, and what it would do to our social safety net spending. The trouble is, americans were too stupid to see the common sense obvious conclusion of what this would do to average americans and their ability to take care of themselves by the way of a job.

                          The republican voters obviously agreed to the sound of jobs leaving for mexico, and the democrats, many of them probably thought a democrat would never sell out average working americans, and so the rest is history.

                          But here is the deal. I voted for Perot, eventhough most people were making fun of his nasally voice, his eccentricities, because what he said was simple common sense> I knew what he said would transpire, if we went that route, and it is even worse than I imagined it could be. So what he said, and what I thought would happen, happened. I was right about that, and I am right about this argument on the origin of free trade, as concocted under a republican admin, who intended on signing it once other republicans introduced it into congress to be voted on.

                          This is the "what is good for business, is good for America" attitude, is clearly a republican thing. But you guys won't admit it.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #14
                            Re: This Is What Globalization Was All About

                            Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                            Of course the loony left doesn't have the business wit to pull this off so well, with so little resistance from the American public.
                            You start out so well... almost.

                            Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                            This change to the American economic model was driven by business interests, in the seeking to max out profits, at whatever it takes. This hasn't been a democratic tenet, although one would think this is a tenet that they share with the pro business republicans these days.
                            The change to the low skill/high pay economic model was driven by automation and computerization.

                            Say it with me... 2 out of 3 jobs lost have been due to automation and computerization.

                            I show you that, in your own glorious manufacturing plant, it now only takes 500 people to make one million tires a year. You completely ignore it.

                            I go on to prove to you that even if you brought 1,000 similar plants and opened them in the US, only 500,000 people would get jobs... about .4% of the unemployed. You completely ignore it.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #15
                              Re: This Is What Globalization Was All About

                              Originally posted by tsquare View Post

                              I go on to prove to you that even if you brought 1,000 similar plants and opened them in the US, only 500,000 people would get jobs... about .4% of the unemployed. You completely ignore it.
                              Facts...damn pesky things.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?

                              Working...
                              X