K
kirby_1111
Guest
We all know it's true. If only there was some way for only the intelligent to choose the future of mankind, like the illuminate... 
D
Donkey Rhubarb
Guest
If we had a direct popular vote, the lesser populated states would have NO POWER to elect.
A candidate could win Texas and California and never even have to set foot in a single other state.
What needs to happen, is states need to stop doing the "winner takes all" thing.
I know my homestate of Maine splits it's electoral vote.
The REAL reason why the electoral college was put in place, was not to remove power from the people, but to empower the entire nation as a whole, so that each state has a say in who becomes president, not just a large number of liberals in a densley populated area.
Besides that, the reason why the majority isn't trusted is becuase minorities have rights as well. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. The civil rights movement is a prime case of why we need a republic, limited by it's constitution, isntead of a mass mob that decideds that whatever minority is evil, and then vote to deny rights of said group.
A candidate could win Texas and California and never even have to set foot in a single other state.
What needs to happen, is states need to stop doing the "winner takes all" thing.
I know my homestate of Maine splits it's electoral vote.
The REAL reason why the electoral college was put in place, was not to remove power from the people, but to empower the entire nation as a whole, so that each state has a say in who becomes president, not just a large number of liberals in a densley populated area.
Besides that, the reason why the majority isn't trusted is becuase minorities have rights as well. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. The civil rights movement is a prime case of why we need a republic, limited by it's constitution, isntead of a mass mob that decideds that whatever minority is evil, and then vote to deny rights of said group.
M
mythosx
Guest
You all talk about mob mentality and how each of you is an individual. If you have ever said "Let's get those towelheads." "Let's bomb Iraq." "Bush is doing a great job." or "Fighting in the middle east has nothing to do with oil." You would be a part of that same mob mentality my friends.
D
Donkey Rhubarb
Guest
Yup, that was my point.
Or if you've ever said, "Anybody but Bush" or "Republicans are all scum" or "Democrats are all dumb" it's the same thing.
Besides that, the two party system is just a structure to control you. It divides us against ourselves, and makes us side with others who we disagree with. I will not defend abortion, so should I go to the republicans? I will not defend war, so should I go to the democrats? I beleive in constitutionally limited governemtn, so should I go to the republicans? But doing so means I oppose the USAPATRIOT act, and the republicans seem to support that.
But I beleive in a universal single payer health care system, so should I... oh wait, neither party supports that! HAHAH! How silly!
It's all there to fool you into thinking your side is good or better.
There are awesome Republicans out there like Ron Paul of Texas, and there are awesome Democrats out there like Dennis Kucinich of Ohio.
People are people, not parties.
R
Reverend Love
Guest
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
D
Donkey Rhubarb
Guest
Maybe you could let me in on the joke?
He's for a constitutionally limited government, they're against th WTO and NAFTA, they're for building a better America from the ground up, not the top down, like Bush and Kerry.
They're both strong supporters of civil liberties, and defenders of the constitution. Niether is willing to compromise their morals, which are both set in the idea that the human being is good, and that we need to band together and help eachother out, and that we need to defed EVERYONE's rights.
That's admirable.
I don't see what's wrong with that. I think he and Ron Paul have more in common with eachother than Kucinich and Kerry. And Kerry and Bush have more in common than Bush and Ron Paul.
He's for a constitutionally limited government, they're against th WTO and NAFTA, they're for building a better America from the ground up, not the top down, like Bush and Kerry.
They're both strong supporters of civil liberties, and defenders of the constitution. Niether is willing to compromise their morals, which are both set in the idea that the human being is good, and that we need to band together and help eachother out, and that we need to defed EVERYONE's rights.
That's admirable.
I don't see what's wrong with that. I think he and Ron Paul have more in common with eachother than Kucinich and Kerry. And Kerry and Bush have more in common than Bush and Ron Paul.
M
mythosx
Guest
What's wrong with WTO or NAFTA? The globalization of economy is going to happen with or without you. If you aren't at the helm you are going to get left behind. Do you know why America is the world most powerful and wealthiest nation? It is because we trade universally with everyone and everything. No nation or empire in the history of the world has remained dominant after closing its doors to outside influences.
D
Donkey Rhubarb
Guest
What's wrong with WTO of NAFTA?
Well I dont' know... Let me see.
The WTO is a group of three lawyers who decide who gets to trade what with who and when. For instance, the USA wants to trade with peru, becuase we want them to buy goods we manufacture here. But we have to by WTO law, purchase an item from them of equal value.
The WTO has determined that we are required to purchase gasoline from Peru. Well what's wrong with that? well, Peru's refineries are ... really sh**y... to put it plainly. The gasoline they produce is of very low quality and burns very inneficiently, so ineficeintly that it doesn't meet the standards of the Clean Air Act. So in order to make the fuel burn cleaner they put MTBE in the gasoline? What's wrong with MTBE? Well, most toxins are measured in parts per million. MTBE is so toxic to our ground water that it is measured in parts per trillion. About a 2 cups could make the entire water supply of the state of maine compleatly undrinkable.
But we HAVE to buy it anyways. Because of the WTO.
What else is wrong with Globalized trade? Well, for one thing, corporations and their CEO's are increasingly seeing themselves as world citizens. When they can't find cheap exploitable labor here in teh USA, they have no problem exporting jobs overseas to places where labor laws and worker's rights are weak or non-existant. When in the 30's unions organized and demanded rights from the corporations that were exploiting them, the corporations started to pay attention and give the workers what they wanted. now it's possible that they can just take their ball and go home, and screw some other group of people over. The CEO's have no patriotism, and no loyalty to any laws or nations, or peoples. They hide their money in offshores bank accounts, and avoid paying into the government system. There is disgusting amounts of government revenue that is lost in off shores tax havens-- money that is DUE to the government, money that could be funding schools, funding social security. What they are doing is in spirit illegal, but in practice legal through loopholes.
The Globalization of Economy might not go on WITH me. I can make sure to buy american whenever possible, to buy locally, to buy in season, and to use my purchasing power to speak for me. You can too. Also, I can support candidates like Kucinich and Ron Paul who favor pulling out of both of these organizations, and bringing American busniess back home, where it belongs.
To say that America is the wealthiest and most powerful nation is misleading.
Let me break things down for you real simple:
The top ten percent of the USA's population owns 81% of the nation's wealth. That means that the other 19% is divied up amongst the other 90% of the nation.
America collectively owns 42% of the worlds wealth. That's why we're the most wealthy and richest nation in the world. But of that 42%, 90% of the population of the USA only sees collectively 19% of that. So 90% of the nation NEVER SEES 81% of the wealth they supposedly are a part of. The wealthiest 10% of the nation are disgustingly wealthy, and they don't even claim to live here. They gain their riches by exploiting people all over the globe. What my point is, is unless you are in that upper echalon, you cannot lay any claim to the America that is the most powerful nation in the world. It's not your America. Tis theirs.
not simple enough? Let me break it down this way:
If america were represented by a pack of 100 wolves, and this pack of wolves needed 100 deer a month to survive, 10 of these wolves would eat 80 deer each month. The other 90 wolves would be forced to fight over the remaining 20 deer. That's 0.222 deer per wolf per month.
You could say that this pack of wolves was the strongest and most well fed pack of wolves in the world, but 90% of the wolves might disagree. Of course the economic class structure doesn't break down with 10% and then the rest are even. there are some within the 90% who have more than the others, but after the upper 10% it does slope off quite quickly.
if the distribution of wealth in america were represented by a peanut butter sandwhich there would be a fairly even coat of peanut butter that grew gradually thicker acrossed 90% of the bread surface, and then at the edge of the sandwhich, there would be a very sharply rising tower of nutbutter that would extend around 7 inches off of the bread.
This globalized economy is killing the domestic economy. Artificially low prices are driving production jobs overseas, manufacturing, computer industries, telecommunications, and manufacturing Jobs are leaving this nation in droves, we aren't MAKING anything anymore, our economy is becoming more and more service sector. Sell these things to these people, flip these burgers, sell them to those people. Oh wait, I forgot, Bush redefined burger flipping as "manufacturing" thereby "creating" jobs in the manufacturing industry. That's just as underhanded as clinton trying to weasle what the definition of "is" is.
We need to bring our economy back home to American Soils, and return to bilateral trade. We won't be closing our doors, we will be returning to trade on our own conditions, based in Human rights and workers rights, and in this way, instead of exploiting the poor of the world, we will create incentive for the corporations (who's CEO's are based in the USA) that exploit them to stop exploiting the workers and start treating them as if they had rights, as if they were human beings, or they get no sales from the USA. We will be able to life the world up, and lift ourselves up as a nation by our bootstraps, we will start making our own things again, we will start producing materials again here at home, and we will have an economy we can be proud of.
Why do we buy things from other countries that we can produce here at home? It makes NO sence at all.
AND THAT, my freind is what's wrong with the WTO and NAFTA.
Well I dont' know... Let me see.
The WTO is a group of three lawyers who decide who gets to trade what with who and when. For instance, the USA wants to trade with peru, becuase we want them to buy goods we manufacture here. But we have to by WTO law, purchase an item from them of equal value.
The WTO has determined that we are required to purchase gasoline from Peru. Well what's wrong with that? well, Peru's refineries are ... really sh**y... to put it plainly. The gasoline they produce is of very low quality and burns very inneficiently, so ineficeintly that it doesn't meet the standards of the Clean Air Act. So in order to make the fuel burn cleaner they put MTBE in the gasoline? What's wrong with MTBE? Well, most toxins are measured in parts per million. MTBE is so toxic to our ground water that it is measured in parts per trillion. About a 2 cups could make the entire water supply of the state of maine compleatly undrinkable.
But we HAVE to buy it anyways. Because of the WTO.
What else is wrong with Globalized trade? Well, for one thing, corporations and their CEO's are increasingly seeing themselves as world citizens. When they can't find cheap exploitable labor here in teh USA, they have no problem exporting jobs overseas to places where labor laws and worker's rights are weak or non-existant. When in the 30's unions organized and demanded rights from the corporations that were exploiting them, the corporations started to pay attention and give the workers what they wanted. now it's possible that they can just take their ball and go home, and screw some other group of people over. The CEO's have no patriotism, and no loyalty to any laws or nations, or peoples. They hide their money in offshores bank accounts, and avoid paying into the government system. There is disgusting amounts of government revenue that is lost in off shores tax havens-- money that is DUE to the government, money that could be funding schools, funding social security. What they are doing is in spirit illegal, but in practice legal through loopholes.
The Globalization of Economy might not go on WITH me. I can make sure to buy american whenever possible, to buy locally, to buy in season, and to use my purchasing power to speak for me. You can too. Also, I can support candidates like Kucinich and Ron Paul who favor pulling out of both of these organizations, and bringing American busniess back home, where it belongs.
To say that America is the wealthiest and most powerful nation is misleading.
Let me break things down for you real simple:
The top ten percent of the USA's population owns 81% of the nation's wealth. That means that the other 19% is divied up amongst the other 90% of the nation.
America collectively owns 42% of the worlds wealth. That's why we're the most wealthy and richest nation in the world. But of that 42%, 90% of the population of the USA only sees collectively 19% of that. So 90% of the nation NEVER SEES 81% of the wealth they supposedly are a part of. The wealthiest 10% of the nation are disgustingly wealthy, and they don't even claim to live here. They gain their riches by exploiting people all over the globe. What my point is, is unless you are in that upper echalon, you cannot lay any claim to the America that is the most powerful nation in the world. It's not your America. Tis theirs.
not simple enough? Let me break it down this way:
If america were represented by a pack of 100 wolves, and this pack of wolves needed 100 deer a month to survive, 10 of these wolves would eat 80 deer each month. The other 90 wolves would be forced to fight over the remaining 20 deer. That's 0.222 deer per wolf per month.
You could say that this pack of wolves was the strongest and most well fed pack of wolves in the world, but 90% of the wolves might disagree. Of course the economic class structure doesn't break down with 10% and then the rest are even. there are some within the 90% who have more than the others, but after the upper 10% it does slope off quite quickly.
if the distribution of wealth in america were represented by a peanut butter sandwhich there would be a fairly even coat of peanut butter that grew gradually thicker acrossed 90% of the bread surface, and then at the edge of the sandwhich, there would be a very sharply rising tower of nutbutter that would extend around 7 inches off of the bread.
This globalized economy is killing the domestic economy. Artificially low prices are driving production jobs overseas, manufacturing, computer industries, telecommunications, and manufacturing Jobs are leaving this nation in droves, we aren't MAKING anything anymore, our economy is becoming more and more service sector. Sell these things to these people, flip these burgers, sell them to those people. Oh wait, I forgot, Bush redefined burger flipping as "manufacturing" thereby "creating" jobs in the manufacturing industry. That's just as underhanded as clinton trying to weasle what the definition of "is" is.
We need to bring our economy back home to American Soils, and return to bilateral trade. We won't be closing our doors, we will be returning to trade on our own conditions, based in Human rights and workers rights, and in this way, instead of exploiting the poor of the world, we will create incentive for the corporations (who's CEO's are based in the USA) that exploit them to stop exploiting the workers and start treating them as if they had rights, as if they were human beings, or they get no sales from the USA. We will be able to life the world up, and lift ourselves up as a nation by our bootstraps, we will start making our own things again, we will start producing materials again here at home, and we will have an economy we can be proud of.
Why do we buy things from other countries that we can produce here at home? It makes NO sence at all.
AND THAT, my freind is what's wrong with the WTO and NAFTA.
T
train
Guest
donkey - I think Shrek is looking for you......
ok, ok, got that out of the way...
What's the difference between WTO and NAFTA... and say a private corp doing the same - but since they are the only one doing it - they control the entire market...
WTO and NAFTa make it open to everyone, and not just one group...
ok, ok, got that out of the way...
What's the difference between WTO and NAFTA... and say a private corp doing the same - but since they are the only one doing it - they control the entire market...
WTO and NAFTa make it open to everyone, and not just one group...
D
Donkey Rhubarb
Guest
I dont' think you understand the world economy.
A private corporation doing what?
There is very little difference between NAFTA, the WTO, and the FTAA. They are all globalist "Free trade" organizations. Which of course don't actually espouce free trade, they all espouse FORCED trade. They don't "make it open to everybody" they force countries to trade with eachother. Instead of countries being able to trade for goods they want, they are forced to trade with other courntires for items they may not want or need.
What needs to happen is we need to return to bilateral trade.
None of this has anything to do with popular vs electoral vote however.
electoral vote = good.
Direct popular vote= bad.
M
mythosx
Guest
WTO and NAFTA. All the bad scenarios you described will happen wether or not WTO or NAFTA is in place. Rich people have always abused world trade. So your argements aren't valid.
I don't have an opinion either way about the Vote. However, I would think a conspiracy theorist such as yourself would think the electoral was bad. The electoral college was the early for of controlling the vote. That is everything you despise. And the arguments made that a politician would spend less time in smaller states is wrong because the politicians dont need to spend any time as it is now. If you can just get the big ten states you already win the election.
I don't have an opinion either way about the Vote. However, I would think a conspiracy theorist such as yourself would think the electoral was bad. The electoral college was the early for of controlling the vote. That is everything you despise. And the arguments made that a politician would spend less time in smaller states is wrong because the politicians dont need to spend any time as it is now. If you can just get the big ten states you already win the election.
D
Donkey Rhubarb
Guest
That's bull pucky and you know it. Sure they COULD happen, but having the WTO and NAFTA in place guarentee that what is going on now will continue. And it still doesn't account for FORCED TRADE, which they are calling "free trade."
That would definatly NOT happen with the WTO, NAFTA and the FTAA gone.
That's just weak rehtoric. Let me shoot an equally poor one back at you: People who's monkiers start with "m" lie, therefore your arguments aren't valid. If you respond to this, you validate everything I say as truth.
M
mythosx
Guest
Free trade...people use that term alot. No such thing. We have tariffs in place that supposedly help out America. But they don't. The only people who slightly benefit are uneducated workers who would loose thier overpaid jobs doing simple trivial things as machine operation and putting on buttons on poorly made shirts.
T
train
Guest
Can you name one that hasn't?...
D
Donkey Rhubarb
Guest
My dear boy, that isn't the point.
The point is, is that the WTO and NAFTA make it tons easier to abuse world trade and comitt crimes against humanity and human rights than if would be if they didn't exist.
T
train
Guest
Whether or not it's easier - I think Technology has more potential to abuse trade than Nafta and WTO - just like it does drugs, war and everything else...
D
Donkey Rhubarb
Guest
maybe you could explain?
T
train
Guest
NAFTA and WTO are not only supposed to open markets, but also create jobs that can supply those markets. They are supposed to expand the markets...
Technology is the leading "market" in the world, and can prevent the creation of the "jobs" that NAFTA and WTO are supposed to support as well as reduce the overall need for trade unless a business decides otherwise on it's own... It can, essentially, shrink the market...
Mobile technology fuels economies and businesses beyond the physical limits imposed by paper, or transport... technology takes what may be months of negotiations, or planning between companies, and makes it reality in fractions of fractions of the time it used to...
Aside from it's usefulness in supplying information in real time, this technology can exploit open trade through e-commerce as it exists now, and will evolve into the future through the reduced need for "physical" intervention...
Aside from Reverse e-auctions being the new way to get jobs done, and lowering the prices on services, it also lowers the prices on products, and begins to stretch the trade market to thinner, but wider levels... It is all about the lowest bidder, and sadly, the bidding price will go down each time... this is the exploiting of the market...
Technology does this by establishing "contact" points that reduce the amount of transport to minimal levels... This potentially stops a lot of the widespread needs for goods and localizes them... essentially making them a functioning "product/service production line"
Jobs and products may be moving into or out of countries, but no matter where they go, the technology is what sustains them in their respective market... The price is not always driven by popularity anymore as it becomes a quality and marginal issue in business interests...
Technology is why "hot items" drop in price so quickly...
Simply put - technology can reduce the need for excess trade, and with the systems being developed eventually stop the needs for thousands of materials that get traded everyday...
Synthetics is one of the best examples we have... but surpassing synthetics, is digital, and who knows from there...
Technology is the leading "market" in the world, and can prevent the creation of the "jobs" that NAFTA and WTO are supposed to support as well as reduce the overall need for trade unless a business decides otherwise on it's own... It can, essentially, shrink the market...
Mobile technology fuels economies and businesses beyond the physical limits imposed by paper, or transport... technology takes what may be months of negotiations, or planning between companies, and makes it reality in fractions of fractions of the time it used to...
Aside from it's usefulness in supplying information in real time, this technology can exploit open trade through e-commerce as it exists now, and will evolve into the future through the reduced need for "physical" intervention...
Aside from Reverse e-auctions being the new way to get jobs done, and lowering the prices on services, it also lowers the prices on products, and begins to stretch the trade market to thinner, but wider levels... It is all about the lowest bidder, and sadly, the bidding price will go down each time... this is the exploiting of the market...
Technology does this by establishing "contact" points that reduce the amount of transport to minimal levels... This potentially stops a lot of the widespread needs for goods and localizes them... essentially making them a functioning "product/service production line"
Jobs and products may be moving into or out of countries, but no matter where they go, the technology is what sustains them in their respective market... The price is not always driven by popularity anymore as it becomes a quality and marginal issue in business interests...
Technology is why "hot items" drop in price so quickly...
Simply put - technology can reduce the need for excess trade, and with the systems being developed eventually stop the needs for thousands of materials that get traded everyday...
Synthetics is one of the best examples we have... but surpassing synthetics, is digital, and who knows from there...
Just popping in my 2¢ for the few minutes that I can post a message:
I've never been a big fan of things like NAFTA or WTO because of the fact that they include separate countries. Before everyone goes "huh?" let me explain. Each country has a diferent standard of living and each country's government has a different idea of what labour laws should be. Let's say that you're a big company that needs lots of cheap labourers, but you don't want to have to pay a few thousand Americans minimum wage to do it. No problem. You just outsource to other countries, open shops, and tell the people in charge to employ the workers for whatever rates are fair for that country. This could lead to your Nike sweat shops in Asia or your Kathy Lee Gifford "love boats". Meanwhile, over here in the 'States our citizens are missing out on jobs.
Unless there are some internation labour laws set, WTO, NAFTA, et nauseum will be a very bad idea.
-Ferret
"...for just pennies a day, you can help support young Julio - and get a pair of Air Jordans!"
I've never been a big fan of things like NAFTA or WTO because of the fact that they include separate countries. Before everyone goes "huh?" let me explain. Each country has a diferent standard of living and each country's government has a different idea of what labour laws should be. Let's say that you're a big company that needs lots of cheap labourers, but you don't want to have to pay a few thousand Americans minimum wage to do it. No problem. You just outsource to other countries, open shops, and tell the people in charge to employ the workers for whatever rates are fair for that country. This could lead to your Nike sweat shops in Asia or your Kathy Lee Gifford "love boats". Meanwhile, over here in the 'States our citizens are missing out on jobs.
Unless there are some internation labour laws set, WTO, NAFTA, et nauseum will be a very bad idea.
-Ferret
"...for just pennies a day, you can help support young Julio - and get a pair of Air Jordans!"