subwo1 said:
I don't see how that can help. We add value to a society because we are different and different people bring different approaches and that's why we are valued.
if we aren't the same, wouldn't that make life less valuable and interesting?
subwo1 said:
How do you educate people who don't want to be educated? Quite a few of the terrorists (in the US, spain and the UK) are well educated and yet they are as extreme as they can be.
I think we need to figure out why people resort to terrorism. Maybe we did some unjustice to them; maybe they felt there were no other venues to vent their frustration; maybe they thought doing so could help their cause; maybe .....
The solution has to be within us and within them as well.
Perhaps people resort to terrorism because their backs are to the wall - people starving their families and taking their water and their land - because the US HAD to find a homeland for their reffoes so it wansn't overcome with the dross from WW2. Then there's the US with it's obsession with EXCESS has to bring down elected governments to feed the excess that their people sublimely think is their right! e.g Peru. Sickening. Democracy bah. Same with Iraq OIL we need it - you've got it!
Supply and demand will dictate how much use and cost the US will pay for fuel. For a long time, the huge consumption of oil, relatively, made the price for oil products and of course gasoline much less here than most of the world considering the local economies. Big US economic avantage. Ten years ago I paid $1.20 for a gallon of gasoline. Now it is $2.80 a gallon. China particularly and the world's increase in consumption in the last decade more rivals the US consumtion along with better knowlege of the limits to the amount of oil left in the earth that is cheaply acessable have caused the price of oil product prices to increase here and everywhere. Also dirty oil buisness in the middle east and elsewhere.(what else is new...not discluding the Iraq situation) It made economic sense that for a while the government encouraged, or more like did not discourage, larger vecichle sales to drive up consumption, keeping prices lower and of course getting Mr. Bush elected. Advantage of the incumbant I guess. Also it helped to generate more money flow in the economy here wildst interest rates were low and so on ect. ect. I don't drive a SUV so when gas gets to be around the average price of the world, I won't be pinched quite as much. This will strain the economy though so alternative fuel development here will recieve much more investment. And so on goes economic evolution. 
Of course this development will not increase the price of oil as much and reduce demand so countries that export oil will lose much revenue in course. And so the world turns again...
Of course this development will not increase the price of oil as much and reduce demand so countries that export oil will lose much revenue in course. And so the world turns again...
Here's a nice read from http://boortz.com
"Yes .. the situation on the Gulf coast is terrible. It is beyond imagination for most of us. But let's not forget where we live; let's not forget what America is all about. We're not all looters.
This morning I heard a TV anchor discussing the plight of some young woman named Natalie Brown. The anchor said that she fled the hurricane and left her house and her job, and now she has nothing.
Nothing?
First .. the obvious. She still has her health, her friends, her family, her education, her ambition, her car and her boyfriend. In fact, she's staying with her parents! Her bank accounts are still safe. The money is still there.
This means she "has nothing?"
Natalie Brown lives in America. She has now made the decision to relocate away from New Orleans. That she can do with relative ease. She lives in a country with a vibrant and growing economy; a country where hard work and good decision making will be rewarded. She gets to relocate and seek another job in a country that has embraced the one economic system that has lifted more people out of poverty than any other economic system in the history of civilization. She left a home she rented behind in New Orleans ... and is going to plant roots elsewhere in the greatest country in the world.
And she "has nothing?"
Tens of millions of people around the world would trade places with Natalie Brown right now. Today. Hurricane and all. Tell THEM that she has nothing."
"Yes .. the situation on the Gulf coast is terrible. It is beyond imagination for most of us. But let's not forget where we live; let's not forget what America is all about. We're not all looters.
This morning I heard a TV anchor discussing the plight of some young woman named Natalie Brown. The anchor said that she fled the hurricane and left her house and her job, and now she has nothing.
Nothing?
First .. the obvious. She still has her health, her friends, her family, her education, her ambition, her car and her boyfriend. In fact, she's staying with her parents! Her bank accounts are still safe. The money is still there.
This means she "has nothing?"
Natalie Brown lives in America. She has now made the decision to relocate away from New Orleans. That she can do with relative ease. She lives in a country with a vibrant and growing economy; a country where hard work and good decision making will be rewarded. She gets to relocate and seek another job in a country that has embraced the one economic system that has lifted more people out of poverty than any other economic system in the history of civilization. She left a home she rented behind in New Orleans ... and is going to plant roots elsewhere in the greatest country in the world.
And she "has nothing?"
Tens of millions of people around the world would trade places with Natalie Brown right now. Today. Hurricane and all. Tell THEM that she has nothing."
CBS240 said:
How callous!
It's these type of platitudes that turn the stomach of the average individual.
What's going on in the Gulf Coast is a travesty and should not be happening in the "greatest country in the world".
I don't suppose you understand how obscene that statement really is ?
fred p.
CBS240 said:Supply and demand will dictate how much use and cost the US will pay for fuel. .
OPEC is a cartel.
Definition of CARTEL:
A combination of independent business organizations formed to regulate production, pricing, and marketing of goods by the members.
By the way, OPEC is not only condoned but also supported by "you know who".
There is no shortage of oil. We've been through this before.
fred p.
ppfred said:
What is going on in the Gulf Coast?
I didn’t see anything in the posted article I read that seemed insensitive or uncompassionate, maybe I read the wrong article, please point me to the offending article. In addition, why should the "greatest country in the world" be immune from disaster and logistic problems of quickly helping a large population of people in trouble?
You insinuate that you have all the answers; maybe you should share so we can all understand.
ppfred said:
Here is a direct quote from the same site....
ALWAYS REMEMBER
Don't believe anything you read on this web page, or, for that matter, anything you hear on The Neal Boortz Show, unless it is consistent with what you already know to be true, or unless you have taken the time to research the matter to prove its accuracy to your satisfaction. This is known as "doing your homework."
Having stated this, It would seem that it is, at least, making a better argument to "Do your own thinking" than most reporters out there.
And an "Act of God" isn't something that one can EVER adequately prepare for.
Having said that, unless you posses the "Teleporting" or "Replicator" technology of "Star Trek" Moving any kind of "Support" into a devastated area takes TIME!
I don't suppose you understand how obscene that statement really is ?
fred p. [/B][/QUOTE]
Please tell us!!!
Tall Shadow
Tall Shadow said:
at least he didn't ask this great nation to stop him from aging,
Newsweek had a great article into the first week of the Katrina fiasco and how the president reacted (slowly) to it. It is an interesting read into how the administration that prides itself on being able to grasp the opportunities of crisis let this one go by.
It makes you wonder to what extent Bush is aware of thing soutside of the white house.
Yes indeed, THEY created the "need" for preparedness in the event of terrorist attack. They created a new standard: that we will be better prepared for disasters. They spent lots of money on new infrastructure and agencies. Yet here comes the first test of their efforts, and the results are pathetic. The New Orleans disaster be it an "act of God" or not is very similar to many possible terrorist possibilities (blowing up levees for example)
It is such a blatent failure that Bush is even claiming to "accept responsibility" -something that he almost never does. Perhaps his plummeting ratings made him take this unheard of step.
Variac said:
I think there are blames to go around: the congress for example also pushed for the creation of a large bueacracy (the homeland security department) - which is understandable in the post-911 environment where emotion ran high - kind of like the rush of aids to NO right now. But that's another story.
the Wall Street journal had an article on how Wal-Mart managed the Katrina crisis and it should serve as an example of how a small government can win. a lot of governmental functions can be effectively privatized, under federal supervision of course, to the private sector with a substantial improvement in quality and cost savings to the citizens.
The 'disgrace" of the NO fiasco is a show of lack of preparedness at all levels of governments. Its aftermath, however, is a show of our society's increasing tolerance to one's not taking responsibilities for one's decisions: the city of NO, the state of LA owe much to the death and destruction there.
And the citizens of NO are also responsible as well: a lot of them, per news reports, refused to try to evacuate based on their past experience (of doing so), and got hurt because of that. Now, everyone is looking to the federal government and tax payers for substantial subsidies. If you decide to live in a coastal city below sea levels, you have implicitly taken the risk of flooding. To me, it is the individuals, not the governments, that should compensate you for taking that risk.
But we are slowly and surely sliding into a society where one isn't to take responsibility for his or her decisions.
there is an interview of Brown, the ex-FEMA chief, in the new york times today. It depicts a complete lack of command at the state level and how Chertoff and the whitehouse delayed their response to the request coming fromt he field.
The situation in the whole state of LA is in sharp contrasts with those in MS.
I hope everyone that failed to perform their duties gets nailed in a thorough investiagation. and from the reports aired so far, there are plenty of them.
The situation in the whole state of LA is in sharp contrasts with those in MS.
I hope everyone that failed to perform their duties gets nailed in a thorough investiagation. and from the reports aired so far, there are plenty of them.
The main reason Bush is in office instead of Kerry is because of the reputation of Kerry as a big government liberal beset on swelling the size of government bureaucracies and wasting money in inefficient programs. Everybody blames Bush for winning but nobody blames Kerry for losing.
But now, apparently Bush has become the big government guru, this being one of the reasons his popularity has plummeted. His lack luster attitude on the border issue with Mexico and his approach as an internationalist has really taken his ratings down among the Bush supporters. Bush haters are still Bush haters of course that won't change. Some think it is because of conservative judge appointments, but I think it is a good thing to try to balance ideals against liberal senators like up-Chuck Schumer and Woe Biden.
Responsibility is lost in these big government programs because it is hard to track down who actually makes the decisions that fail the people. Reforms are obviously needed and I believe that more responsibility should be given to the private sector because they and their shareholders have much more to lose if they fail. This means shrinking the size of government and it probably will never happen. Government is blameless, IOW, oops that government program failed....oh well, people involved with that program don't loose their investments and life savings and have to be responsible for its failure because it is government. It would be nice to see some heads roll over this, but I think only a few high profile heads will roll and not the ones that really matter. Taxpayers are the ones who loose their "investment" in all of this but ultimately no-one is to blame. 
But now, apparently Bush has become the big government guru, this being one of the reasons his popularity has plummeted. His lack luster attitude on the border issue with Mexico and his approach as an internationalist has really taken his ratings down among the Bush supporters. Bush haters are still Bush haters of course that won't change. Some think it is because of conservative judge appointments, but I think it is a good thing to try to balance ideals against liberal senators like up-Chuck Schumer and Woe Biden. Responsibility is lost in these big government programs because it is hard to track down who actually makes the decisions that fail the people. Reforms are obviously needed and I believe that more responsibility should be given to the private sector because they and their shareholders have much more to lose if they fail. This means shrinking the size of government and it probably will never happen. Government is blameless, IOW, oops that government program failed....oh well, people involved with that program don't loose their investments and life savings and have to be responsible for its failure because it is government. It would be nice to see some heads roll over this, but I think only a few high profile heads will roll and not the ones that really matter. Taxpayers are the ones who loose their "investment" in all of this but ultimately no-one is to blame.
It appears to me that our European friends, while clearly too eager to assign their own reasons to the problem, were reasonably accurate, and in some ways the cynical analysis seems to hold.
The republican mantra is always "cut spending" then they get elected and need to hand out money to their cronies.
I believe Reagan increased spending to record levels. Clinton actually reduced it. As you said, George is becoming a huge spender.
Bush saw an opportunity to use the 9/11 disaster to define himself and his presidency. He set up a situation where if the congress didn't go along with "homeland security" then they could be painted as "terrorist lovers" He saw that he could also use this to further his agenda to invade Iraq.
He basically has asked us to judge his presidency on our preparedness for disaster and his rather dubious policy of destroying terrorism by attacking Iraq.
You don't think that Bush's ratings just MIGHT be plummeting to record lows due to the war?
The republican mantra is always "cut spending" then they get elected and need to hand out money to their cronies.
I believe Reagan increased spending to record levels. Clinton actually reduced it. As you said, George is becoming a huge spender.
Bush saw an opportunity to use the 9/11 disaster to define himself and his presidency. He set up a situation where if the congress didn't go along with "homeland security" then they could be painted as "terrorist lovers" He saw that he could also use this to further his agenda to invade Iraq.
He basically has asked us to judge his presidency on our preparedness for disaster and his rather dubious policy of destroying terrorism by attacking Iraq.
You don't think that Bush's ratings just MIGHT be plummeting to record lows due to the war?
Variac said:
it depends on how you view it (or account for it). America turned from the largest creditor to the largest debtor during the reagan years because of the cold war spending. As a result of the crumbling USSR, the US spending on weapons systems in later years were substantially lower - which in part contributed to the recessions in CA and new england in the early 1990s but that's another story.
Clinton got a lot smarter during his years where he "borrowed" heavily from social security and spent that money. Please his budget figures were helped by the booming economy. But to his credit, he is one of those democrats who managed to have a "small" government.
We are yet to conclude what the bush years are going to be. So far, he has seemed to surprised anyone with his "big and bigger" government practice. We have spent tremendous amount of money on home land security, and are stumbled on our 1st test which we had plenty of time to see and prepare for.
Not to mention the record hand-out he is going to do tonight, in an area that is known for corruption.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.