Federal Deficit

[vacio]

Towards the end of the Clinton administration the federal deficit was under control and almost eleminated, but now (if my dad is quoting right) our federal deficit is at a all time high of near 5 trillion and showing now signs of slowing down. How you do believe Bush will handle this situation and if it isn't handled how will this growing deficit affect the value of our currency? Just a thought.

[Karmashock]

stock collapse
not bush's fault
recession
not bush's fault
9/11
not bush's fault
war on terror
not bush's fault


yeah... he's a moron... We should be able to start paying this off in about 2 to 3 years... until then we're going to still be in the red...

We can handle it... we have a 12 trillion dollar economy...

[Justice]

Yeah.

Can we handle a 6 trillion dollar debt?

With it increasing as we speak?

O.o

[LardGibs]

Yes!


Turn on the money presses baby!:thumbsup:

[Justice]

Inflation?

:rofl:

That's a great idea...let's make the dollar worth even less than it is now, and blow up the entire world economy!

[tom]

Yes, maybe then the rest of the world will realize how dependent they are on us. :P

[Justice]

Sure.

That's a great check against war, too. Interdependence.

:D

[MVB]

Maybe we should just call in all the debts owed us by nations around the world ...

[Justice]

That would be .... not many.

Who's going to pay us? France? They have money? Russia? They have money?

Face it .... we still owe money to the U.N. too.

[MVB]

You completely missed the point. People talk about the United States as if we owe debts to all the world, and the world owes none back. Without our nation, this world would suck in so many ways, and so many international people refuse to acknowledge and accept that. I'm going along with stealth's dependent on the US statement.

To be equally honest, the US would not be all that different if the rest of the world suddenly ceased to exist. We'd at least be less affected than vice versa.

[Justice]

So you're just letting our debts slide and letting other people get pissed off at us?

And your reason is, "Jesus, they won't care, because we're their daddies."

No wonder the world hates us.

[MVB]

Where the hell did that come from?

The world hates us out of jealousy, in general. Take the middle east, for example; people there hate us because we are Christians and because we are successful. You don't see them bombing little non-descript unsuccessful Christian nations like Greece, do you? There's not a big "terror" threat from Islamic extremists in Greece.

God, you're ignorant Justice.

As for letting debts slide, where did I say we should do such a thing? Quote me. Until then, shut the hell up.

[Justice]

Without our nation, this world would suck in so many ways, and so many international people refuse to acknowledge and accept that. I'm going along with stealth's dependent on the US statement.


Let's see Stealth's dependent on the US statement.

maybe then the rest of the world will realize how dependent they are on us

Aren't you implying that the world won't care if the U.S. doesn't do what they want, because they're dependent on us? Correct me if I'm wrong. To me, that's exactly what you just said.

[MVB]

No. I'm saying the world bitches and moans and complains as if we're some sort of demon of a nation, NOT realizing how dependent they are on us.

[MVB]

Also, just in case you missed it, you should read the electoral college thread; should shed light on yet another of your misguided generalizations.

[vacio]

I seem to have a way of stirring up some touchie issues. MVB, some statistics on the federl debt. It seems the US is generating a small surplus in recent (past 4-8) years but we have a 7 trillion dollar debt. The surplus is estimated to reach about 5 trillion by 2008.

The Debt To the Penny
Current Amount

11/04/2004 $7,429,933,004,818.29


Current
Month

11/03/2004 $7,429,534,987,752.69
11/02/2004 $7,429,582,471,118.88
11/01/2004 $7,429,629,954,236.43

Prior
Months

10/29/2004 $7,429,677,448,545.04


Prior Fiscal
Years

09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/28/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/29/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00


SOURCE: BUREAU OF THE PUBLIC DEBT

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opd.htm

[Justice]

At least Clinton had a plan to pay off all the debts by 2009.

He actually balanced the budget back in his day.

[DrunkenUno]

stock collapse
not bush's fault
recession
not bush's fault
9/11
not bush's fault
war on terror
not bush's fault


yeah... he's a moron... We should be able to start paying this off in about 2 to 3 years... until then we're going to still be in the red...

We can handle it... we have a 12 trillion dollar economy...

massive tax cut
bush's fault
wasting surplus
Bush's fault

come on, it can go both ways.

[Justice]

Don't forget Iraq.

$200 billion in Iraq.

Bush's fault.

[Karmashock]

massive tax cut
bush's fault
wasting surplus
Bush's fault

come on, it can go both ways.
Massive tax cut > worse recession and slower growth
Wasted surplus... on what?

[/<yle]

um, clinton dident ballance the budget, the republican house and senate did. he just signed them. Furthermore, we give out trillions in aid to the world, which we could stop, and we also give the UN 60% of its opperating budget. Without us, the UN would cease to function effectivly. Furthermore, many European nations and others owe us large sums of cash, which they havent been inclined to repay. if we called those debts, they wouldent be able to repay them with the interest over the years. the us is Financially soluable, so stop bitching.

[Karmashock]

If you made a hundred thousand dollars a year and owed fifty thousand to the bank that could be paid off... like... whenever... Would you be freaking out?


That's why I don't care... :howdy:

[/<yle]

of course, we would have to stop giving handouts to other nations and to the UN

[vacio]

can anyone come up with some real numbers as to how much other money we have loaned out to other nations?

[Karmashock]

It would take a lot of research... most of it goes out through a lot of disconnected programs. The IMF is mostly our money...

[/<yle]

We give out literally millions to countrys in aid for them to not join the soviet union back in the day, although we have cut back on those aid programs, we still give out in the billions range to foreign countrys each year

[Karmashock]

most of our money goes to things like the IMF and other systems designed stimulate healthy economic growth...


Though honestly, the IMF isn't run by the US anymore... it's run by some eurocrats that don't know shit about economics... they've fucked up a few Latin American countries just by forcing them to have balanced budgets in the middle or recessions and other assorted stupidity... my econ professors always pee on the IMF at every opportunity

[JADezimar]

The federal deficit was never nearly elinated. BIll clinton as far as I know though is the only president to lower the deficit but you wanna know how o0. He cut military spending several spending, highered tax's and ABOVE ALL got that large chunk of money from the tobacco industries which he used a huge part for the deficit. But the deficit was not under control knor was it nearly payed off. What the deficit is it is a debt to ourselves. Its mostly a non existant debt cuase the money is still there and still created by the government regardless of the debt our government can continue to spend. Its more of a reflection of the money spent on economical stimulant. If you look up actual economic numbers etc jobs etc. Alot of economics were really bad for clinton vs what it is for the new bush. But that money given to other countries is money we already have in our hands not added on to the debt 00.

[JADezimar]

lolz Justice seems to just be a bush hater without knowing any real facts. We have no recession we have more jobs, There is no stock collapse economic numbesr are up from clinton. And there is no way in hell you can blame bush for 9/11. Iraq theres alot more than meets the eye yes lives are important. And its hard to decide whats more important this nations future or a few lives. My wife is a marine, I wouldnt want her to die in fact if she were to go to war and die, I wish I could take her place honestly. But the point is If its for the nations future Maybe its worth it. Just think Iraq will be our debt and well have one of the richest most powerful allys in the future if Iraq can be solved. I c no reason Did we not solve germany o0. So it took a few years. Anyone that thought Iraq could take 2 weeks was gullible.Vacio if I read your numbers right even clintons Debt rose o0

[shutupandshave]

In other words, each US citizen owes the rest of the world $7,333, while each citizen of the developing world owes only $500.
I guess you're wrong again Karma

Just out of interest - as you're so sure that the US is owed more than it owes - just how much is that US owed?

[JADezimar]

SHUTUP AND SHAVE YOU RETARD THE national debt isnt to the rest of the world that debt is to ourselves you meniacal moron. You need to research politics more before trying to discuss them. Fricken bring your prejudices elsewhere. YOu are doing no one any good being a racists fag.

[Karmashock]

I guess you're wrong again Karma

Just out of interest - as you're so sure that the US is owed more than it owes - just how much is that US owed?
owe?... Owe in what sense? There are different types of debt.

Our debt is SOLD! If you don't want it, then don't buy it. We have nothing to apologize for because people WANT our debt. They buy because it's a good liquid store of value. You can literally store hundreds of billions of dollars in US debt... china owns nearly a hundred billion in US debt. Not because they're doing us a favor, but because it's in their ECONOMIC interest to do so.


The third world has a hard time selling their debt because they're less reliable... so they tend to get money GIVEN to them out of pity or they get people to buy their debt by offering very high interest rates.

Either way, there is no connection... take an econ class...

[shutupandshave]

SHUTUP AND SHAVE YOU RETARD THE national debt isnt to the rest of the world that debt is to ourselves you meniacal moron. You need to research politics more before trying to discuss them. Fricken bring your prejudices elsewhere. YOu are doing no one any good being a racists fag.
LMAO

I'd make fun of you JAD, but you do it to yourself.

The USA is by far the largest indebted nation in the world, says a new NEF report—but they are being bankrolled by some of the poorest nations on earth.If you look a little closer at the so-called debt crisis, you find that the USA has a total foreign debt that makes that of, say, Benin, look like the crumbs left over from a midday meal.

http://www.jubileeplus.org/analysis/reports/J+USA7.htm

[Karmashock]

funny how he ignored my comment and picked JAD...

[shutupandshave]

still waiting for you to reply to me on how much the US is owed Karma

[JADezimar]

Ya Shave doesnt have an idea to your comment o0. Cuase he Doesnt have an idea of waht to think. He's like omfg what if its true. What if the debt that the Us owes to other nations is cuase that nation Bought us dollars.... To safegaurd there own economy ? hmmmm I dont know maybe MY whole debt argument is bad omfgwtfowned! I am retarded and didnt know that Any debt the states owed was wanted. And I didnt know the national Debt IS more owed to its own ppl than other nations. Im Shave im too busy being racists hater, and being a hypocrite.

I still think shave misses alot of the points where. U.S has Saved them in world wars o0 Various wars like was it nam or korea for the french etc etc. Some have done similiar for us like the french with the revolutionary war. But you go pasts that hmmmm. Plus we fund the major amount of the U.N, also when the U.N is peacekeeping, Our forces are the largest on the seen. Weve also given in huge amounts of aid, food etc to many nations. Weve been there for lots places and the what not. Which are not included in your little report shave. And Alot of the money we have sold thats right not borrowed. Theres no shame if we owe it when its sold i.e not borrowed -_-.

[shutupandshave]

What did I do that was hypocritical JAD? How have I been rascist? I would like some examples.

What I DO know JAD, is that there are many countries that give more away, as a percentage of their earnings than the US does.

Also - how old are you?

[MVB]

He's about 21, and is married to a U.S. Marine.

[/<yle]

If the US cut off relations from the rest of the world, the third world countrys would collapse, Europe would crumble, Asia would crash. The world needs America and our cash

[Karmashock]

still waiting for you to reply to me on how much the US is owed Karma
Congress doesn't even have that figure...


any debt the US 'owes' was sold at fair market value to people that wanted to buy it.

Simple as that.

[Larsson7]

If the US cut off relations from the rest of the world, the third world countrys would collapse, Europe would crumble, Asia would crash. The world needs America and our cash

As much as there is truth in that statement - America needs the rest of the world also.

If the rest of the world decide to not supply the US with raw materials or to buy its debt the US would crumble.

You cannot make such a sweping generalisation when it is so evident that every country depends on another for something.

[MVB]

I doubt we would crumble, as arrogant as that may sound. The U.S. is chalk full of raw resources that we actually refuse to touch due to our conservation practices. We would have to adjust to a different lifestyle in some ways, but the fact is we wouldn't suffer as much in regards to things like financial failure that nations/world dependent on a US-driven market would.

[Larsson7]

I doubt we would crumble, as arrogant as that may sound. The U.S. is chalk full of raw resources that we actually refuse to touch due to our conservation practices. We would have to adjust to a different lifestyle in some ways, but the fact is we wouldn't suffer as much in regards to things like financial failure that nations/world dependent on a US-driven market would.

Hmm - so if no one is buying your trillions of dollars of debt or allowing your companies to outsorce jobs for cheap labour or supplying you with essential raw materials you do not produce or you have a 0% tourist income or supporting the US with inward investment or buying any of the products that you produce - then America is going to be just fine?

That is probably the single biggest failing of America as a nation. You are actually buying into the hype that America is simply everything! This is just not the case and no single country can roduce enough of everything to support its population. There are going to be food stuffs, natural resources and skilled workers that you are simply not going to produce!

For an educated guy, MVB, that is probably the dumbest thing I have ever heard you say.

America would fold financially if no one on Earth did business with you again. To think other wise would be a gargantuan economic misconception on your part!

[shutupandshave]

I think the world would fuck up for a while if the US stopped doing business... the US included.

[JADezimar]

Like Mvb said Wed have to make large changes. But I remember an america that had pride In everything IN it made. We didnt have a lack of employment or good paying jobs. And we didnt have a lack of anything at the time. I think the saying still goes We might have to do without certain things and cut back on certain things. But I think there Lower end of the population would benefit more if we had to produce our own things. Only big corporate america and the rich Would really be the ones hurting compared to what they use to. I think that system almost sounds more fair. Why do I say this cuase Many jobs that the U.S does have are overseas for Various Nations that they can pay alot less in wages. I think prices on things would go up.......... So the more rich and comofortable wouldnt have as much. But the poor would have a better chance of making it a more equal system. I c no problem with o0

[shutupandshave]

Heh - a Socialist at heart ;)

[JADezimar]

In ways yes o0 But when is the lasts time the democrats had a true socialists idea that is usefuL ? Republicans do to much for the families Im with and my lifestyle than democtrats right now. And Kerry would tell ppl whatever they wanted to beleive. Bush sticks to what he says and lives by his word I admire that.

[MVB]

I was impressed when I heard from Dez that he and his Marine wife were much better off financially than they were during the Clinton years. Tells you that the democrats maybe only look out for the lower and middle classes in words, not in action.

[shutupandshave]

I admire someone that admits when they are wrong, says sorry for it - and carries on with their lives.

I personally believe that many things about the war in Iraq was wrong. The rest of the world (and, I believe many Americans) agree. The world is willing to forgive a mistake - however if people don't realise they have made a mistake they are unable to learn from them, and so are likely to repeat them.

[MVB]

I would even agree that some things in the war in Iraq are "wrong." I would disagree that it was not a good thing to do. All the catch lines about removing an evil dictator and brining freedom to an oppressed people hold true; the means by which we have gone about it have in ways been flawed, and that needs to be addressed in future actions.

[Larsson7]

Like Mvb said Wed have to make large changes. But I remember an america that had pride In everything IN it made. We didnt have a lack of employment or good paying jobs. And we didnt have a lack of anything at the time. I think the saying still goes We might have to do without certain things and cut back on certain things. But I think there Lower end of the population would benefit more if we had to produce our own things. Only big corporate america and the rich Would really be the ones hurting compared to what they use to. I think that system almost sounds more fair. Why do I say this cuase Many jobs that the U.S does have are overseas for Various Nations that they can pay alot less in wages. I think prices on things would go up.......... So the more rich and comofortable wouldnt have as much. But the poor would have a better chance of making it a more equal system. I c no problem with o0

What about Health Care? Given that America make all the biggest and best drugs in the world (Karma) and the rest of the stinking world would still be using leeches for medicine - how would you fund research into drugs? Who would you sell all this technology, weaponry and electrical/electronic goods to?

Instead of having a marketplace of between 6-7 BILLION people you would be reduced overnight to a marketplace of 290 MILLION.

US Growth would become a decline right away and, in the vast majority of cases your standard of life would plummet.
in fact much of what you suggest, JAD, was suggested in the Soviet Union in 1917. have a look how that turned out;)

No country who would consider itself a superpower could become an isolationist state.

[JADezimar]

-_- ya I never said wed remain a superpower. And angel I said our standard of living for our higher end would drop. And that medicine o0. We do not benefit off it being sold to other nations why do you feel we do ? instead of worrying about who to sell things of you make less of it. And in all reality if you been reading the threads. We Import by far more than we export -_-. And Almost everythiung we make is made elsewhere. I already stated that. In general more people would be working and able to make it o0. I dont c why we still wouldnt be able to make those drugs o0. For ourselves. Im not saying I want to quite living without the rest of the world but I am saying we can make it o0. And I dont c what your view is on growth. Our future is headed in a direction were the rich get richer and poor are getting poorer. Its estimated I cant remember the time frame that the average american will to need to make it economically will have to start living with more family members like parents, I cant remember where I read this but ill look it up again when im not feeling lazy. This is becuase In our current state the way the economy works and the More we import vs export and the more we buy vs make ourselves. And the more our companies have things made over seas the less jobs the lower end can have. We at the current moment are in huge competition for jobs. You live in california by chance? For a person to make it by himself and live on his own if he dont want to live in a dump or the slums. He has to make approximately a minimum of 2500$ to live comfortably a month. Thats after taxes o0. And a more socialistic view on medicare etc healthcare would be smart like canada/s or preferrably something like sweden i think its sweden or denmark that completely pays for college and healthcare. And you know another odd thing this is off topic they recommend every male over the age of 16 or 18 carry a gun. And they have 1 of the most phenomanlly low rates of crime o0. They even allow partying and drinking at a younger age. I like american I think its great, but some things could change. Now I dont want to fully cut our markets off from teh rest of the world. But we should really consider Doing more of our work right here at home. Why hell Dodge, Ford and those companies parts are made over seas, if I can remeber right only the car is still assembled in the states if they still are.

[shutupandshave]

To be honest, the world survived before the US was a superpower, and if China were too take on the role that America has played - could continue to survive if the US disappeared off the face of the earth.

Yes Karma, the corld could survive if Europe dissappeared too.

[JADezimar]

Id hate to c a world where china was on top >.< no offense to the chinese but the government has often times been more aggressive than even the states o0.

[Larsson7]

Id hate to c a world where china was on top >.< no offense to the chinese but the government has often times been more aggressive than even the states o0.

Interesting. I cannot remember the last time China invaded another country but I do remember the last few that the US have invaded.

[JADezimar]

Do some research. Throught its history its been on top of conquering Just like the states. Remember was it vietnam or korea I cant remember for instance. China marched right down and kicked our asses :p Im not saying they dont feel they have the right. To aggress when they do. But ....... . We feel we do also o0 Generally speaking though we are not the aggressor and were reacting to a prior action.

[Ummon]

During the 1945-1990 period China has invaded Korea, Vietnam (and they have been annhiliated in a short battle by the Vietnamese) and Tibet. Tibet is still under chinese rule, and N. Korea is a (very roguish) satellite state of China.

[JADezimar]

oh and taiwan almost came to war :p It has its own name cuase it was once free too. And only free now cuase someoen stepped and said you cant bully china :p

[Ummon]

Current territorial claims of China (the U.S. has none) are:

Taiwan, independent since the regime of Chang Kai Shek (spelling varies) fled to the island.

Paracel Islands, currently held by Vietnam, Philippines and Taiwan.

[shutupandshave]

China has done it's fair share of invading.

[Larsson7]

My research shows that China did not invade Hong Kong. Neither has it inavded Taiwan.

Is there some research I need to do as I have no recollectio, certainly in my lifetime, of China being an agressor towards another nation.

I can remember the USA invading Iraq (twice), Grenada and, just outside my living memories, Korea and Vietnam!

Please let me know how China has been "on top of conquering just like the states" since China has not invaded anyone! (not that I know of)

I would concede that it has its own blody history of internal fighting.

[Ummon]

Angel my friend, the U.S. has invaded Panama and Cuba too. But those "invasions" were never meant to "conquer".

First Iraq War was based on a UN resolution, and so was the Korean War.

China on the other hand tried to conquer Vietnam and failed, reacted to the war in the Korean peninsula acting against the UN, and finally conquered Tibet.

[JADezimar]

Angel pointing alot of fingers at the states yet defending everyone else why ?

I c INvasion on the premises of conquering far more power hungrey and threatening than There on the premises for an ally or to solve a situation o0.

[Larsson7]

Angel pointing alot of fingers at the states yet defending everyone else why ?

I c INvasion on the premises of conquering far more power hungrey and threatening than There on the premises for an ally or to solve a situation o0.

Who am I pointing fingers at? The US?

Why would that surprise you?

You invaded Iraq to "solve a situation"? When were you appointed the policemen of the World? Since you are in the market to remove corrupt Governments - where does it stop? Does the world need to conform to an American standard of right or worng or face invasion as a consequence?

Why didnt you invade Nazi Germany in 1936 as you are so keen on pre-emptive strikes?

Whay are you not going up to face the North Korean army. The citizens of North Korea live under a governmental system that would not conform to the ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of freedom.

If you are doing it for one you gotta do it for all.

Oh and I know that Iraq had terrorist training camps yet most other Arab countries have terrorist training camps and have not been invaded. Why?

[shutupandshave]

The US and the UK also have terrorists in them - the 9/11 terrorists trained (at least partly) in the US didn't they?

I am not sure that it's fair to have a go at the US for being the policemen of the world. The Romans have been when they were the most powerful, so were all other dominant nations when they were strong.

However, I think that one of the worst things about this attack on Iraq is that it has now set a precedent for countries attacking each other because of Regime change.

Why shouldn't China attack N.Korea? Wouldn't it be EXACTLY the same as the US attacking Iraq?

[JADezimar]

Zzz Iraq has ties to Terrorists. Sadaam is a war criminal. Iraq HAd violated Un CHarters for instance the no fly zone. Iraq did indeed have mass amounts of uranium. Yes thats not a wmd but its the start of one. This isnt a pre-emptive strike. Your comparisons angel are completely retarded. And you pointing fingers is basically saying your a better person or a hater o0 Shall I bring up Irelands conflicts ? and its history and say I hate irish ppl. ?NO

[shutupandshave]

I am not sure Angel hates all the U.S. people JAD.

The whole terrorism thing is very difficult - as the famous saying goes - one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter - and that is something that you should remember.

The US sponsored terrorism through the IRA, and through Bin Laden in the 70's/80's right up to the 90's. Does this mean that the US should invade itself? No of course not. What it means is that things are not so clear cut as they sometimes appear to be.

[Critta]

Zzz Iraq has ties to Terrorists. Sadaam is a war criminal. Iraq HAd violated Un CHarters for instance the no fly zone. Iraq did indeed have mass amounts of uranium. Yes thats not a wmd but its the start of one. This isnt a pre-emptive strike. Your comparisons angel are completely retarded. And you pointing fingers is basically saying your a better person or a hater o0 Shall I bring up Irelands conflicts ? and its history and say I hate irish ppl. ?NO

Prove Iraqi ties to terrorists - last I heard the supposed Al Quieda training camp was in an area of Iraq under the control of the Kurds.

Iraq may have violated UN charters, but there were several decisions made in the UN not to attack Iraq because all the member states did not agree on it, if a member nation who helped to form the rules decides to flout them by ignoring the UN they can hardly use Iraq breaking a charter thay had no choice in the creation of as an excuse.

Iraq had massive amounts of Uranium left over from before the first Gulf war, that they were not allowed to sell due to UN sanctions in place against them - so that can hardly be used as an excuse.

It was a pre-emptive strike - they have never attacked the USA in their entire history, you weren't counter-attacking, you had no good reason to go to war - but you did.

As for your comments re: Ireland - It brings an interesting point into sharp focus - during the years of the IRA being active in Northern Ireland (for you americans who know little of this - the IRA were a terrorist group fighting against Britain to return Northern Ireland to Irish rule.

the IRA were openly funded by the US government because they were fighting for freedom - they detonated scores of bombs both in Northern Island and England and killed 1000s of people. Over the past 60-70 years, your government has funded many such groups all over the world. All of a sudden you are attacked and wage 2 wars to try and "fight" terrorism.

The only problem? You haven't destroyed any of the terrorist groups - Al Quieda still exist, and the thousands of civilian deaths in Iraq will have helped the terrorist cause much more than your own.

[JADezimar]

o0 lolz Critta your a bit off base. For one Can you do research and find where it states the states supported the IRa in ireland plz Id like to c it not that I dont beleive you...... But id like to c that. #2 Sadaam himself is a terrorists. He was tyrant not even close to a dictator or tyrant killing off anyone that so much as to say anything bad about him. The united States by far funds the largest Amount to the U.N and Takes care of its active duties by far more than anyone else. They should have a bit more say wouldnt you think o0. The uranium was there from teh gulf war? What were they making in the gulf war? As far as I know sadaam was no where near creating nuclear weapons then. I think your evidence and assumption there is false. Sadaam Supporters Raise there people from the very beginning ages of hatred and anti US sentemism teaching the beleifs simliar to the terrorists on 9/11 were taught. It in itself is terrorisms camps. Its not the dislike like you may have or even hatred you possibly have. Its true deep down if I do somehting to the states I will Have 10 virgians Type of hatred. And critta, Ireland is a seperate people in there own right o0. Why would they not have the right to fight for there own rule if they feel mistreated by UK. (just another sharp turn of focus. Iraq itself was ruled by many different tribes clans etc. Sadaam took over by force and had only held it together by force) How is that different from what was going on there IN ireland and the uK ? I totally disagree with it I think it should stay To the UK but think about it you justifying sadaam would be like justyfing the ira. And no Large Amounts of alquida have been eliminated they are far less powerful and in control than they were before.

[Karmashock]

What about Health Care? Given that America make all the biggest and best drugs in the world (Karma) and the rest of the stinking world would still be using leeches for medicine - how would you fund research into drugs? Who would you sell all this technology, weaponry and electrical/electronic goods to?
You haven’t been paying attention, we sell primarily to ourselves. We tend to buy lower end goods from overseas… there are exceptions… but if it’s really high tech, we buy from ourselves.

What drives that is that American workers are very expensive, so their products have to be highquality to justify highering them. This is why manufacturing jobs keep falling in the US. It's much cheaper to just make it in mexico, china, or S. Korea.


If you provided competition that reduced our profit margin, then we would move on to something else. It’s why American companies don’t make many TVs and Boeing is going to stop making airplanes.

We CREATE new markets and then dominate them… when other people compete with them like the Japanese or Europe’s AirBus, then we close shop and move on.

We can always go higher tech then you can… we have the capital to spend on RnD… and the incentive to see it as an investment.

Instead of having a marketplace of between 6-7 BILLION people you would be reduced overnight to a marketplace of 290 MILLION.
We already do operated under a system much like that…The US is a very insular economy. The most we would lose by losing the outside is about a third of profits.


As is a great deal of our production goes to waste… we either give it away or discount it to the point where it might as well be given away.


No country who would consider itself a superpower could become an isolationist state.
It would be really hard to do that… but you don’t have to shut down your economy to the outside world to be an isolationist… The US did lots of foreign trade when it was an isolationist state.

[shutupandshave]

JAD/Critta - as far as I know (and I've looked into it before) there is no evidence that the US government funded the IRA, but there is plenty of evidence that US business funded the IRA.

Jad, I think the point Critta was making, is that the Uranium that was there - didn't matter. Everyone knew it was there, and it wasn't in any way contravening any rules. It was just sat there, and no one was allowed to touch it. You have also demonstrated a very important point, by calling the IRA freedom fighters... You have just disagreed with the US government, who call them terrorists. Can you see how perhaps the PLO were viewed in Palestine now?

I think that any anti US feeling in Iraq were completely justified. Bear in mind that the US were one of the countries that invaded it, and disposed of it's leader.

[Karmashock]

yeah... they loved saddam... who the fuck are we to take away their hero....



do you ever just stop and listen to yourself?

[shutupandshave]

Karma, do you ever just stop and listen to anybody else?

When did I mention Saddam's name?

If you're referring to my last point then you're taking it completely out of context, making things up (including what I am saying) and talking out your arse. Else, feel free to let me know what you're talking about...although I suspect YOU have no fucking idea either.

[JADezimar]

SHAVE i was making a comparison and in no way shape or form Said that the IRa had the right. I was saying in the comparison Critta says its not ok for the IRa but is ok for the other o0 I.E the iraqi terrorists. Or Sadaam being a terrorists himself in the violent way he has controlled his populace.) Which isnt even his country. I must state again Iraq is a bunch of little city type states of different people. That Sadaam got up one day and said he will unite. ( I know its not that simple but there with a small band of army it is easy to overthrow any such type of tribal type cheif and create a government made of fear for the ppl taht stand against it)

And Karmas statement was completely in text. Why would the Iraqi ppl hate the U.S for eliminating a leader they really hate? Answer is they dont. The terrorists and the al-quida and people coming from over the borders do. And some of Sadaams loyalists that benefited alot from him being in power. do to the corruption of the government they had control over o0

[Karmashock]

lol...
Shave said: "Bear in mind that the US were one of the countries that invaded it, and disposed of it's leader."

you kill me... Saddam wasn't their leader... he was their overlord.

[JADezimar]

oh and ps angel I know this is late but if you read ummons posts and not just mine you wouldnt have needed to posts your lasts posts on asking when china was an aggressor.

And another Statement When were you appointed A judge Or policemen of the world to decide that the U.S is bad and Other countries are good. Or that the US is the wrong or right o0. Hypocricy you havee to love it ;0

[Ummon]

JAD, Angel is someone I do personally know (albeit in an online fashion) and I know he's not a hypocrite, let's try to keep inside the limits. I know politics causes strong passions, but we can do better than being slaves to our passions.

[JADezimar]

hypocrite

n : a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he does not hold

Angel proffossed That he dislikes the states for Being the world police. He also openly admitted he pointed fingers at the U.S.

He is acting as a judge or World police On the politics of the usa, which he is saying the states has no right to do with Iraq. He states the States have no rights to point fingers at Iraq or Sadaam. Or anyone else. He states we have no right to judge. Then why is he?

(as far as I know I may like him as a person, But I find it utterly rediculous when people dislike A Nation or people of a Nation that has done nothing to him. That makes it hard for me to give this person a real chance especially when I am a part of that nation) That is also a form of racisms. Its one thing to say hey ya theres a mistake. But its another thing to point out every mistake and to say everything about the states is Wrong and what it does is wrong. And Then to defend other nations for wrong acts just to further and help you deface the nation you dislike. Thats the definition of hatred. Its people like this that are no better than what they feel they are fighting against with the united states, and the Iraq subject which they are mislead on.

hypocrite

n : a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he does not hold

[Ummon]

This is a place for people to talk freely, if Angel thinks that the US are in truth a Nazi secret society from Alpha Centauri, he has the right to do so.

Maybe saying his statement is "incoherent" instead of calling him "hypocrite" would make for an easier conversation, don't you think?

[JADezimar]

If he is saying the us is nazi, Which he hasnt directly done but he does feel hatred=dislike and anomosity for it. Is basically saying that towards me. I dont c how......... Thats any different. Since My nation is apart of me and I am hence apart of my nation.

Your telling me not to take things like that personally. When he has taken this personally towards the states. And you now are taking my comment to him personally. Which there is no need o0 I havnt stated hatred or dislike for him. NOr have I outrageously been rude other than the comment of hypcrote. I could define it again o0.

You are smart ummon And your posts are truly helpful and useful. Lets together stay on that track. And hopefully Angel will be a good guy and maybe realize the error of his ways. Thats the whole point for my posts. Not to demean him.

[Larsson7]

JAD,

Thank you for your posts and I shall respond to them as best I can.

You accuse me of being a hypocite for calling my opinion on US foreign policy.

The USA invaded Iraq - despite not having UN approval (The USA does not NEED UN approval for anything) and the rest of the world should sit like good children and applaud and say nothing.

If the USA are going to become the "Worlds Policemen" and ensure the safety of everyone - then they must continue what they started. They MUST invade every other country that supports terrorism. When are they coming to invade Ireland?

you live in a world, JAD, in which the USA is supreme over everyone. Should your government decide that something is right or worng -the rest of the world must come to heel or risk the threat of invasion or sanctions.

Is this the work of a Democracy? I think not.

Please look outside your blinkered view of holding a stars and stripes and chanting "USA, USA" when your politicians have their hand up your ass pulling your strings and start thinking of the broader picture.

Your government are flexing a muscle that they will eventually lose.

Ask suas or Critta if Britain won the war on terror with Ireland. Fighting a guerilla/terrorist army is a war you can never win - no matter how big or strong your army is.

Terrorists will come at pregnant women or schoolkids at the age of 5 and you cannot guard every place, every time.

I am not proud of what people in Ireland did against the British. I am not proud of what Sadaam or Osama or anyone else did to people in the Middle East. I am proud that I am a free thinker and can differentiate between right and wrong. I have the intelligence to look at a conflict and decide the justification.

I do not believe in the justification of a war on Iraq. The USA will face greater threats than Iraq and should concentrate on those instead, however, Iraq is an easy target so it is all good.

You think you did a good thing in removing sadaam? Perhaps - Can you now rebuild the homes and feed, clothe and house the orphans you created in your quest for "Justice"?


You will eventually walk from Iraq once the oil is done and there is nothing left to protect. tell me - since when did American hearts bleed for the oppressed of Iraq?

[JADezimar]

Ya thats your opinion and your entitled to it. But It doesnt make that you defended china correct. And it doesnt make That you in your prior posts pretty much add up to the hatred of the states. Theres a line between dislike of a nation and your opinion on what you dislike about something somone or something does. Besides Irelands terrorisms isnt aimed us that was a lame analogy. that should be britains job. Were not being the Worlds policemen Were being the policemen for our own nation. You should get that straight -_-. This is in the interest of our nation not just the world. And if you have read over every string related to teh political discussion You will realize Theres more to this than meets the eye you think that I beleive whatever my politicians tell me. I personally think you beleive whatever your politicians tell you Again that would make you a hypocrite. IN the fact that you feel America Or should not be above anyone else or rein supreme. But you feel your opinions are not just your opinions you feel they are right you feel your right and Everyone else that disagrees with you is wrong I.e the entired United States nation. =hypocrite again. Cuase you are saying your ideas and views are the rein of supreme. And despite this being a war on terror or not. The Iraqi people are glad weve come. We are helping them out. And good things are happening for a people that have lived lives of fear every waking moment of there lives. And you act like the united states dont have the strength to deal with multiple places at once. You act like were some little country that has all its resources involved in Iraq. When in fact We have operations and military based abroad through out the world. Iraq is not taking all our atention or all our resources So the so called big problems you name we can still concentrate on.

I think its funny your last statement complains about Oil. Thats what I want to know what is so important about this war other than OIl to the rest of the world including to people such as yourself o0. Why is it so important that A tyrant ruler was removed that has committed atrocities upon attrocites in the world was removed. LET ME ASK YOU THIS AND IF YOU RESPOND ANSWER IT PLZ do you think Hitler shouldve been left in control of GErmany. ???????????Violating un sanctions etc. Why o0 is it so important that you hate the united states for REmoving them. POlitical pressure can by my only reasoning for that. YOu know what that means? I probably have to explain it to you. Political pressure is where a government feed its people information whether it be lies or truth. So they will have a dislike for a nation and influence individuals from multiple nations to cause unrest in the opinions of people at there home nation. Its also to make governments to want to work with that nation less.

But Thats what my opinion is the states is in iraq not for oil But for mulitiple reasons. I think the rest of the world on the other hand doesnt like that this cuase they beleive it will give the united states more easy access to the sought after oil commidity. Not to mention the many nations going behind U.N sanctions and trading with them loses out on there trade with Sadaam. Since when Angel Can these other nations go against what the UN or the so called rest of the world wants. ? But sure when the United States does it its wrong in your eyes right? hypocrite. Should I define it to you again ?

[JADezimar]

And Angel I didnt call you a hypocrite for your opinion on us policy. If you thoroughly read your posts and Your talk. From your prior posts. You attack anything that is mentioned when it comes to the states. Defacing it anyway you possibly could. But when another nation came up You defended it best you cuold then compared it to the states, Seeing if in a way you could Deface the states more. You dont just disagree with its policy or things it does. You dont just have an opinion you Do not like the states. You have animosity or dislike for the states That is the definition of Hatred. You say we have no right of hate. For various reasons then why do you ? hypocrite Shall I define it again ?

[Karmashock]

If the USA are going to become the "Worlds Policemen" and ensure the safety of everyone - then they must continue what they started. They MUST invade every other country that supports terrorism. When are they coming to invade Ireland?

They aren't any more, and even if they were they completely england's affair... just as the Palestinians are Isabel’s affair... we would not invade Palestine.

Be logical... If the Irish had a vast international terror network, then we would take notice.... they don't.

you live in a world, JAD, in which the USA is supreme over everyone. Should your government decide that something is right or worng -the rest of the world must come to heel or risk the threat of invasion or sanctions.
Not at all, if you would discuss things instead of telling us that you won't discuss it at all in the UN then maybe we would bother. The french said they would NEVER support that action... THAT is the point where we walked away from teh UN.

Is this the work of a Democracy? I think not.
Democracies don't need to respect the wishes of other countries, just their own people.

Read a book.
Your government are flexing a muscle that they will eventually lose.
Is that a threat?... are you going to take them from us? :D

Ask suas or Critta if Britain won the war on terror with Ireland. Fighting a guerilla/terrorist army is a war you can never win - no matter how big or strong your army is.
Will you admit you were wrong if we establish a stable Iraqi government?

Will you admit "the americans were right"?... I doubt it... you'll probably just avoid the topic.

Terrorists will come at pregnant women or schoolkids at the age of 5 and you cannot guard every place, every time.
That's why we're stopping the source...

I am not proud of what people in Ireland did against the British. I am not proud of what Sadaam or Osama or anyone else did to people in the Middle East. I am proud that I am a free thinker and can differentiate between right and wrong. I have the intelligence to look at a conflict and decide the justification.
We have teh same pride and whether one has it and another doesn't is merely an opinion.

I do not believe in the justification of a war on Iraq. The USA will face greater threats than Iraq and should concentrate on those instead, however, Iraq is an easy target so it is all good.
Ok, that proved right there that you don't even know what we're doing... Don't critise something that you clearly don't understand.

You think you did a good thing in removing sadaam? Perhaps - Can you now rebuild the homes and feed, clothe and house the orphans you created in your quest for "Justice"?
we are creating a democracy where there was nothing but tryanny before... the death is well worth it... it is cheap.


You will eventually walk from Iraq once the oil is done and there is nothing left to protect. tell me - since when did American hearts bleed for the oppressed of Iraq?
we never came for oil...
the people will protect themselves...
since now.

[Larsson7]

"LET ME ASK YOU THIS AND IF YOU RESPOND ANSWER IT PLZ do you think Hitler shouldve been left in control of GErmany?"

Absolutely not. Why didnt you Good ole boys go over and sort him out then? You did not appear too distressed with the genocide and tyranny that Hitler carried out and certainly did not rush to alleviate the suffering of the German people or those of the occupied nations.

[shutupandshave]

There are far worse human rights crises in Africa than there are in Iraq.
There is far more evidence of as terror network in Syria or Iran than there was in Iraq.

Just remember JAD, that until Japan bombed pearl harbour (therefore bringing the US into the war against Hitler, as Japan and Germany were allied) the US were doing nothing about hitler.

Not at all, if you would discuss things instead of telling us that you won't discuss it at all in the UN then maybe we would bother. The french said they would NEVER support that action... THAT is the point where we walked away from teh UN.
This is a very important to remember (and I think it was both the French and the Russians). Those countries screwed up the potential peace process by saying they would not agree to anything that the pro-war lobby would bring to the table. This potentially took away any non-violent diplomacy issues that the allies may have had (although it would have still been good to have tried to speak to the French and the Russians about this instead of throwing our toys out the pram).

we are creating a democracy where there was nothing but tryanny before... the death is well worth it... it is cheap.
Please tell me you're not talking about regular Iraqi deaths (which you seem to be as you refer to the orphaned children). If this is saying what I think it is, then it's the most offensive comment I have ever read on the TLSC forums.

Edit: Ummon, I think calling Angel's statement incoherant would be as wrong as to call it hypocritical. I understood it perfectly.
Although, if you want to call every European rapists and muslim lovering faggots then you're welcome too. [sic]

[Ummon]

I was not commenting JAD's statement, I was only suggesting alternative formulations.

Infact, I do think Angel's objections are the only valid objections to the Iraq campaign I have read in these forums to date. Although I don't agree with Angel's points, I find them sincere.

[shutupandshave]

Then is bemuses me that you would call them incoherant. One false statement is little better when substituted for another, slightly less offensive statement.

There were lots of good reasons to go to war, unfortunately most of them were cited well after the war had started.

[Karmashock]

You did not appear too distressed with the genocide and tyranny that Hitler carried out and certainly did not rush to alleviate the suffering of the German people or those of the occupied nations.
We didn't know about the holocaust until we invaded... no one knew... we were totally surprised. We thought he was just power mad...
====================================
As to our motives here... we are not there to help the iraqi people for the iraqi people... we are there to put the middle east under new management for our own good... WHICH also happens to be much better for them.


Telling other countries that we're acting in our own interest isn't a very good line though... so we tend to focus on how others will benefit... and they will... tremendously.
=================================

There is far more evidence of as terror network in Syria or Iran than there was in Iraq.
We’ll go to those places too… have patience… you could help us get there faster ;)
Please tell me you're not talking about regular Iraqi deaths (which you seem to be as you refer to the orphaned children). If this is saying what I think it is, then it's the most offensive comment I have ever read on the TLSC forums.
Oh cut the petty melodrama, it’s tiring. This will MAKE a new country for them… if they did it on their own hundreds of thousand more would die.

This is cheap in human life… because any other way would cost MORE human life.

Put things in perspective, Karmashock.

[shutupandshave]

and they will... tremendously.
I agree - because if they dont - it will be political suicide for the US.

[Karmashock]

that's the spirit :D

[MVB]

Angel, on Germany briefly; we were unaware -- as was most of Europe and the world -- of the extent of the German genocidal effort until American soldiers started coming on the first of the death camps in April of 1945. Had people been aware before, they would have pushed for action before -- Americans only were fully aware of the atrocities of the Japanese, despite a DESPERATE propaganda effort by the Roosevelt administration to get people to care about Germany first.

The German people, and the occupied nations, did not suffer terribly, with the exception of Russia. France only suffered once they had a brief communist uprising, and Germany retaliated for every German soldier shot down in the street with 100 French Communists shot. Germans were extremely well off during the war, and had no suffering. There were only 600,000 German Jews, and 450,000 of them got out before the camps really got serious, ending up in the US or South America. The Polish Jews were the numerous ones, in the millions, and were the ones who suffered. This is not directly related to the convo, but Hitler did not treat Caucasians OR PoW's badly at all. Only Jews (not that this is justification), and people in the wider world had no *real* idea, contrary to popular "Oh they must have known" attitudes, until they actually came upon the camps in '45.

[shutupandshave]

My wife's grandparents (blonde, blue-eyed - looked the part) were killed in concentration camps for not being German. They were not communist, they didn't take up arms against the Germans. You're wrong, and sweeping comments such as "Hitler only killed Jews" could be very offensive to anyone that actually had an idea what was going on at the time. There are many many horror stories of the appalling treatment of British servicemen who were sent to all kinds of concentration and extermination camps.

[Ummon]

You don't seem to understand Suas, I was suggesting that calling a statement incoherent instead of calling a person hypocrite might be the proper way for JAD to argue without offending an opponent who has not offended him. But I don't think JAD's objection is right. Angel's statement was perfectly coherent, IMHO. Although JAD has the right to disagree.

[shutupandshave]

Okay no problem. From where I was standing it looked you were encouraging him to put down an argument for no reason. Apologies.

[JADezimar]

Im not putting down an argument. Im putting down in the manner which it was meant. And thats the prejudice or racism that Angel does it in. If you read all his posts. Hell go as far as to defending a power hungrey nation that invades on premesis of conquering to deface america and its governments supporters. thats deeper than an opinion thats from his heart or soul. That means he has a true dislike or animosity towards the states and its governments supporters. That means he is prejudice and he hates. Shall I define the 2 words. Its one thing to have an opinion its another to hate because of it o0 That makes you no better than what your opinion is against.

[JADezimar]

LET ME ASK YOU THIS AND IF YOU RESPOND ANSWER IT PLZ do you think Hitler shouldve been left in control of GErmany?"

Absolutely not. Why didnt you Good ole boys go over and sort him out then? You did not appear too distressed with the genocide and tyranny that Hitler carried out and certainly did not rush to alleviate the suffering of the German people or those of the occupied nations.

thx Angel you made my point exactly. no I think When germany was conquered Hitler should not have been returned to ruling germany. I also think we should have removed him sooner. But Easier said than done when fighting a full fledged war with Japan etc etc. Sadaam is hitler on a lesser scale cuase he has less power. But he still tried to conquer other nations, he has gassed kurds like hitler did to jews. Yet you c no justification in eliminating sadaam But you c full justification for eliminating hitler.

You know why o0 Cuase Removing Sadaam doesnt help your nation or its history. In fact your nations is probably highly upset cuase it thinks its gonna lose out on oil that it feels the states will probably get. But on the other hand hitler invaded your nation and killed some of your ancestors, so you naturally will have a hatred for him I guess so called justifying your reasoning for having hitler removed. Angel you need to start thinking with your head and not your emotions.


There are far worse human rights crises in Africa than there are in Iraq.
There is far more evidence of as terror network in Syria or Iran than there was in Iraq.

Just remember JAD, that until Japan bombed pearl harbour (therefore bringing the US into the war against Hitler, as Japan and Germany were allied) the US were doing nothing about hitler.

We have to start somewhere. And our reasoning for invading Iran or Syria Are alot less valid. There are many reasons for Invading Iraq and thats only if it were to remove Sadaam and punish him for war crimes. In the history of the world It at one point or another alwayz punishes those that commit war crimes. And number 2 weve learned from the pasts sitting idle back and doing nothing gets us no where. It just allows our enemies to strike us first. Its time to eliminate the threats first so Its our military dying those that joined to serve the nation and are prepared rather than our innocent 3 yr old kids and grandparents in the states. Thats alot more demoralizing when it hits home and hurts our economy etc. OUr ppl shouldnt have to live in fear.

Please tell me you're not talking about regular Iraqi deaths (which you seem to be as you refer to the orphaned children). If this is saying what I think it is, then it's the most offensive comment I have ever read on the TLSC forums.

Its cheap tactics like that, to make ppl feel bad. And not c the big picture that in the future hopefully death is not a normal way of life. To create Almost any nation its history was Tainted with blood. Look at the history books of any nation and you will find alot of death.

My wife's grandparents (blonde, blue-eyed - looked the part) were killed in concentration camps for not being German. They were not communist, they didn't take up arms against the Germans. You're wrong, and sweeping comments such as "Hitler only killed Jews" could be very offensive to anyone that actually had an idea what was going on at the time. There are many many horror stories of the appalling treatment of British servicemen who were sent to all kinds of concentration and extermination camps.


mvb didnt say it was just jews. He was only merely pointing out That we didnt know about everything. But ..... When we realized The world was being wronged and Roosevelt finally could convince the people we finally freed the world of germany. With help of course.. But You guyz got to realize The united states just isnt here to serve you. Thats what you make it sound like, beucase we didnt stop wwII sooner which I think was a mistake on our part I do agree we make mistakes but your nations make them too. And to say yours dont or is better is to be arrogant. Anywayz cuase we didnt stop wwII sooner you make it sound like we have no right to fix other situations we feel the need to. Well were not your servants.

[MVB]

Suas, such sweeping statements by me are NOT incorrect. There are individual cases of non-Jews being killed, and Germans had a STRONG effort to exterminate Gays, Lesbians, Gypsies and such things as even Catholics. Fact of the matter is, however, that the Germans -- in the great majority of cases -- treated POW's according to the rules of war, and treated their own people exceedingly well. If you insist, I'll even do some extra research along with the literally thousands of pages of primary source research I've been doing SPECIFICALLY on world war II ALL semester long JUST for you, to provide you with some added depth and insight on real history, as opposed to heart-felt emotional history generalized up off of individual events.

[shutupandshave]

but Hitler did not treat Caucasians OR PoW's badly at all. Only Jews
This was the statement you made, and that I pointed out that I objected too. You still stand by that?

edit: so gays/lesbians/catholics were not caucasion?
I would say that Hitler picked on all kinds of Minority groups. People that differed to his norm. Jews more so, but not exclusively, as you said.

[JADezimar]

Saus I just thingk your taking things a tad bit to litterally to kick up smoke and an argument.... that has nothing to do with your original point or the point of the argument =( No offense bud but Whats the point your getting at ? Despite just to prove one little point of mvb's misguided or not completely factual. Is it just to get some satisfaction you were slightly right ? comon bud plz keep on track. with the real subject.

[MVB]

I should clarify my statement. Hitler had a generalized, sweeping policy ONLY against Jews. He had an anti-gay/lesbian/catholic/etc. sentiment, but did not make active policy actions against them. Exterminating the Jews was his primary goal and function as the war progressed. There were just as many gays/lesbians/catholics/etc. who were left completely alone and had no problems at all, as there were those who were persecuted.

In regards to POW's, there was almost NO mistreatment. Germans in general lived by the rules of war.

The same cannot be said for the Japanese, who pretty much hated and acted their hatred out on anybody and anything not Japanese, and this included ANY Japanese person who even surrendered (Which made them instantly worthless).

This all stems from culture, though; Germans did not think of themselves as evil, and did not think of, say, the British as evil. They DID think of the Jews as subhuman and EVIL, and a vast majority of the average German population firmly believed the Jews were responsible for losing World War I, and for their financial woes afterwards.

[Karmashock]

Germans did not think of themselves as evil, and did not think of, say, the British as evil. They DID think of the Jews as subhuman and EVIL, and a vast majority of the average German population firmly believed the Jews were responsible for losing World War I, and for their financial woes afterwards.
That is so fucking warped... talk about denial...

bitches kept trying to take on the whole world at once... :loco:

[MVB]

Not so much; again, Germans didn't really think of themselves as bad or anything, and often convinced themselves that other nations were the aggressors. They weren't always 100% in support of war ... they were in support of somehow removing the Jews, though afterwards they were quite adamant that they hadn't meant kill them all, and that is probably very true.

[Karmashock]

I'm not talking about good or evil... I'm talking about a deluded thought process.

How the hell would the jews have lost them the war?... I can figure some of the really thin connections out... but I can't see how you make a respectable case out of it.

ie... warped.

[shutupandshave]

I thought Hitler had an anti-black policy similar to the Jewish policy, however there were just a lot less black people around in Europe at the time.

[MVB]

It was not nearly as personal, suas. I don't even think he had a "policy" on it, again, which is largely the point. That, however, wouldn't fit under my "sweeping" caucasians statement; he certainly was a racist, and had no love whatsoever for blacks.

[shutupandshave]

He apparently did have policy against blacks.

I know I am being picky MVB, but you're doing (or did) history at Uni and you're not stupid (or quiet with your opinions - which is not a critism at all) and you may well write and publish a paper about some of the things we discuss one day. In the history books, the difference between "only Jews" and "mostly Jews" is very important.

[Ummon]

You just have to remember the olympics in Berlin, Hitler hated to see black people winning gold medals.

It's just that a few blacks could be found in Europe at the time.

[shutupandshave]

Just checked the topic name - we've managed to get a bit off topic.

The head of the US central bank today said that the dollar was going to continue to fall (something I think I got yelled at for saying would happen on the old TLSC boards just after the election) and he was not going to do anything about it, because they needed the foreign investment to help deal with the national deficit, which he said was a huge problem.

I just wondered why, if the head of the central bank (or whatever his title was) said specifically that the US deficit was a huge problem - do some people say it is not. What is it they know that he doesn't know?

[Ummon]

Deficit is always a problem, the US will have to deal with it and not do wars for 5-10 years.

[shutupandshave]

Which will be tough with the war against terrorism.

[JADezimar]

>.< our military is expensive despite a war or not o0. well alwayz have our troops somewhere. Even if its for cuases of the U.N. The reason why the deficit affects it cuase people are so worried about it despite the need not to be. All the trash thrown around about our economy which in truth is improving will make people not want to invest. If you read back this subject was allready fully covered.

[shutupandshave]

There are some stats on what the US spends on it's military in relation to other things, and I cant remember them. About 750bn a year (without war). It spends about 6 billion on schooling (I think).

[JADezimar]

And most of that is expensive things like A Raptor jet costing 100 million dollars for 1 jet o0.

[Karmashock]

Just checked the topic name - we've managed to get a bit off topic.

The head of the US central bank today said that the dollar was going to continue to fall (something I think I got yelled at for saying would happen on the old TLSC boards just after the election) and he was not going to do anything about it, because they needed the foreign investment to help deal with the national deficit, which he said was a huge problem.

I just wondered why, if the head of the central bank (or whatever his title was) said specifically that the US deficit was a huge problem - do some people say it is not. What is it they know that he doesn't know?
You don't seem to understand the complexity of the situation.

I'll lay it out as best I understand it (I'm doing my best not be snarky here, I'm an econ major so my best is pretty good... but I'm honestly just trying to give you information here... no burns or rubs.)...

The US stock market had a huge collapse about 4 years ago. This was primarily the tech bubble but it influenced other markets. We had most stocks trading at 30 times the annual earnings of the company. The standard valuation of a stock is 15 times earnings so you can see that things were out of control. In the case of the tech stocks, many of hte companies were making literally ZERO profit. If you're making zero profit and you're valued at billions of dollars, you'd had better start making money FAST. As you well know, they were completely unable to make enough money to justify their massive valuations... So the stock market collapsed.

The effect of major stock collapses is to suck all the money out of the system. Many companies that weren't tech companies had invested IN tech companies. The savings and cash buffer of most companies in the country was destroyed. That means that they need to get that buffer back. To get the buffer back you can either make more money (if they could, they probably would have done this already... but maybe a bit more aggressive), sell off capital (effectively make your company smaller), or take out a very large loan. In practice all of this happens at once. So US business became meaner, liquidated some of their operations (that means closing down shops and factories or just firing as many people as you can afford to), and took on some loans.

The effect of the businesses on the economy made things more difficult for new or small businesses to compete, increased unemployment, and put great stress on the nation's banking system.

The government's response to this was to cut taxes (which made things easier for those trying to compete and survive), to set up increased incentives to expand (ie hire people), and to lower interest rates drastically (which made borrowing money easier/cheaper).

The effect of these changes was to dampen the damage to the economy and stimulate growth. If you think our progression out of the recession was slow, then it's likely because you don't understand how completely fucked we were by that collapse. There is a negative side effect to having such low interest rates though and that is inflation. If it's easy to borrow a US dollar and the money supply increases, then quite naturally the value of a dollar will go down. Furthermore, the value of the dollar is also connected to the sales of US debt bonds. If the value of a dollar goes down, then these bonds become less attractive which in fact makes the dollar worth even less. You can see the potential for a chain reaction or feed back loop here.

9/11 was a factor in all of this... but it was just something that made things worse as opposed to what made things bad in the first place.

- - - - - -

Currently, we've basically come out of the recession so our interest rates will slowly and gradually climb back up to they need to be to stabilize the currency. We can't man handle the numbers back to that place swiftly anymore then a 747 pilot can yank hard on the stick and then press it down again. Everything has to be smooth or the passengers will get sick.


I hope this has been of some use to you.
====================================
Deficit is always a problem, the US will have to deal with it and not do wars for 5-10 years.
Not really, we've moved too much money into social programs over the years... typically raising taxes or cutting the military to do it.

The solution is to either cut some of hte more expensive social services or raise taxes.

The war is critical... cheap drugs for senior citizens are not critical... they are a luxury... obviously they are critical to those that need them... but I'm talking in terms of the nation at large.


Don't give me some sob story and then ask "how could you"... I'm immune.

Love, Karmashock.

[shutupandshave]

I'm an econ major so my best is pretty good
Sorry Karma - your an "econ major" and you think that the US doesn't measure salary as a Median. You also think that GDP is the same as Salary. Furthermore you say that the US is owed (by other countries) more than it owes (to other countries), however you have ZERO statistics on either - and when I asked you, you told me they dont exist (which begs the question - how the hell do you know it is owed more than it owes when you dont know EITHER figures).

When you've dealt with those issues I will almost certainly read the rest of your (I am currently assuming - equally inaccurate post)... until then, I am going to read your posts until I find the first bit of bigotry, incompetence, hypocrisy or stupidity. Then verbally attack you for being stupid.

[JADezimar]

I still think Karma is taking into account not just pure cash flow. But multiple things weve spent money on doing for instance world wars etc. That we were dragged into but never really payed back for. As far as I know any wars we go into like Iraq for a instance We arnt keeping for our own conquest we are setting up a free government (thats another discussion) But point being we dont owe them cuase were currently helping them. Not to mention we have for how many years funded the majority of the U.N and send the largest forces on U.N missions. And im on the topic of Who owes who, not this silly who makes more topic :p

[shutupandshave]

Yes he is trying to take those things into account - however he also stated that the US is owed more than it owes (I think). I simply asked him how much the US owes and how much the US is owed. He said that there are no figures for that.

If there are no figures for it then how can anyone say someone owes more than someone else?

Yes the US primarily funds the UN. In addition is gives out a lot of money to various countries (although quite often with conditions attached - apparently).

I am not saying the US does not pay a lot of money to the UN, I am also not saying that the US isn't owed a lot of money. I am asking Karma how he can say the US is owed more than it owes if he doesn't know what it's owed, and what it owes.

[Karmashock]

Sorry Karma - your an "econ major" and you think that the US doesn't measure salary as a Median.
liar... I said that I didn't see any figures that listed the per person value. I knew that the US had a median...
You are lying.


You also think that GDP is the same as Salary.
Again, you're lying. I said that a US citizen makes 10,000 more per person.

If our GDP is 10,000 more per person then how the fuck could we not make 10,000 dollars more?... We would have to be completely owned by someone else for that to happen.

Furthermore you say that the US is owed (by other countries) more than it owes (to other countries), however you have ZERO statistics on either - and when I asked you, you told me they dont exist (which begs the question - how the hell do you know it is owed more than it owes when you dont know EITHER figures).
I was specifically talking about the IMF and World Bank. The US doesn't rely on such organizations. We sell our debt. That debt can be bought and owned by anyone... often our own citizens.

Then verbally attack you for being being ashamed that I know more then you about anything...

Very sad indeed... and here I offered to honestly explain it to you... that took time to lay it out...

you were doing so well too... well... I guess we'll just go back to insulting each other... Not much left really... if you're going to lie and avoid honest statements, then there really isn't much point in me even pretending to respect you.

Peace be upon you, Karmashock.

[JADezimar]

Who knows saus.... You cant really, But you also cant say the us owes more also..... Plus when you look at it from that view. Maybe its time for all those people complaing about usa debt to maybe sit back and think maybe the debt should be looked at from some other observations.

[shutupandshave]

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat39.txt
This is for a person, and is taken from your household data. I have posted this link before. It is still the average earnings of a worker, and a male worker and a female worker... which is then further broken down into earnings by job type. If not, why is it broken into male/female. Are you telling me that households have gender in the US?
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat39.txt

"I said that a US citizen makes 10,000 more per person" - BEFORE TAX!
You said this in a discussion about wages and taxation. You quoted the GDP in a SALARIES conversation.

"I was specifically talking about the IMF and World Bank." Well we were talking about war debts...and perhaps you should let us know if you're going to change the criteria of a conversation...you tend to use this excuse when you've been proven wrong ("oh I was talking about something completely different - nevermind everyone else talking about salary - I was talking about GDP, even though I used it in the context of a salary"..."oh you lot were talking about war debts, but I was talking about a certain set of criteria that I am going to take 3 pages to invent and then puts me in the right...").

I love the way you always accuse me of doing exactly what you've done Karma.

JAD - "who knows" - that's exactly my point. Karma must do, because he made the statement to begin with.

[Karmashock]

I said
I said that I didn't see any figures that listed the per person value. I knew that the US had a median...
so you said
I have posted this link before. It is still the average earnings of a worker, and a male worker and a female worker... which is then further broken down into earnings by job type. If not, why is it broken into male/female. Are you telling me that households have gender in the US?
Here you are trying to lie and distort again...
---------------------------
You said this in a discussion about wages and taxation. You quoted the GDP in a SALARIES conversation.
No, I was talking about what people made. Total GDP, divided by person, and adjusted for purchasing power parity should give you a very accurate understanding of what the average profit or income of the average (mean) citizen takes in. This is accurate.

I further find it funny that you immediately began to flame again when you realized that purchasing power parity would fuck your argument...

So very sad.
---------------------------
Well we were talking about war debts...and perhaps you should let us know if you're going to change the criteria of a conversation...you tend to use this excuse when you've been proven wrong
We seemed to be talking about shamable debts. Gifts... loans... as friends...

Much of the second and third world take out loans from the IMF or WB... this is because they cannot afford to offer a high enough interest rate to overcome the instability of their currency and sell their debt. The US doesn't have this problem so it sells its debt to anyone that want to buy it.


If your point is that the US has sold more debt as an investment then poor countries have been gifted it out of compassion, then you HAVE NO POINT!

You're a laughable clown.
----------------------------------
As to lying, you can't shift this one chuckles... You're going to have to sit in your own shit.

If you'd just stop being such a fucking lamer we could talk to your pathetic ass... but every time an argument goes south for you... well... we get this...

Good night princess, Karmashock.

[shutupandshave]

No, I was talking about what people made. Total GDP, divided by person, and adjusted for purchasing power parity should give you a very accurate understanding of what the average profit or income of the average (mean) citizen takes in. This is accurate.
So what did you mean by "before tax"?

As to lying, you can't shift this one chuckles... You're going to have to sit in your own shit.
Then fine the NUMEROUS examples where I had called "AMERICA" fascists.
I have challenged you to prove me wrong, and you haven't. Because you cant. Dont forget the links.

[Karmashock]

Bro, you call anything you don't like fascist. The word has no more meaning to you then "cocksmoker" does to me. You see any thing that offends your petty small minded sensibilities and you say "fascist"...

So whatever... :rolleyes:

[Larsson7]

Yup - The Dollar is the currency to be holding today because it is worth shit.

Tell me, Karma, would you rather own 100,000 Dollars, Euro or Pounds?

The Dollar would be stone last in my choice because it is worth LESS than the other two.

Tell me why the US$ should be the currency of choice? No one wants that worthless POS currency (unless you are going on holiday to the USA and want to take advantage - like me :lol:)

[JADezimar]

Its cuase We know the dollar will rise again. Angel id like to c you try to invest in stocks and c the disaster youd become financially. And number 2 Angel you are fricken stuipd pathetic moron. You can take your euro dollar and shove up your gay ass, As america fucks you like the little gay fag you are.

Anyone that even gives half of what you ever say any merit is a total moron. Cuase you are a racists biast human being. You are the type that cuase deep hatred. Maybe you can ....... justify your own nation and why it is so great with a homeland IRA ?

If its so bad here why would you go on vacation here. YOu pathetic moron you trying to fund us money so we can furhter our actions in IRaq and support terrorists with our money. can I call you a hypocrite again ?

[Karmashock]

Yup - The Dollar is the currency to be holding today because it is worth shit.

Tell me, Karma, would you rather own 100,000 Dollars, Euro or Pounds?

The Dollar would be stone last in my choice because it is worth LESS than the other two.

Tell me why the US$ should be the currency of choice? No one wants that worthless POS currency (unless you are going on holiday to the USA and want to take advantage - like me :lol:)
Worthless?... funny that the international trade standard should be something 'you' would call 'worthless'... the global price of oil is set in "dollars" when oil is bought YOUR COUNTRY it is bought in DOLLARS... that means you have to sell your silly pounds to buy dollars, then take those dollars to buy oil.

Worthless?... only if you're clueless. :lol:

[Larsson7]

Worthless?... funny that the international trade standard should be something 'you' would call 'worthless'... the global price of oil is set in "dollars" when oil is bought YOUR COUNTRY it is bought in DOLLARS... that means you have to sell your silly pounds to buy dollars, then take those dollars to buy oil.

Worthless?... only if you're clueless. :lol:

Uh huh - you really are fucking smart - right?

If this time last year a barrel of oil cost $30 and £1 = $1.50 then we were buying oil for £20 per barrel.

Now that your $ is worth nearly £1 = $2.00 we are buying at £15.00 per barrel. Surely we have to spend less pounds to buy oil than last year and we are better off.

How the hell does your argument hold any weight?

A barel of oil costs $30 no matter what currency you use. If we are getting a better rate of £ to $ then we are better off, assknocker.

[JADezimar]

That dont change the point that The U.S currency is still seen as the ancient equivalant of gold.

[Larsson7]

Its cuase We know the dollar will rise again. Angel id like to c you try to invest in stocks and c the disaster youd become financially. And number 2 Angel you are fricken stuipd pathetic moron. You can take your euro dollar and shove up your gay ass, As america fucks you like the little gay fag you are.

Anyone that even gives half of what you ever say any merit is a total moron. Cuase you are a racists biast human being. You are the type that cuase deep hatred. Maybe you can ....... justify your own nation and why it is so great with a homeland IRA ?

If its so bad here why would you go on vacation here. YOu pathetic moron you trying to fund us money so we can furhter our actions in IRaq and support terrorists with our money. can I call you a hypocrite again ?

HaHa - I bought this forum and its webspace because I have money TO BURN!

I am going to Hawaii and LA in January, renting an executive box at Cheltenham in March for the biggest National Hunt racing event in the UK, going to the Breeders Cup in New York and the Caribbean in October - and that is just the start of my spending for next year.

Seems I do just fucking A-OK in terms of spending - and I dont have to go into debt! Am I just awesome or what!?

OMG - Americans come to Ireland for a holiday so they fund the IRA - am I rite!? You Sir, talk the biggest pile of shit in defense of your arguments. You do not even HAVE an argument because you cannot think for yourself.

You live on the diatribe of what your government feed you and vomit it back into the faces of people who can actually think for themselves.

I do not support the IRA. I do not believe that the killing of innocents by anyone can further the cause of any nation.

Your country has killed millions all around the world in support of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness" You sir, are the biggest fucking hypocrite of all.
It must be since the reverse operates with you

[shutupandshave]

That dont change the point that The U.S currency is still seen as the ancient equivalant of gold.
There is talk of oil prices changing to be based on another country instead of the dollar - IF this happens America will be screwed if the dollar continues to fall.

[Karmashock]

Uh huh - you really are fucking smart - right?

If this time last year a barrel of oil cost $30 and £1 = $1.50 then we were buying oil for £20 per barrel.

Now that your $ is worth nearly £1 = $2.00 we are buying at £15.00 per barrel. Surely we have to spend less pounds to buy oil than last year and we are better off.

How the hell does your argument hold any weight?

A barel of oil costs $30 no matter what currency you use. If we are getting a better rate of £ to $ then we are better off, assknocker.
You have no fucking clue what you're talking about... You think that because a single UK currency unit is larger then a single US currency unit that we spend more on the same amount of oil as you? We spend the same amount. The WHOLE POINT OF THE CURRENCY EXCHANGE IS TO EQUALIZE VALUE!

At any rate, you were talking about the 'worthless' dollar, which I pwned by pointing out that it remains the global trade currency of choice.

We don't force anyone to use our money to trade... they do it because it makes sense. There are trillions more US dollars then there are pounds or even euros.... probably combined... together they constitute the most actively exchanged liquid capital on earth. The US dollar is the currency of commerce... period.

That makes it the opposite of worthless.

[Larsson7]

You have no fucking clue what you're talking about... You think that because a single UK currency unit is larger then a single US currency unit that we spend more on the same amount of oil as you? We spend the same amount. The WHOLE POINT OF THE CURRENCY EXCHANGE IS TO EQUALIZE VALUE!

At any rate, you were talking about the 'worthless' dollar, which I pwned by pointing out that it remains the global trade currency of choice.

We don't force anyone to use our money to trade... they do it because it makes sense. There are trillions more US dollars then there are pounds or even euros.... probably combined... together they constitute the most actively exchanged liquid capital on earth. The US dollar is the currency of commerce... period.

That makes it the opposite of worthless.


HaHa you "pwned" me!? Explain how?

If I go to the "Oil Shop" and oil is $30 a barrel then I only have to spend £15 now instead of £20 a year ago.

I HAVE TO SPEND LESS OF MY POUNDS TO BUY THE SAME AMOUNT OF OIL!!

What part of that is going over your head?

I am BETTER OFF no matter how you paint it.

You "pwned" nothing.

[shutupandshave]

I wouldn't say the dollar is worthless - however I would say it's worth less.

;)

[Karmashock]

HaHa you "pwned" me!? Explain how?

If I go to the "Oil Shop" and oil is $30 a barrel then I only have to spend £15 now instead of £20 a year ago.

I HAVE TO SPEND LESS OF MY POUNDS TO BUY THE SAME AMOUNT OF OIL!!

What part of that is going over your head?

I am BETTER OFF no matter how you paint it.

You "pwned" nothing.
Oil costs the same amount no matter what the dollar is worth. So the dollar goes up or down, you'll still pay the same VALUE for oil.

This is an exceptionally simple concept.

[MVB]

Karma, that isn't true. Neither the British pound NOR the US Dollar are on an Oil Standard, and so oil availability does not affect inflation or deflation. Oil availability directly affects the value of oil, and oil prices do not directly reflect the value of a dollar or pound.

Also, it's not necessarily a good thing or bad thing that the pound is worth more. Frankly, I don't give a fuck -- it doesn't affect me directly at all; I don't know if the dollar affects the Brits or not.

[Karmashock]

I never said that the oil changed in relation to any currency... quite the contrary in fact. I was stating there was no advantage to buying things in pounds... The ‘value’ of oil is set by the demand and supply of oil… not by dollars or pounds. Furthermore, it isn’t value of the pound that makes the English affluent in the world, but the amount of VALUE in their pockets. If a Mexican worked in an environment similar to the English environment and did the same amount of work he should come home at the end of the week with the same ‘value’ in his pocket. Now that might be thousands of pesos to the pound, but that’s just Fahrenheit to Celsius… the actual temperature doesn’t change just because the units you use to measure it change.

[shutupandshave]

You think that because a single UK currency unit is larger then a single US currency unit that we spend more on the same amount of oil as you?
However the price is set in dollars.
Say for example, that the UKP is worth 18 dollars tomorrow. We would be paying a tenth for a barral of oil than we did the day before, because of the strength of the pound against the dollar. This is what Angel meant. You yourself said that we need to exhange pounds for dollars to buy oil. So if the pound is worth more dollars, then we need to exchange less pounds - so the oil has cost us less. You appeared to argue with that fact. Repeatedly, so much so that everyone speaking about it has disagreed with you. Either you dont explain yourself very well, you're great and everyone else is stupid, or you're mistaken.

[Karmashock]

You're talking about inflation... If we both did work in different countries, were paid in different currencies, held the money in the bank or in our pockets, inflation were higher in one country then another, then yes the person with more highly inflated money would get a worse deal. However, that doesn't really happen... and it has nothing to do with what a single UK unit is worth but instead the 'movement' of the UK currency unit in relation to the dollar.

For example, if the UK unit inflated more then the Peso during that period, the person from Mexico would get a better deal.

Savvy?

In practice the money doesn't sit in the bank and inflation rates aren't that different.

[shutupandshave]

Please stop talking to me.

[Larsson7]

You're talking about inflation... If we both did work in different countries, were paid in different currencies, held the money in the bank or in our pockets, inflation were higher in one country then another, then yes the person with more highly inflated money would get a worse deal. However, that doesn't really happen... and it has nothing to do with what a single UK unit is worth but instead the 'movement' of the UK currency unit in relation to the dollar.

For example, if the UK unit inflated more then the Peso during that period, the person from Mexico would get a better deal.

Savvy?

In practice the money doesn't sit in the bank and inflation rates aren't that different.

Holy Fucking Shit!

I am praying that you are not taking a major in Economics.

[shutupandshave]

Yea he is.

[Karmashock]

Holy Fucking Shit!

I am praying that you are not taking a major in Economics.
if I look the fool to you, then prove it... I've pwt every attempt so far... I don't know where you get all this bravado. :rolleyes:
==========================
Yea he is.
You say "don't talk to me", then you say this kind of stuff... :lol:
Wow you're pathetic.

Love, Karmashock.

[shutupandshave]

Wow you're pathetic.
For answering a question I knew the answer too?
Yes that makes me pathetic.

If I had said "yeah he is, haha, can you believe it" then perhaps it would have made me pathetic.

For saying something that is the truth with no opinion attached to it at all - I am pathetic? How so Karma...how so?

It seems that your bad manners are not just reactionary. Which...well was known by everyone - but I wonder if YOU'LL realise that now...or perhaps this was an example of me "twisting the truth" ;)

GJ, you've proven something else you've said to be a lie.

[Karmashock]

no... you're pathetic because you can't help yourself. You say "don't talk to me", but then you always do something one or two posts later that you know I'll have to respond to.

This lack of self control is pathetic. ;)

[shutupandshave]

I asked you not to speak to me. I dont recall you asking me not to speak to you?

I think a lot of what you say warrants comment...however until you can comment without using a deragotary remark, I dont want you to talk to me.

In almost every post you have made a similar comment to "This lack of self control is pathetic. "
"Wow you're pathetic."

Even when I can PROVE I am right and you are wrong (which is surprisingly often considering a lot of what we talk about is opinions) you either dont give it up or you just continue to insult. You never apologise when proven wrong...for all the lies/groundless insults you have made attempting to prove you were right. Instead the second you realise you are wrong your tact changes from "you are wrong you moron" to "are we still talking about this you moron"...
Despite all of this, you still have the nerve to call me pathetic...for being right, and not swallowing your bullshit.

Every now and then you make spurious claims about being able to prove something I have done - and you have not ONCE managed to back them up... and you know what - if you do, then great. I will admit I am wrong and move on... I will certainly apologise for the abuse I gave you whilst claiming you were wrong.

[Karmashock]

no... you're pathetic because you can't help yourself. You say "don't talk to me", but then you always do something one or two posts later that you know I'll have to respond to.

This lack of self control is pathetic. ;)
funny how this post responds to everything in your last comment... :)

[shutupandshave]

No, calling me pathetic is not a valid reason for not being able to back up what you say you can prove.

[Karmashock]

You didn't prove anything in this thread... so what are you even fucking talking about?...

You're clouding and distorting the conversation as usual... :lol:

This is just pitiful... Come again when you're willing to actually discuss something. ;)

[shutupandshave]

I am quite happy to discuss things now Karma. Just because I haven't proven you wrong in this thread does not mean that I have not done so in others.

[Karmashock]

I am quite happy to discuss things now Karma. Just because I haven't proven you wrong in this thread does not mean that I have not done so in others.
That's only because it doesn't mean much of anything... it doesn't mean that the sun will rise tomorrow or that aliens haven't invested by dog's brain...

In short... you could say it doesn't mean just about anything you like because it didn't mean much of anything.


If you'd like to discuss something then stop spamming with forum telling me not to talk to you, followed by something that you know I have to repond to. ;)

[shutupandshave]

I dont particularly want to discuss something with you, not with the attitude you have at the moment. I am just hoping that if you do reply to me, you'll stop being quite so rude.

That's only because it doesn't mean much of anything
What doesn't mean much of anything - the fact I proved you wrong, or what we were saying to begin with?

It's not the fact you are wrong or right that's an issue. We are all right and wrong regularly. It's the fact that when you think you are right, you shut everyone out and HURL a constant stream of abuse... and when it turns out you are wrong - there is not so much of an apology.

[Karmashock]

you haven't proven anything... sigh... whatever you may think of me...

I think you're boring... :sleep:

[shutupandshave]

You're saying that I have never proven that ANYTHING you have said was wrong?

[Karmashock]

not in this thread...

[shutupandshave]

liar... I said that I didn't see any figures that listed the per person value. I knew that the US had a median...

No you didn't, you said that the US didn't HAVE figures for per person, only household
The US doesn't take the median of individual income. It's not a statistic we compile...

Looks like I've owned you in this thread too now...heh that was too easy.

[Karmashock]

No you didn't, you said that the US didn't HAVE figures for per person, only household



AGAIN, I was referring to the CENSUS! And the US census was what I was checking and going over... I have point this out several times...

Looks like I've owned you in this thread too now...heh that was too easy.
I guess the most pathetic thing about you is that you're more interested in saying "I pwnt joo noobzars, I'm teh uber leet d00d" then you are in actually making a point, having a discussion, or learning anything.


You’re going to walk out of here saying something about median prices which was COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to our discussion... The fact that you still refuse to accept Purchasing power parity as a critical conversion factor remains the primary reason this discussion feel apart. I GAVE WAY on the median issue and used those numbers... You never gave way purchasing power parity... oh you said something about a guy in a pub validating me, but then you went right back to ignoring the figure.


For crying out loud, Karmashock.

[shutupandshave]

AGAIN, I was referring to the CENSUS

Hmmm find me the word Census in the post that contains the following quote (or any before).
="karma"]The US doesn't take the median of individual income. It's not a statistic we compile... If you were only talking about the census median then why didn't you look up the median that I quoted you. You were deliberately trynig to mislead me???

Anyway - is the "Current Population Survey" the census, or is this something else...as I think your numbers came from there.