Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
The Real Micheal Moore?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 230507" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p>I know there are some here that rolled their eyes at the questions above but I found them to be thought provoking. The one that really struck me were the following:</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>One quick note, on the "B4 you go there" part, good point because if you actually study gov't abuse of subsidation via gov't programs, big business in the real world is more so the larger offender. Back to D's point. Much has been made of exporting of jobs, minimum wage pressures and cuts in such things as benefits, pressure on healthcare etc. just as D said. Those concerns are very real. </p><p> </p><p>After WW2, the thought was to avoid war, one way was to critically link the world through trade and commerce so that war itself would be so costly to the individual, in this case countries, or even small groups of countries that war may become a thing of the past. This would require the large, more prosperous countries like the US to vastly increase not only monies but it's expertise and educational structures in the thinking this would elevate the lesser countries up close to western economic standards. You could say the US engaged in some wealth redistribution along the line of Marxist principles or you could take a capitialist (IMO not pure free market so don't confuse) point of view and consider the transference as an investment on future returns. Either way, US gov't was taking tax dollars from hardworking Americas and moving it about globally for the direct benefit of other nations and gov'ts.</p><p> </p><p>The catalyst for this was Woodrow Wilson's League of Nations (he a democrat btw) but it just never gained any steam but it did introduce the idea of a larger global cooperation. During WW2, the idea surfaced again and once the war ended it took root in the United Nations under FDR, a democrat and a democrat powerful Congress. As a precursor and albeit a very important one in the sense of economic powers, the US was a party to what became known as the Bretton Woods Agreement. The United Nations idea really began in Jan. of 1942 with FDR and began growth even more in the 1943' Allied conferences in Moscow and Tehran. Anyway, as a result of many of these 1940's events we got several important things that delve to the heart of D's comment. Besides the World Bank and IMF (International Monetary Fund) we got something called GATT which joined the scene in 1947' under the Truman adminstration. Of course like Wilson and FDR, he also a democrat. Now GATT, known officially as the General Agreement of Trade and Tariffs was never ratified so it languished for years as nothing more than a general agreement with not much real teeth. Now the idea of GATT was to reduce barriers that restricted or harmed international trade and thus was done over the years with further agreements under the banner of GATT but more importantly, ask yourself how would one enhance business and trade where none existed in the first place. If a lowly country presented a trouble spot and it appeared to have little of it's own to offer, then one way to get the ball rolling would be to encourage someone else to move there and take their capitial and expertise and get something going. Yeah, that'd work wouldn't it? </p><p> </p><p>1945'? Middle East? Oil? Shutdown American Oil capacity over time? Evil oil companies? Or just seeing an area to profit from longterm US policy? Gray matter starting to function is it? No education structure in their poor country? Who has great universities and other institutions of higher learning? Where does one go for business, science and engineering expertise and experience when the home country has none? What's that beef again about excessive immigration and it's the fault of the repubs.?</p><p> </p><p>Again, so far it's been democrats who've lead this charge. Now over the years we have everyone in the game but it was democrats like Wilson, FDR and Truman who paved the road to begin with but it does get better. Now let's come forward to the 1990's and 2 more important notes of history known as the WTO and NAFTA. Oh we've all heard about these 2 but what we also hear are claims of what with these 2?</p><p> </p><p>I think D's quote sez it all so I'll use it again:</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>And you know what, D has a very good point too but who gave us the WTO and NAFTA? Bill Clinton and his Democratic Leadership Council. More democrats? So wait a minute you say, it was the democrats who gave us the League of Nations, Bretton Woods, UN, GATT, WTO and NAFTA? Yep, the repubs were there as well with their votes in Congress and the WTO idea which replaced GATT actually began in 1986 during the Reagan years but for the most part, the international agreements that many point to as the root cause of "export jobs overseas,minimum wage a joke,cut benefits and healthcare,and welfare" were all put into place by a democrat controlled adminstration who at the time had total control of the bully pulpit and thus could vastly affect the legislative and foreign policy agenda.</p><p> </p><p>I find it ironic that someone would make a statement such as "</p><p>GOP =export jobs overseas,minimum wage a joke,cut benefits and healthcare,and welfare" when in fact the gov't agenda over the last 100 years when looked at with open, historical eyes doesn't suggest anything like that at all. The more proper statement at the least would be "the Democrats and GOP =export jobs overseas,minimum wage a joke,cut benefits and healthcare,and welfare."</p><p> </p><p>The real bottomline IMO is the fact that the democrats cleared the land and graded the road in the early 1900's and then later paved it in the 1940's. Then in the 1990's another democrat made it a multi-lane interstate highway and put a high powered sports car on it. It just sounds like to me D that you are a spoiled sport because the democrats made the road and the fast car on it and repubs have the gaul to actually get in the car on your gleaming highway and speed. Or are you just really mad at yourself because your democrat heros just realized they never put up any speed limit signs or red lights? </p><p> </p><p>Gov't is like a feast for the worse of humankind. <strong>"If you build it(or I should say cook it), they will come!"</strong> The repubs are deserving of much condemnation, they betrayed everything IMO they claimed to stand for, no argument from me but I will not sit here and let you protray the democrats as some innocent party either. For someone who boasts at times of trying to appear independent, you turn around and disservice yourself as nothing more than a party loyalist.</p><p> </p><p>Your comments on Moore have a point of validity, I've no objection to that and I'm no fan of Coulter so nuke her boney ARSE but I just couldn't let that one point you made go without challenge.</p><p> </p><p>BTW: If you take the time to investigate the big business subsidies I spoke of earlier, you'll find a whole host of democrats behind those as well. And I always love to hear Kennedy and Kerry make the same kind of statements that you did (monkey see, monkey do?) when the both of them voted for NAFTA for example. And surprise, surprise, Helms and Thurmond voted against it. Odd that these 2 were more concerned with the poor and downtrodden than Kennedy and Kerry!</p><p><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/group1/lol.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Lol :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 230507, member: 2189"] I know there are some here that rolled their eyes at the questions above but I found them to be thought provoking. The one that really struck me were the following: One quick note, on the "B4 you go there" part, good point because if you actually study gov't abuse of subsidation via gov't programs, big business in the real world is more so the larger offender. Back to D's point. Much has been made of exporting of jobs, minimum wage pressures and cuts in such things as benefits, pressure on healthcare etc. just as D said. Those concerns are very real. After WW2, the thought was to avoid war, one way was to critically link the world through trade and commerce so that war itself would be so costly to the individual, in this case countries, or even small groups of countries that war may become a thing of the past. This would require the large, more prosperous countries like the US to vastly increase not only monies but it's expertise and educational structures in the thinking this would elevate the lesser countries up close to western economic standards. You could say the US engaged in some wealth redistribution along the line of Marxist principles or you could take a capitialist (IMO not pure free market so don't confuse) point of view and consider the transference as an investment on future returns. Either way, US gov't was taking tax dollars from hardworking Americas and moving it about globally for the direct benefit of other nations and gov'ts. The catalyst for this was Woodrow Wilson's League of Nations (he a democrat btw) but it just never gained any steam but it did introduce the idea of a larger global cooperation. During WW2, the idea surfaced again and once the war ended it took root in the United Nations under FDR, a democrat and a democrat powerful Congress. As a precursor and albeit a very important one in the sense of economic powers, the US was a party to what became known as the Bretton Woods Agreement. The United Nations idea really began in Jan. of 1942 with FDR and began growth even more in the 1943' Allied conferences in Moscow and Tehran. Anyway, as a result of many of these 1940's events we got several important things that delve to the heart of D's comment. Besides the World Bank and IMF (International Monetary Fund) we got something called GATT which joined the scene in 1947' under the Truman adminstration. Of course like Wilson and FDR, he also a democrat. Now GATT, known officially as the General Agreement of Trade and Tariffs was never ratified so it languished for years as nothing more than a general agreement with not much real teeth. Now the idea of GATT was to reduce barriers that restricted or harmed international trade and thus was done over the years with further agreements under the banner of GATT but more importantly, ask yourself how would one enhance business and trade where none existed in the first place. If a lowly country presented a trouble spot and it appeared to have little of it's own to offer, then one way to get the ball rolling would be to encourage someone else to move there and take their capitial and expertise and get something going. Yeah, that'd work wouldn't it? 1945'? Middle East? Oil? Shutdown American Oil capacity over time? Evil oil companies? Or just seeing an area to profit from longterm US policy? Gray matter starting to function is it? No education structure in their poor country? Who has great universities and other institutions of higher learning? Where does one go for business, science and engineering expertise and experience when the home country has none? What's that beef again about excessive immigration and it's the fault of the repubs.? Again, so far it's been democrats who've lead this charge. Now over the years we have everyone in the game but it was democrats like Wilson, FDR and Truman who paved the road to begin with but it does get better. Now let's come forward to the 1990's and 2 more important notes of history known as the WTO and NAFTA. Oh we've all heard about these 2 but what we also hear are claims of what with these 2? I think D's quote sez it all so I'll use it again: And you know what, D has a very good point too but who gave us the WTO and NAFTA? Bill Clinton and his Democratic Leadership Council. More democrats? So wait a minute you say, it was the democrats who gave us the League of Nations, Bretton Woods, UN, GATT, WTO and NAFTA? Yep, the repubs were there as well with their votes in Congress and the WTO idea which replaced GATT actually began in 1986 during the Reagan years but for the most part, the international agreements that many point to as the root cause of "export jobs overseas,minimum wage a joke,cut benefits and healthcare,and welfare" were all put into place by a democrat controlled adminstration who at the time had total control of the bully pulpit and thus could vastly affect the legislative and foreign policy agenda. I find it ironic that someone would make a statement such as " GOP =export jobs overseas,minimum wage a joke,cut benefits and healthcare,and welfare" when in fact the gov't agenda over the last 100 years when looked at with open, historical eyes doesn't suggest anything like that at all. The more proper statement at the least would be "the Democrats and GOP =export jobs overseas,minimum wage a joke,cut benefits and healthcare,and welfare." The real bottomline IMO is the fact that the democrats cleared the land and graded the road in the early 1900's and then later paved it in the 1940's. Then in the 1990's another democrat made it a multi-lane interstate highway and put a high powered sports car on it. It just sounds like to me D that you are a spoiled sport because the democrats made the road and the fast car on it and repubs have the gaul to actually get in the car on your gleaming highway and speed. Or are you just really mad at yourself because your democrat heros just realized they never put up any speed limit signs or red lights? Gov't is like a feast for the worse of humankind. [B]"If you build it(or I should say cook it), they will come!"[/B] The repubs are deserving of much condemnation, they betrayed everything IMO they claimed to stand for, no argument from me but I will not sit here and let you protray the democrats as some innocent party either. For someone who boasts at times of trying to appear independent, you turn around and disservice yourself as nothing more than a party loyalist. Your comments on Moore have a point of validity, I've no objection to that and I'm no fan of Coulter so nuke her boney ARSE but I just couldn't let that one point you made go without challenge. BTW: If you take the time to investigate the big business subsidies I spoke of earlier, you'll find a whole host of democrats behind those as well. And I always love to hear Kennedy and Kerry make the same kind of statements that you did (monkey see, monkey do?) when the both of them voted for NAFTA for example. And surprise, surprise, Helms and Thurmond voted against it. Odd that these 2 were more concerned with the poor and downtrodden than Kennedy and Kerry! :lol: [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
The Real Micheal Moore?
Top