book by black author blasts black leaders

[White Shogun]

Menelik:

It looks to me like plenty of viable solutions have been offered to a host of the problems we've been discussing. Just because our current government (and all those in the foreseeable future) will not implement them does not mean they would not be successful.

In your response to JD074, you ignored a number of his remarks that offered solutions to specific issues, such as the removal of troops from foreign soil, termination of foreign aid, and restrictions on the travel of Muslims to the United States.

The tax breaks foreign corporations receive is one that I overlooked when we were discussing this earlier. If our companies were given the same incentives to invest here as foreign companies, our textile industry, et al, would likely have not been lost. Not every form of industry 'moved' over seas, mind you. Some of them just shut down.

They are trading as 'they see fit,' but under otherwise heinous controls and regulations that favor foreign competition. I believe this is by design.

Some say we baited Japan into attacking us so the American public would accept our entrance into the war, but I don't want to hijack this thread again with yet another off-topic discussion. Suffice it to say that I think it would be a lot easier to determine who is a 'clear and specific' danger to us than you imply.

 

[Guest]

Menelik:

It looks to me like plenty of viable solutions have been offered to a host of the problems we've been discussing. Just because our current government (and all those in the foreseeable future) will not implement them does not mean they would not be successful.

In your response to JD074, you ignored a number of his remarks that offered solutions to specific issues, such as the removal of troops from foreign soil, termination of foreign aid, and restrictions on the travel of Muslims to the United States.

The tax breaks foreign corporations receive is one that I overlooked when we were discussing this earlier. If our companies were given the same incentives to invest here as foreign companies, our textile industry, et al, would likely have not been lost. Not every form of industry 'moved' over seas, mind you. Some of them just shut down.

They are trading as 'they see fit,' but under otherwise heinous controls and regulations that favor foreign competition. I believe this is by design.

Some say we baited Japan into attacking us so the American public would accept our entrance into the war, but I don't want to hijack this thread again with yet another off-topic discussion. Suffice it to say that I think it would be a lot easier to determine who is a 'clear and specific' danger to us than you imply.

I guess I need to define what I mean by viable. I'm looking for something that can actually be presented to the voters and made policy. I've seen A LOT of good suggestions here but that is all they are. I do think (fingers crossed) that the tide is turning with regards to illegal immigration. As far as business goes...there are very few U.S. business, most have gone global and have foreign ownership- Daimler Chrysler and the Harveys Supermarket chain are just two examples. The bottom line is you can make stuff cheaper overseas and the only way to compete are tariffs which as I have stated, virtually any reputable economist or business leader says that it would be a bad move to start protective tariffs. As far as U.S. businesses not getting cut a deal, I have one word for you: Wal-Mart. You are more then welcome to have the one where I live at!

Yes some do say that we baited Japan into attacking us. Some also say that the black man is a superior athlete

(Sorry, couldn't resist that) As for us being able to determine who is a 'clear and present danger' two countries come to my mind:

Iran Friendly (under the Shah) now an enemy
Russia Enemy (from 1945-1989) now a ? friend

One other item, I'm glad I came to this site for research, a lot of informative and intelligent discussion going on. I may have to make some major changes to my paper

Edited by: Menelik

 

[White Shogun]

I guess I need to define what I mean by viable. I'm looking for something that can actually be presented to the voters and made policy.

LOL! Good luck! When 80% of the people polled do not want an amnesty program, but the Senate overwhelmingly passes one anyway, and the House is close to a 'compromise' solution, I'm not sure there is anything that the people can suggest to our government, for the benefit of the people, that FedGov will implement. FedGov is looking out for FedGov and members of the ruling party, ONLY. There are very few Congressmen serving right now who have the best interests of the people at heart.

Iran Friendly (under the Shah) now an enemy
Russia Enemy (from 1945-1989) now a ? friend

I'm not sure if this is what you intended, but by listing Iran, you've proven the case for a policy of non-intervention. We intervened in Iran and forced the ouster of the democratically elected Prime Minister,and supported the Shah. Look what happened.

Saddam may have been a killer and sadistic tyrant, but his government was more secular than Islamic, despite what you hear spouted on TV. Women could drive and wear business attire, you could purchase alcohol and other things, it was more Western and progressive in culture than it will ever be now. More importantly, we didn't have to station 150,000 U.S. troops there and spend a trillion dollars to make it that way. And if you really think this is about spreading democracy, well when do we get to attack China? How about that for military preparedness and training? If it was about oil, WE were the ones who forced an embargo against Iraq through the U.N. Do you think the world is a safer place now, after the invasion, or before?

One other item, I'm glad I came to this site for research, a lot of informative and intelligent discussion going on. I may have to make some major changes to my paper

I hope you are being sincere.

EDITED TO CORRECT COMMENTS CONCERNING THE SHAH OF IRAN.




Edited by: White Shogun

 

[Guest]

Iran Friendly (under the Shah) now an enemy
Russia Enemy (from 1945-1989) now a ? friend

I'm not sure if this is what you intended, but by listing Iran, you've proven the case for a policy of non-intervention. We intervened in Iran and forced the ouster of the Shah. Look what happened.

It was Savak and the Shahs heavy-handed rule that caused the people to rise up and throw him out.

One other item, I'm glad I came to this site for research, a lot of informative and intelligent discussion going on. I may have to make some major changes to my paper

"I hope you are being sincere."


I'm ALWAYS sincere. Well...I don't know if I will change my paper much. I've invested way too much typing and its due in a couple of weeks. I hope that you all understand!

Edited by: Menelik

 

[White Shogun]

It was Savak and the Shahs heavy-handed rule that caused the people to rise up and throw him out.

I apologize for the confusion in my last remarks. We intervened in Iran's government prior to the Shah, and we are the ones that put the Shah in power, for better or worse.

I'm ALWAYS sincere. Well...I don't know if I will change my paper much. I've invested way too much typing and its due in a couple of weeks. I hope that you all understand!

That's what I was afraid of.

 

[Guest]

That's what I was afraid of.

No need to be. No websites are named and the paper is dealing mostly with statistics. Caste Football and all of the 'other' sites that I visited will rise or fall on their own merit. Thats the way it should be isn't it?

 

[White Shogun]

That's what I was afraid of.

No need to be. No websites are named and the paper is dealing mostly with statistics. Caste Football and all of the 'other' sites that I visited will rise or fall on their own merit. Thats the way it should be isn't it?

Of course. If only it were that easy.

 

[Guest]

Of course. If only it were that easy.

WS just being nosy, do you live in a city? I live in the country in south GA. Life is good to me and my kin down here. Very few 'illegals' and the black folk are pretty much respectable and conservative; no drive bys or loud ghetto music blasting from cars. You can even walk the streets at any hour in the local town. We also don't have any 'caste' problems with the high school sports. You either put out on the field or ride pine!

 

[White Shogun]

Yes, I live in a city.

Glad that things are going so well for you down south. Wish it were the same everywhere.

 

[JD074]

We didn't face a genuine clear and present danger from Japan either until they attacked us. What should we do, wait until troops are at our border poised to invade? What sort of parameters would you place on pre-emptive strikes?

How do you know that Japan wasn't a clear and present danger? Have you evaluated the intelligence that the US government/ military had at their disposal at the time?

In order to ascertain what is a clear and present danger and what isn't, we would need a competent, moral government, military, and intelligence community to objectively evaluate the intelligence. In other words, they wouldn't simply decide to attack a country, and then force the facts around what they've already decided to do. That is the modus operandi of the Bush Administration, in case you didn't know. They told us that Iraq was a threat, not because it was a threat, but because that's the country that they desired to invade. And now we know how wrong they were.

Uh, business and virtually all economists agree that tariffs are bad for free commerce.

So? I'm not a free trade ideologue, so "free commerce" is not the goal per se, in my opinion. The marketplace is a means to an end, not the end itself. But don't tell that to the free trade apologists.

I care about American industry and jobs, and the working and middle class, not what's the most efficient way for multi-millionaires and billionaires to make even more money. What's wrong with restricting trade somewhat if people benefit from it? And what's wrong with creating a level playing field for American businesses by making foreign companies pay for the privilege of doing business here?

Hypothetical question-What happens if friendly oil producing nations are gobbled up by unfriendly ones? its a sellers market for oil right now. Don't you think that we have strategic interests in some countries overseas?

No. If oil becomes more expensive, then oil becomes more expensive. So be it. In the long run, it could be a good thing by providing an incentive for the alternative sources that you support.

By a writer and medical researcher. I have read the exact opposite by more reliable sources.

Read his articles on immigration and you may respect his intellect a little more. Fortunately one doesn't need a PhD from Harvard in order to understand something about the world.

1. They shouldn't have attacked us
and
2. Check out the stats on projected U.S. losses if we conducted a ground invasion of Japan.

So there's no third option? Sounds like the two party system!

Or the Karl Rove "stay the course or cut and run" false dichotomy.

Still hindsight. And wishful thinking.

Wishful thinking? What, "the extermination of the one or the other race?!?"

Just kidding. But I will say this: when someone says that we "can't" do something (like secure our borders, a very common example) that typically means that they don't really want to do it. Not can't, but won't.

We overthrew the British, ended slavery, defeated Hitler, and put a man on the moon. So needless to say, I think America can do pretty much anything that it puts its mind to. It's changing our minds that's so difficult.

Edited by: JD074

 

[JD074]

As far as business goes...there are very few U.S. business, most have gone global and have foreign ownership- Daimler Chrysler and the Harveys Supermarket chain are just two examples.

Of course they have foreign ownership, the entire country is being sold off piece by piece. That's what massive trade deficits do. Our debt becomes their ownership. We're giving our country away.

The bottom line is you can make stuff cheaper overseas

Yeah, by paying Chinese workers 50 cents an hour. Free traders think of their opposition as "neo-Luddites," as if we're resisting a transition similar to the transition from the farm to the factory, or the train to the automobile. Bullsh*t. They are not replacing one American industry, technology, or way of life with another American industry, technology, or way of life. Creating a global labor pool of Third Worlders to pay as little money as possible is not progress, it's a step backwards.

Free traders obsess over growth, but growth is not synonymous with real wages, which have been stagnant since the 70's. Like growth, worker productivity has also increased rapidly, but not real wages. In other words, while American workers continually increase their contributions to their employers, their wages haven't kept pace. Hmm... maybe our rulers really don't care about us.

We need to create a tight labor market so that American workers will be more valuable in the American marketplace. The way to do that is to reduce immigration and increase tariffs. Our economy should be about paying people as much as possible, not as little as possible.

But the free trade ideologues only care about growth. Just watch Larry Kudlow's show and you'll see what I mean. Growth is their religion.

As far as U.S. businesses not getting cut a deal, I have one word for you: Wal-Mart.

F*ck Wal Mart. I can't believe that our government hasn't stopped Wal Mart from not allowing their workers to form a union. Everything is a "constitutional right" these days, except Wal Mart employees having a union. Not that I particularly like unions, but it is peaceful assembly, and if someone can't get fired based on race, gender, or sexual orientation, they shouldn't be able to get fired for joining a peaceful organization either.

Tragically, our economy is such a mess that low wage, low benefit Wal Mart jobs have actually become desirable! Thousands of people line up for a job when a Wal Mart comes to town. Now, the free traders will say that that proves that Wal Mart is a good thing, since people want to work there. In actuality, the fact that people want to work there is quite an indictment on our miserable job market. But this is good for the free traders because it keeps the unemploment rate low.