Election 2004.

[Event_Horizon]

Originally Posted by Deepflow

i love it when the world gets less safer...

yeah what?

but seriously, are you comparing ww2 to the iraq war? i mean... really?

No I would never do that. I am saying that by america invading germany and attacking japan it made the world a less safe place, nothing less, nothing more.

[Summanus]

Originally Posted by Event_Horizon

Parts of the middle east are in chaos but the world is not... in fact parts of the world have always and will always be in chaos. This is not about Iraq I simply said that by America invading Germany and attacking Japan it made the world a less safe place for the time. Do you disagree?

Some more idiocy

I remember Europe being in Chaos once. I also seem to remember that it was British, French and subsequent American occupation of the Middle East which turned it into 'chaos'

[Deepflow]

even if that were true, they were actually a threat to other countries. Whereas the only people the iraqi government was a threat to were iraqis.

[HobbieRogue4]

Originally Posted by Ste

Hilary Clinton Vs Jeb Bush in 2008?

Utterly boring.

EDIT i could see the republicans nominating Powell or Rice in 2008 though.
That'd be interesting!

Doubtful Powell would run, and Rice is a shithead. She's black.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Event_Horizon

Well it is obvious that our economy is coming out of a recession and is growing immensly and is still by far the economic giant of the world. His tax cuts can be argued for and against by economists with more credentials than me, and as for taking the internet too seriously, it was you who took issue with a harmless comment from a supposive "idiot" (not that you called me an idiot but that other guy did).

It's not "my" argument. I'm an ultra-libertarian economically right-wing absurdist. Things like taxation hold very little interest for me personally. I am only trying to help you understand why many people dislike, or even hate, the USA.

[arbondigo]

Originally Posted by Event_Horizon

This is not about Iraq I simply said that by America invading Germany and attacking Japan it made the world a less safe place for the time. Do you disagree?

Because the world only became a less safe place after America got involved in the war? No.
America's involvement may have made the war much more intense and brought the war to places in the world where it hadn't yet reached, but the world was hardly a safe place before that was it.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Summanus

I also seem to remember that it was British, French and subsequent American occupation of the Middle East which turned it into 'chaos'

Depends what you define by chaos. I doubt I would have enjoyed living under the Ottoman Empire that much.

[Event_Horizon]

Originally Posted by Summanus

That statement there is Exhibit A. I had no idea you even existed until you started posting like this


That entire post is a pile of idiocy.



From another thread - what bugs me is that most Americans don't seem to know how to use the word Liberal. Liberal does not equal left-wing. Liberal is arguing for more choice. The conservative party in Australia is the 'Liberal' Party. Is it so hard to see the connection between LIBERTY and LIBERAL? Why do you adore one, and hate the latter? They're the same concept. So next time, please refrain from "OMG A LIBERAL THEY MUST BE PINKO COMMIES KILL IT!!"



Why would you be disappointed in one state, but not others? Does it matter if it's Califonia, New York or Iowa? What even gives you the right to be disappointed in it? Because they have an opinion different to yours?



He's already done it to Iraq.

Need I go on? What you'll find, hombre, is that the mountainous, conclusive evidence of your idiocy is in your own posts.

Haha... I can't believe that I am actually taking the time to comment on this but what the hell, anything beats college work.

Democrats/liberals are in more favor of government programs and republicans/ conservatives are generally for less governement programs. This can be traced back to the days of the first split in Washington's cabinet between jefferson and hamilton. By the way i love the evidence that you presented in caling it idotic (dont bother doing it now for i probably wont read it).

Haha me being disappointed in Iowa was a joke, my point was that it was odd that they voted democratic in a republican region... have a beer, get layed, and lighten up... haha

I simply said that the source I stated comcluded that Kerry was the most liberal senator in the senate, if you disagree with the way that ameircans use the word, then email them.

And yes parts of Iraq maybe in chaos now, but i doubt the entire world will driven back to the days of sticks and stones.

[Summanus]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Depends what you define by chaos. I doubt I would have enjoyed living under the Ottoman Empire that much.

They weren't the nicest of people, but they didn't persecute because of intolerance, or kill 'suspected terrorists' (civilians) without reasoning

[HobbieRogue4]

Originally Posted by Event_Horizon

No I would never do that. I am saying that by america invading germany and attacking japan it made the world a less safe place, nothing less, nothing more.

There's a fundamental difference though in your statement:

1) Europe was essentially liberated,

2) Japan was not.

Iraq could be either.

What you "could" throw in as a comparison would be the occupation factor between Germany/Japan/Iraq in that American forces providing... arms for regional stability.

Consider then that Germany was surrounded by nation states, Japan was isolated, and Iraq, well, stability doesn't have a translation "out there."

[Summanus]

Originally Posted by Event_Horizon

Haha... I can't believe that I am actually taking the time to comment on this but what the hell, anything beats college work.

Democrats/liberals are in more favor of government programs and republicans/ conservatives are generally for less governement programs. This can be traced back to the days of the first split in Washington's cabinet between jefferson and hamilton. By the way i love the evidence that you presented in caling it idotic (dont bother doing it now for i probably wont read it).

Haha me being disappointed in Iowa was a joke, my point was that it was odd that they voted democratic in a republican region... have a beer, get layed, and lighten up... haha

I simply said that the source I stated comcluded that Kerry was the most liberal senator in the senate, if you disagree with the way that ameircans use the word, then email them.

And yes parts of Iraq maybe in chaos now, but i doubt the entire world will driven back to the days of sticks and stones.

Can you read? LIBERAL pertains to LIBERTY. It has nothing to do with economic policy, but is more closely related to the totalitarian/anarchist view of society.

Get a brain, learn to spell, go back to school... lolly roffle

I showed you how the source was wrong. If you want to change how you use that source, go ahead.

Actually, all of Iraq is in chaos now. And should the current status hold for much longer (oil supplies dwindling, a madman likely to declare war on N. Korea in power), the world could be driven back. Even so, does it matter whether we use sticks, swords, guns or atom-bombs?

[Event_Horizon]

Originally Posted by HobbieRogue4

There's a fundamental difference though in your statement:

1) Europe was essentially liberated,

2) Japan was not.

Iraq could be either.

What you "could" throw in as a comparison would be the occupation factor between Germany/Japan/Iraq in that American forces providing... arms for regional stability.

Consider then that Germany was surrounded by nation states, Japan was isolated, and Iraq, well, stability doesn't have a translation "out there."

Well Japan wasn't liberated militarily, but their government was influence and changed by the US. Also parts of Oceania were liberated which were under japanese control. Just like parts of Europe were liberated that were under german control.

[HobbieRogue4]

Originally Posted by Event_Horizon

Democrats/liberals are in more favor of government programs and republicans/ conservatives are generally for less governement programs.

Let's be honest: only the extremists on both sides "really" represent this. Everyone else would be centrist in thinking, but in order for most to retain their positions in the future, they cater to the "party-line support" in that, unless you've got that rare appeal to the masses, you're shit out of luck (and funding) unless you can represent a) Conservative or b) Liberal.

I simply said that the source I stated comcluded that Kerry was the most liberal senator in the senate, if you disagree with the way that ameircans use the word, then email them.

What matters is who is exactly defining "liberal" and in what context. For much of this election, it was opposition to Kerry which meant liberal = asshole.

Being "conservative" or "liberal" is irrelevant. What matters is if your opposition manages to find the one picture where you have a shit-eating grin on your face.*

*To Joe Average American, this is not an acceptable "representative of the people."**

**Ironic.

[Deepflow]

dont you find it easy to use the word 'liberate' as an excuse for anything?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Summanus

They weren't the nicest of people, but they didn't persecute because of intolerance, or kill 'suspected terrorists' (civilians) without reasoning

I don't know that much about Ottoman history beyond how it ended but I really doubt that there were no executions of innocents or false imprisonments or unjust laws.


PS As an aside if current real GDP growth rates continue China will be the world's most powerful economy in twelve years.

[Event_Horizon]

Originally Posted by Summanus

Can you read? LIBERAL pertains to LIBERTY. It has nothing to do with economic policy, but is more closely related to the totalitarian/anarchist view of society.

Get a brain, learn to spell, go back to school... lolly roffle

I showed you how the source was wrong. If you want to change how you use that source, go ahead.

Actually, all of Iraq is in chaos now. And should the current status hold for much longer (oil supplies dwindling, a madman likely to declare war on N. Korea in power), the world could be driven back. Even so, does it matter whether we use sticks, swords, guns or atom-bombs?

I admit I am not the best speller but i assure you that my schooling is equal if not to a greater degree than yours. I am aslo typing fastly and not really checkiing what i put because i am also writing a paper at the moment. What does it matter what liberal pertains too, I am just saying that people who idenitfy thmselves as liberals tend be more in favor of bigger government.

And you saying that all of Iraq is in chaos is wrong, the northern region of Iraq is actually relatively stable.

PS> I have a brain.... I think....

[Event_Horizon]

Originally Posted by Deepflow

dont you find it easy to use the word 'liberate' as an excuse for anything?

What do you mean as an excuse for anything?

[HobbieRogue4]

Originally Posted by Event_Horizon

Well Japan wasn't liberated militarily, but their government was influence and changed by the US.

Actually, one could make the argument that Japan was liberated militarily... Japanese military influence over policy before and during WWII, etc.

Also parts of Oceania were liberated which were under japanese control.

Which is great, considering their vast contribution to the invasion of Iraq!

Just like parts of Europe were liberated that were under german control.

Minus having the Soviet Union refusing to allow block parties on your side of the wall.

[Event_Horizon]

Originally Posted by HobbieRogue4

Let's be honest: only the extremists on both sides "really" represent this. Everyone else would be centrist in thinking, but in order for most to retain their positions in the future, they cater to the "party-line support" in that, unless you've got that rare appeal to the masses, you're shit out of luck (and funding) unless you can represent a) Conservative or b) Liberal.

What matters is who is exactly defining "liberal" and in what context. For much of this election, it was opposition to Kerry which meant liberal = asshole.

Being "conservative" or "liberal" is irrelevant. What matters is if your opposition manages to find the one picture where you have a shit-eating grin on your face.*

*To Joe Average American, this is not an acceptable "representative of the people."**

**Ironic.

I agree that the extremes of both parties are going to be the most polarized on this issue but even in the centrist there are many shades of gray and I think that people that lean to the right will tend to be for smaller government and people leaning to left will be for bigger governement (more social programs) while it may only be evident in small increments I still think it is a true statement

[HobbieRogue4]

Originally Posted by Deepflow

dont you find it easy to use the word 'liberate' as an excuse for anything?

Policy generally moves faster.

[arbondigo]

Originally Posted by Event_Horizon

And you saying that all of Iraq is in chaos is wrong, the northern region of Iraq is actually relatively stable.

the BBC says otherwise

[Leshy]

This thread turned shit.

[HobbieRogue4]

Originally Posted by Event_Horizon

I agree that the extremes of both parties are going to be the most polarized on this issue but even in the centrist there are many shades of gray and I think that people that lean to the right will tend to be for smaller government and people leaning to left will be for bigger governement (more social programs) while it may only be evident in small increments I still think it is a true statement

Generally, sure.

Deep down, most people care about the well-being of their families. This translates into education and jobs.

But that's domestically.

The fact is, when it comes to elections, vast amounts of people do not exercise their opportunity to vote. Does this make a difference? Not really, as the margins will still remain the same. It makes a difference on a smaller scale, which should move larger (i.e. federal) policy into actuality. But "my vote doesn't count anyway" is the thinking, and it's somewhat, somewhat correct, when considering presidential elections.

What matters is the candidate, and his "mass appeal." If you look at this closely, people are generally NOT educated on issues, nor can they make up their mind for themselves. That is to say, if someone actually votes, they have a greater chance of voting based on a television commercial they saw, or what their spouse/friend is going to vote, or worse, they don't know either opition available on a ballot, and simply "pick one" without knowing one way or the other.

I personally practice voting on knowing an issue, deciding on it ahead of time, and then sticking to it.

The average American voter is ignorant.

[HobbieRogue4]

Originally Posted by arbondigo

the BBC says otherwise

I heard that Fallujah was going to be liberated.

[arbondigo]

Originally Posted by HobbieRogue4

I heard that Fallujah was going to be liberated.

I heard that Iraq was going to be liberated too

[HobbieRogue4]

Originally Posted by arbondigo

I heard that Iraq was going to be liberated too

Where's Hussein when you need him?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Event_Horizon

I think that people that lean to the right will tend to be for smaller government and people leaning to left will be for bigger governement (more social programs) while it may only be evident in small increments I still think it is a true statement

If we're going to say things like "left" and "right" we need to be careful. I'm probably more "left-wing" than most you'll encounter and I don't even support the notion of government at all let alone bigger government.

Besides, "right wing" people in the United States have moved to increase the state's role in a lot of areas of peoples lives : military spending, legislation affecting personal morality, intellectual property restrictions, "the war on drugs", more police and more police powers, etc, etc.

I've found that when people (in any country) say they want to reduce the size of government, they are being very specific. So perhaps a young black male in the US might want less government in terms of police hassling him, but more government in terms of training and support for his community. A wealthy white family might want less government in the form of welfare benefits for the urban poor but more government in terms of police protection from their neighbourhood. Large corporations want smaller government in terms of the taxes they pay but more government in terms of the Feds killing anyone who infringes their trademarks or patents. The religious right might want less government support for single mothers or sex education but more government intervention to restrict abortions. And so on.

[Event_Horizon]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

If we're going to say things like "left" and "right" we need to be careful. I'm probably more "left-wing" than most you'll encounter and I don't even support the notion of government at all let alone bigger government.

Besides, "right wing" people in the United States have moved to increase the state's role in a lot of areas of peoples lives : military spending, legislation affecting personal morality, intellectual property restrictions, "the war on drugs", more police and more police powers, etc, etc.

I've found that when people (in any country) say they want to reduce the size of government, they are being very specific. So perhaps a young black male in the US might want less government in terms of police hassling him, but more government in terms of training and support for his community. A wealthy white family might want less government in the form of welfare benefits for the urban poor but more government in terms of police protection from their neighbourhood. Large corporations want smaller government in terms of the taxes they pay but more government in terms of the Feds killing anyone who infringes their trademarks or patents. The religious right might want less government support for single mothers or sex education but more government intervention to restrict abortions. And so on.

Hehe you are right but for lack of thinking of a better word I chose to use right and left. I am basically making a generalization and I am basing government intervention on economic issues.

I think that democrats tend to be more socialistic (more government dependence and government programs) than republicans who tend to be more capitalistic (less social programs and more independence from the government when dealing with all direct economic issues, ie taxes, personal and coorporate business, etc.). Would you agree?

[HobbieRogue4]

In essence, it's a game of "where funds are spent."

[Azof]

Originally Posted by Event_Horizon

Haha... I can't believe that I am actually taking the time to comment on this but what the hell, anything beats college work.

Democrats/liberals are in more favor of government programs and republicans/ conservatives are generally for less governement programs. This can be traced back to the days of the first split in Washington's cabinet between jefferson and hamilton. By the way i love the evidence that you presented in caling it idotic (dont bother doing it now for i probably wont read it).

Haha me being disappointed in Iowa was a joke, my point was that it was odd that they voted democratic in a republican region... have a beer, get layed, and lighten up... haha

I simply said that the source I stated comcluded that Kerry was the most liberal senator in the senate, if you disagree with the way that ameircans use the word, then email them.

And yes parts of Iraq maybe in chaos now, but i doubt the entire world will driven back to the days of sticks and stones.

*sighs* I promise that not everyone in the U.S. is this ignorant, it's just that more of them know how to use the internet. (actually, statistics would argue against this, so perhaps they are just more vocal here)

You have absolutely no grasp of American History. If you did you would realize that the Republican Party when Jefferson was in office is not even close to the party now. Surely you know about the Federalist and Whig parties? Also, you *should* know that in the early 1900s both parties had lobotomies in their social policies and essentially switched. (remember how the South used to be Democratic, and the Democrats actually ran on a platform of racism? Now it is the opposite)

Strangely enough, the Republican rhetoric does not match their record. Consider that spending has jumped considerably the past 4 years, big government is much more prevalent under "conservative" rule than it ever was with Democrats in control.

Your Iowa comment is even more showing of your ignorance. Iowa has in the past few elections been primarily a democratic state. Also, look at the states the north, and east of it! They are blue, no? Your laughable comment of them getting in line with their region is just that.

Kerry is not the most liberal senator, in fact, he is pretty moderate. I also am amused by your conclusion that liberal! = bad, but that is a general fallacy, and I can't blame you overly for following the herd.

Bush is the King of divisiveness, chaos, and generally pissing people off. I see four more years, of this, but perhaps after four more years of shite radical right wingers, the U.S. will be ready for a more reasonable, centrist, government.

America is on top now, Bush will not ruin the country (follow any economic reports and you will see that our economy is groing strongly out of the recession), and America will still be on top... thats life, thats the way it is right now, live with it....

This economic "recovery" is on the verge of stalling. The economy is not really "groing" all that quickly, and you should consider that unsutainable deficits (both trade and government spending) will mean that the wheel has to fall down some time. Just because America is THE superpower, does not mean that we always will be. Being an arrogant asshole about your current fortune is hardly the way to earn friends.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Event_Horizon

Hehe you are right but for lack of thinking of a better word I chose to use right and left. I am basically making a generalization and I am basing government intervention on economic issues.

I realise that, and yes you are correct to an extent (I'd still say the massive level of military spending that both parties seem to advocate are an important intervention in the economy, but nevermind). My point however was that you can't just judge government intervention based on tax rates. Well, you can, but then you are building up a very distorted picture of what government interference/intervention is.

A government which reduced taxes by 5% but instituted a national brainwashing program would hardly be rolling back the boundaries of the state, would it?

[Stew]

Originally Posted by Leshy

This thread turned shit.

[Dace]

Originally Posted by Event_Horizon

Well it is obvious that our economy is coming out of a recession and is growing immensly and is still by far the economic giant of the world. His tax cuts can be argued for and against by economists with more credentials than me, and as for taking the internet too seriously, it was you who took issue with a harmless comment from a supposive "idiot" (not that you called me an idiot but that other guy did).

Actually your economy is pretty ****ed up.

Your interest rates are set REALLY low in an attempt to boost the growth of the country but its something which is risky and you have nothing else to save your country (ie you cant lower them any more etc ... if anything suprising happens you'll likely be ****ed ... as it is you might just get ****ed in a random fashion).

Your housing market is due to blow up (due to the interest rates).

Errrr random other stuff too.

As for the "making the world less safe" ... how do you feel about the fact the the next Global superpower (lo China) holds A SHIT LOAD of your currency?

When they feel like ****ing America over financially (and fair enough that might be a little bit in the future ... 10/20 years or sommit) you REALLY WILL BE ****ED!

[HobbieRogue4]

Originally Posted by Dace

When they feel like ****ing America over financially (and fair enough that might be alittle bit in the future ... 10/20 years or sommit) you REALLY WILL BE ****ED!

Lucky enough for us, we have a bunch of weapons of mass destruction.

Even better, the ratio of "men to women and children" in China is to our favor!

[Event_Horizon]

Originally Posted by Dace

Actually your economy is pretty ****ed up.

Your interest rates are set REALLY low in an attempt to boost the growth of the country but its something which is risky and you have nothing else to save your country (ie you cant lower them any more etc ... if anything suprising happens you'll likely be ****ed ... as it is you might just get ****ed in a random fashion).

Your housing market is due to blow up (due to the interest rates).

Errrr random other stuff too.

As for the "making the world less safe" ... how do you feel about the fact the the next Global superpower (lo China) holds A SHIT LOAD of your currency?

When they feel like ****ing America over financially (and fair enough that might be a little bit in the future ... 10/20 years or sommit) you REALLY WILL BE ****ED!

Somethings are going good for our economy though, a record 69 percent of americans own their own home. Our GDP just set a record of 12 trillion and the account balance in our 401k's is up 22 percent. Also there were huge rallies on wall street today inleu of Bush's victory.

Also here is a good article by MSNBC stating that our economy is growing

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6348516/

I dont know any specifics regarding China in 20 years but I do realize that they are the next economic super power, we will just have to see.

[Dace]

Originally Posted by HobbieRogue4

Lucky enough for us, we have a bunch of weapons of mass destruction.

Even better, the ratio of "men to women and children" in China is to our favor!

Are you being serious?

[Dace]

Originally Posted by Event_Horizon

Somethings are going good for our economy though, a record 69 percent of americans own their own home.

Yeah that's REALLY great.

Now record numbers of america can be ****ed when the housing market crashes.

"WAY TO GO"

Originally Posted by Event_Horizon

Also there were huge rallies on wall street today inleu of Bush's victory.

Because those rallies arent going to be short term.

[HobbieRogue4]

Originally Posted by Dace

Are you being serious?

Do I personally seek to nuke China? No.

Do I put it past a significant portion of this country to choose otherwise? Unfortunately, no.

[Event_Horizon]

Originally Posted by Dace

Yeah that's REALLY great.

Now record numbers of america can be ****ed when the housing market crashes.

"WAY TO GO"






Because those rallies arent going to be short term.

Here is an article that confirms your statement

http://www.builderonline.com/industr...rticleID=75705

[DavinBrahm]

"Your housing market is due to blow up (due to the interest rates)."

I work in the redidential construction industry, and the gloomist projections have our first down year in a decade or so from now, regardless of interest rates. Part of this is becasue America is successfully maintaining a culture of ownership. People will buy a smaller home, rather than rent. With so many builders producing so much, there is nearly endless product varriation avaliable. I've even seen projections that show interest rates in the high 8's favor the mid sized builders, such as the one I work for. Obviously if the rates ever hit 20% like the early 80's, we are toast. But that is highly unlikely.

Of course, that is the midwest. I don't dabble in the coasts.

[Summanus]

Originally Posted by DavinBrahm

"Your housing market is due to blow up (due to the interest rates)."

I work in the redidential construction industry, and the gloomist projections have our first down year in a decade or so from now, regardless of interest rates. Part of this is becasue America is successfully maintaining a culture of ownership. People will buy a smaller home, rather than rent. With so many builders producing so much, there is nearly endless product varriation avaliable. I've even seen projections that show interest rates in the high 8's favor the mid sized builders, such as the one I work for. Obviously if the rates ever hit 20% like the early 80's, we are toast. But that is highly unlikely.

"Oil"
+
"Shock"

[DavinBrahm]

Even then, it would be very unlikely. I could see 10%. I doubt it will ever go higher. I won't pretend to understand the workings of the federal reserve, but they will tap our national oil reserves before we get into an energy crises.

[DavinBrahm]

"In other words, the high rental vacancy rate will eventually result in the collapse of the housing bubble"

This is true, and I have seen it. However, like I said, the culture of ownership is not taken into account. People put a premium on ownership.

[Dace]

Thanks David for still being so stupid.

[midge5]

Originally Posted by Dace

As for the "making the world less safe" ... how do you feel about the fact the the next Global superpower (lo China) holds A SHIT LOAD of your currency?

When they feel like ****ing America over financially (and fair enough that might be a little bit in the future ... 10/20 years or sommit) you REALLY WILL BE ****ED!

China's economy will stall quite soon, or at least suffer a large reduction in growth imo. A lot of businesses are already down to 4 day working weeks and with China at more or less maximum production of coal and other energy supplies also reaching their limits it could take quite a while longer for them to overtake America than you estimate. On top of which screwing over America will just screw them up so it is unlikely to happen.

[Dace]

Originally Posted by midge5

China's economy will stall quite soon, or at least suffer a large reduction in growth imo. A lot of businesses are already down to 4 day working weeks and with China at more or less maximum production of coal and other energy supplies also reaching their limits it could take quite a while longer for them to overtake America than you estimate. On top of which screwing over America will just screw them up so it is unlikely to happen.

i dont think so

[Starbucks]

Well done, you twats.


Ahh well, Hillary for president

[Sunday8pm]

Actually china will just push oil prices up more as they have been doing for the last 6-12 months.

The only thing that will stall China's market growth is if their goverment revalues their Yuan to something realistic (haw haw like that'll happen) or the US devalues their dollar to something realistic (haw haw like that'll happen).

In the end the only people that are bound to suffer are those on low incomes that depend on energy using services like Heating and Transport.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Event_Horizon

That is not what the original poster was arguing, he said that bush is going to drive THE WORLD into CHAOS and if that wasn't bad enough he is going to ruin his own country. I do not think that any person with half a brain will agree with that.

ok, sorry im a few pages late, but anyway:
look, your old and new president sepnds money on things that dont make any sence whatsoever (give more money to people already rich and buy bigger guns. he pays for this by borrowing money from all those nice little yellow people in china and japan and by taking away money from poor - middle class americans. these are the the people your economy relies on (2/3 of your economy are domestic private demand). if you take away their money they cann't buy anything anymore, unless they also go even deeper into debt and also borrow money from the nice little yellow people.
what do the nice little yellow people get out of this? nothing, they give money to you so that you can buy their stuff. that doesnt make a lot of sence on the long term, its far more fun to spend the money on your own.

And as for the world being less safer, perhaps, but when America decided to attack Germany and Japan i could argue that that made the world less safer as well, but it was still the right decision.... or was it...

you do know that there wasnt much decision, dont you?both of these countries declared war on you.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Sunday8pm

the US devalues their dollar to something realistic (haw haw like that'll happen).

it already did happen to some extend. the euro was worth 80 us-cent a while ago, now its at $1.20. the dollar used to be worth more than 130 yen, now its 105-110 yen. the same happened against most other currencies.
whats the result? usually inflation, but wages cant rise that much, because the us-economy isnt all that competitive when it comes to producing things.
im not sure what will happen, but i doubt that it goes on like this forever. i was really surprised about the recovery in the last year.
that will turn the whole world into chaos. (together with bush crussade against the worlds evil)