Discussion:
Bush no longer lives in the White House.
(too old to reply)
pushbush
2004-11-02 17:21:21 UTC
Permalink
Bush no longer lives in the White House.

One sunny day in 2005 an old man approached the White House from
across Pennsylvania Avenue, where he'd been sitting on a park bench.
He spoke to the U. S. Marine standing guard and said: "I would like
to go in and meet with President Bush."

The Marine looked at the man and said: "Sir, Mr. Bush is no longer
president and no longer resides here."

The old man said: "Okay" and walked away.
The following day, the same man approached the White House and said
to the same Marine: "I would like to go in and meet with President
Bush."

The Marine again told the man: "Sir, as I said yesterday, Mr. Bush
is no longer president and no longer resides here." The man thanked him
and, again, just walked away. The third day, the same man approached the
White House and spoke to the very same U. S. Marine, saying: "I would
like
to go in and meet with President Bush."

The Marine, understandably agitated at this point, looked at the man
and said: "Sir, this is the third day in a row you have been here asking
to
speak to Mr. Bush. I've told you already that Mr. Bush is no longer
the president and no longer resides here. Don't you understand?"

"Oh, I understand. But I just love hearing it!"

The Marine snapped to attention, saluted, and said: "OK... See you
tomorrow!"
Turin
2004-11-02 18:06:22 UTC
Permalink
Lmao.... that was good, man.
Post by pushbush
Bush no longer lives in the White House.
One sunny day in 2005 an old man approached the White House from
across Pennsylvania Avenue, where he'd been sitting on a park bench.
He spoke to the U. S. Marine standing guard and said: "I would like
to go in and meet with President Bush."
The Marine looked at the man and said: "Sir, Mr. Bush is no longer
president and no longer resides here."
The old man said: "Okay" and walked away.
The following day, the same man approached the White House and said
to the same Marine: "I would like to go in and meet with President
Bush."
The Marine again told the man: "Sir, as I said yesterday, Mr. Bush
is no longer president and no longer resides here." The man thanked him
and, again, just walked away. The third day, the same man approached the
White House and spoke to the very same U. S. Marine, saying: "I would
like
to go in and meet with President Bush."
The Marine, understandably agitated at this point, looked at the man
and said: "Sir, this is the third day in a row you have been here asking
to
speak to Mr. Bush. I've told you already that Mr. Bush is no longer
the president and no longer resides here. Don't you understand?"
"Oh, I understand. But I just love hearing it!"
The Marine snapped to attention, saluted, and said: "OK... See you
tomorrow!"
- - -

This has been another enlightening moment, with:

Turin


I have such sites to show you...
------------------------
http://members.fortunecity.com/turinturambar/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Men_First/
------------------------

"He who changeth, altereth, misconstrueth, argueth with, deleteth, or
maketh a lie about these words or causeth them to not be known shall
burn in hell forever and ever...."

-----
Lady Chatterly
2004-11-02 20:54:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Turin
Lmao.... that was good, man.
Post by pushbush
Bush no longer lives in the White House.
One sunny day in 2005 an old man approached the White House from
across Pennsylvania Avenue, where he'd been sitting on a park bench.
He spoke to the U. S. Marine standing guard and said: "I would like
to go in and meet with President Bush."
The Marine looked at the man and said: "Sir, Mr. Bush is no longer
president and no longer resides here."
The old man said: "Okay" and walked away.
The following day, the same man approached the White House and said
to the same Marine: "I would like to go in and meet with President
Bush."
The Marine again told the man: "Sir, as I said yesterday, Mr. Bush
is no longer president and no longer resides here." The man thanked
him
Post by pushbush
and, again, just walked away. The third day, the same man approached
the
Post by pushbush
White House and spoke to the very same U. S. Marine, saying: "I would
like
to go in and meet with President Bush."
The Marine, understandably agitated at this point, looked at the man
and said: "Sir, this is the third day in a row you have been here
asking
Post by pushbush
to
speak to Mr. Bush. I've told you already that Mr. Bush is no longer
the president and no longer resides here. Don't you understand?"
"Oh, I understand. But I just love hearing it!"
The Marine snapped to attention, saluted, and said: "OK... See you
tomorrow!"
The marine looked at the man and said sir, Mr.
Post by Turin
- - -
Better late than never.
Don't argue semantics with me about something so obvious.

--
Lady Chatterly

"This isn't being generated by a human is it?" -- Meat-->Plow
Society
2004-11-03 10:15:17 UTC
Permalink
The Marine snapping to attention and saluting
gives away that joke's origin as something
from the now-passed clinton party years.

America has asked President George W. Bush
to stay on for four more years of cleaning up
the mess clinton left.
--
Man is the measure of all things.
Deborah Terreson
2004-11-03 15:27:52 UTC
Permalink
----------
Post by Society
The Marine snapping to attention and saluting
gives away that joke's origin as something
from the now-passed clinton party years.
America has asked President George W. Bush
to stay on for four more years of cleaning up
the mess clinton left.
Clinton left it? Hardly. This was the inevitable end result of cold war
politics, of which the Bush family, (given Dubya's poppy), played a far
larger hand in, than almost anything Billy Boy could have done.

That's okay, we got four more years of the Texas Puppet and The Sons of
Belial who control him. Don't you feel superior now?

Deb.
USA
2004-11-03 18:05:18 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 10:27:52 -0500, "Deborah Terreson"
Post by Turin
----------
Post by Society
The Marine snapping to attention and saluting
gives away that joke's origin as something
from the now-passed clinton party years.
America has asked President George W. Bush
to stay on for four more years of cleaning up
the mess clinton left.
Clinton left it? Hardly. This was the inevitable end result of cold war
politics, of which the Bush family, (given Dubya's poppy), played a far
larger hand in, than almost anything Billy Boy could have done.
That's okay, we got four more years of the Texas Puppet and The Sons of
Belial who control him. Don't you feel superior now?
Deb.
Considering the factual contact of your diatribe above, the answer is
a resounding YES.

Now we need to concentrate on beating The Beast in 2008.
Deborah Terreson
2004-11-03 21:06:29 UTC
Permalink
----------
Post by USA
On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 10:27:52 -0500, "Deborah Terreson"
Post by Turin
----------
Post by Society
The Marine snapping to attention and saluting
gives away that joke's origin as something
from the now-passed clinton party years.
America has asked President George W. Bush
to stay on for four more years of cleaning up
the mess clinton left.
Clinton left it? Hardly. This was the inevitable end result of cold war
politics, of which the Bush family, (given Dubya's poppy), played a far
larger hand in, than almost anything Billy Boy could have done.
That's okay, we got four more years of the Texas Puppet and The Sons of
Belial who control him. Don't you feel superior now?
Deb.
Considering the factual contact of your diatribe above, the answer is
a resounding YES.
And what is not factual? I do hope you will choose to remember that it was
Bush's administration that coined the term 'blowback' - which DID reference
to the political fallout in the Middle East (with particular emphasis on
it's militarization), as a response to the Cold War and it's politics that
gave rise to the Islamic militancy that we now are battling. And lest we
forget, during the 80's while Billy Boy was chasing secretaries' skirts in
Little Rock, Dubya's poppy WAS right in the center of those same politics...
Post by USA
Now we need to concentrate on beating The Beast in 2008.
The Beast has already taken your eyes, heart and soul, my sad friend.
OhSojourner
2004-11-04 22:16:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Deborah Terreson
Post by USA
On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 10:27:52 -0500, "Deborah Terreson"
Post by Turin
----------
Post by Society
The Marine snapping to attention and saluting
gives away that joke's origin as something
from the now-passed clinton party years.
America has asked President George W. Bush
to stay on for four more years of cleaning up
the mess clinton left.
Clinton left it? Hardly. This was the inevitable end result of cold war
politics, of which the Bush family, (given Dubya's poppy), played a far
larger hand in, than almost anything Billy Boy could have done.
That's okay, we got four more years of the Texas Puppet and The Sons of
Belial who control him. Don't you feel superior now?
Deb.
Considering the factual contact of your diatribe above, the answer is
a resounding YES.
And what is not factual? I do hope you will choose to remember that it was
Bush's administration that coined the term 'blowback' - which DID reference
to the political fallout in the Middle East (with particular emphasis on
it's militarization), as a response to the Cold War and it's politics that
gave rise to the Islamic militancy that we now are battling. And lest we
forget, during the 80's while Billy Boy was chasing secretaries' skirts in
Little Rock, Dubya's poppy WAS right in the center of those same politics...
Post by USA
Now we need to concentrate on beating The Beast in 2008.
The Beast has already taken your eyes, heart and soul, my sad friend.
The primal memes will always be the most powerful and insidious:
http://members.aol.com/ohsojourner/monkey.html

...Or, as Dave Sim would say, Reason doesn't stand a chance in an argument
against Emotion. We don't need no edumacation!


. . ."Auf Wiedersehen, A Bientot . . ."
Turin
2004-11-03 21:12:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Turin
----------
Post by Society
The Marine snapping to attention and saluting
gives away that joke's origin as something
from the now-passed clinton party years.
America has asked President George W. Bush
to stay on for four more years of cleaning up
the mess clinton left.
Clinton left it? Hardly. This was the inevitable end result of cold war
politics, of which the Bush family, (given Dubya's poppy), played a far
larger hand in, than almost anything Billy Boy could have done.
Don't treat the transponder like it can think, Deb.

It only makes it beep louder.


Neo-conservatism is no different than the old game of getting crowds of
moronic wannabes to repeat your jingles for you when you're selling
something.

It uses a talent show format to attract people into soapboxing for the
show, under the constraint that whatever they say must be
"entertaining" to the so-called "mainstream" (i.e. the target market).
This constraint is how you force your selling philosophy into their
mouths.

That's all neo-conservatism is: a made up format of political
inconsistencies for the purpose hooking as many people as possible into
playing - while the cash registers go "Cha-ching".


Obviously, the American democratic process has been taken over by this
form of entertainment, and now the system simply qualifies as just
another market, with the same "caveat emptor" disqualifier for those
people who believe that some things are too sacred to be used as mere
entertainment.

Nerds, like Society and Sobolewski, are involved in this idiotic past
time. They just speak to hear themselves speak. They want to be part
of something that is a cheap imitation of something that is supposed to
be real. It passes for having a social life, and it protects their
little bow-tie, George Will personalities from risk at the same time.

It's pointless to allow them to troll you. Troll those little geeks,
instead....


The real issues is that capitalism is on it's last legs. The bourgeois
are voting to divert its consequent shortages toward their class
enemies - like usual, but more desperately than normal. They've always
needed disposable classes to survive its "fluctuations".

Well, there's a nice BIG "fluctuation" coming. That's what this
election was about. All they have left to try and dodge and postpone
it, are bullshit image and control of the media. They use them to prop
up "socialism" for the failures of their own system. That excuse is
almost gone.

Once it is gone, the real persecution is gonna start. I, thusly,
advise Democrats to start getting even bigger on the second amendment
than the Republicans are, and to start making maps that mark where all
the Republicans are in their neighborhoods...


Of course, before that happens, they're going to have to drop their
bullshit political philosophies about being "cooperative". Maybe then,
they'll stop sounding like the mini-me's of the Republicans..........



- - -

This has been another enlightening moment, with:

Turin


I have such sites to show you...
------------------------
http://members.fortunecity.com/turinturambar/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Men_First/
------------------------

"He who changeth, altereth, misconstrueth, argueth with, deleteth, or
maketh a lie about these words or causeth them to not be known shall
burn in hell forever and ever...."

-----
Post by Turin
That's okay, we got four more years of the Texas Puppet and The Sons of
Belial who control him. Don't you feel superior now?
Deb.
Andre Lieven
2004-11-03 16:48:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Society
The Marine snapping to attention and saluting
gives away that joke's origin as something
from the now-passed clinton party years.
America has asked President George W. Bush
to stay on for four more years of cleaning up
the mess clinton left.
Yeah, what a mess: A balanced budget, and a shrinking
debt... Terrible.

How about ending the political hate, and actually facing
issues ?

Clinton wasn't the Devil. Neither was either Bush. OK ?

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.
Society
2004-11-04 11:13:38 UTC
Permalink
Society wrote...
Post by Society
The Marine snapping to attention and saluting
gives away that joke's origin as something
from the now-passed clinton party years.
America has asked President George W. Bush
to stay on for four more years of cleaning up
the mess clinton left.
Yeah, what a mess: A balanced budget, and a shrinking
debt... Terrible.
Didn't happen until Newt Gingrich became
leader of a Republican majority in the House,
Andre. Wouldn't have happened otherwise.
Terrible that clinton can't honestly get credit
for "a balanced budget" (if Social Security
liabilities are omitted) or "a shrinking debt". ;-)

Plus one can arguably claim that the costs of
coping with the injuries to the US economy
from the dot.com bust plus 9/11 and its
aftermath belong squarely on the clinton side
of the ledger -- just as honest business
accounting treats deferred maintenance
expenses.

Oh and don't overlook the corporate crimes
that took place during clinton's party years
and were uncovered on Bush watch.
How about ending the political hate,
and actually facing issues ?
Don't confuse disgust with hate, Andre.
Sigh.

Oh, as far as financing social spending with debt
goes it has the unexpected benefit of combining
spending on women today with higher taxation
on women tomorrow, when there are all those
future high-income women in the US workforce.
Carol Ann faithfully reminds our happy little news
group about 'em each chance she can contrive. ;-)
Clinton wasn't the Devil. Neither was either Bush. OK ?
OK.

Yeah, the discussion in this and the "Curry or Chips"
thread has become overheated for a chat among
friendly acquaintances. I didn't intend anything
personal toward you, Andre.
Andre Lieven
2004-11-04 16:23:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Society
Society wrote...
Post by Society
The Marine snapping to attention and saluting
gives away that joke's origin as something
from the now-passed clinton party years.
America has asked President George W. Bush
to stay on for four more years of cleaning up
the mess clinton left.
Yeah, what a mess: A balanced budget, and a shrinking
debt... Terrible.
Didn't happen until Newt Gingrich became
leader of a Republican majority in the House,
Andre.
Was newt still there by 1998 ?
Post by Society
Wouldn't have happened otherwise.
We know this, by our control of the time lines ? <g>

Heres a contrary example: While it was the 70s federal
Canadian Liberals who ballooned the deficit, nine years
of the federal Conservatives failed to make a dent in it,
while, after them, several years of the Liberals being
back did the trick.

My point is that party names don't tell you all
of who wants to do what.

For instance, the current Republicans want to *spend
without actually paying for it*.

Even to fools who view taxation as theft, this is a
felonious higher level of theft.
Post by Society
Terrible that clinton can't honestly get credit
for "a balanced budget" (if Social Security
liabilities are omitted) or "a shrinking debt". ;-)
Well, Preseidents get the credit, and the debit.
It comes with the job, *either way*...
Post by Society
Plus one can arguably claim that the costs of
coping with the injuries to the US economy
from the dot.com bust plus 9/11 and its
aftermath belong squarely on the clinton side
of the ledger -- just as honest business
accounting treats deferred maintenance
expenses.
Yet, they're hardly the worst factors in jobs
being shipped overseas ( See " Exporting
America ", by CNN host Lou Dobbs, who also has
a very good record with space advocacy ),
or in a fedeeal gov't spending what they refuse
to raise...
Post by Society
Oh and don't overlook the corporate crimes
that took place during clinton's party years
and were uncovered on Bush watch.
Yet, the crimes continue... so the current Bush
watch has done no better than Clinton's...
Post by Society
How about ending the political hate,
and actually facing issues ?
Don't confuse disgust with hate, Andre.
Sigh.
Please point out where I displayed any such. I'm
actually trying to debate the issues, and not the
personalities.
Post by Society
Oh, as far as financing social spending with debt
goes it has the unexpected benefit of combining
spending on women today with higher taxation
on women tomorrow, when there are all those
future high-income women in the US workforce.
Carol Ann faithfully reminds our happy little news
group about 'em each chance she can contrive. ;-)
Sure, though thats peripheral to this topic.
Post by Society
Clinton wasn't the Devil. Neither was either Bush. OK ?
OK.
Thats my point, really. Lets move away from demonising
either side, by either it's persons, or it's being an
opposition to the other, and consider that neither
party, or side of the ideological divide is wholly
correct.

So, speaking for myself, for instance, I can support,
here in Canada, public medicine, which to my view,
works for us very well, indeed. Yet, at the same
time, I oppose gay " marriage ", and, as I'd tried to
point out on another newsgroup, when it was claimed that
such opponents had to be religiously based in their
opposition, that my opposition is wholly secular.
Post by Society
Yeah, the discussion in this and the "Curry or Chips"
thread has become overheated for a chat among
friendly acquaintances. I didn't intend anything
personal toward you, Andre.
Kewl. Like I said, I'm just trying to get a handle
on all this. I'd have to say that the degree of
polarisation in the US' politics, of late, is very
powerful, and not easily reconsidered by many.

Yet, I think that it is worth thinking about. And,
letting one see the Other as people, too. No
matter what specific Other that is.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.
Mark Sobolewski
2004-11-07 23:30:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andre Lieven
For instance, the current Republicans want to *spend
without actually paying for it*.
Let's discuss this claim.

You have a point, but note that the Democrats aren't much different.
Every dollar they get to "pay" for something would only inspire
them to spend it (and possibly more) immediately. Yes, it's
an awful situation, but deficit spending is still better than
blowing twice as much money that's "paid" for.

(I'm reminded of a Married with Children
episode where Al got his retirement funds and his wife
insisted upon holding onto them to hide them from creditors
and she blew it all on the home shopping network.)
Post by Andre Lieven
Even to fools who view taxation as theft, this is a
felonious higher level of theft.
As I said, that depends upon how you look at it. Do you really
want to have your pocket picked MORE but thank heavens
it's not being assigned to credit?

Ironically, the "deficit spending is evil" mantra does help in the long
run by making people worry about increased spending because
it can't be "paid" for. The fact is that there never will be enough
money in the American treasury for all the things the different
special interest groups "need":

national daycare
national healthcare
national education
universities (also known as commie indoctrination camps)
new roads
druggie welfare senior citizens

You get the idea. There simply isn't enough money to "pay for" all of that!
Certainly not enough if "some guy behind the tree" is supposed to get the bill.
Kerry said he was only going to tax people above 200K and I think
everyone knew he was BSing and would say on day 1 "Oh, I guess
that's not possible. OK, we now need an 80% tax rate."

Let's discuss that: What do you think of trying to "pay for" things
with someone else's money? How about a tax to pay for it all
for guys named Andre? (No name changes allowed! that's tax
evasion!)

Seriously, the left sold these tax increases as for "the rich" when
the reality is they create loopholes for themselves anyway (Therea
Heinz had an effective 12% tax rate.) That's as bad as deficit spending
since it winds up being paid by the poor and middle class in the long run.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Society
Terrible that clinton can't honestly get credit
for "a balanced budget" (if Social Security
liabilities are omitted) or "a shrinking debt". ;-)
Well, Preseidents get the credit, and the debit.
It comes with the job, *either way*...
Indeed. Reagan won the cold war after all. :-)
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Society
Plus one can arguably claim that the costs of
coping with the injuries to the US economy
from the dot.com bust plus 9/11 and its
aftermath belong squarely on the clinton side
of the ledger -- just as honest business
accounting treats deferred maintenance
expenses.
Yet, they're hardly the worst factors in jobs
being shipped overseas ( See " Exporting
America ", by CNN host Lou Dobbs, who also has
a very good record with space advocacy ),
or in a fedeeal gov't spending what they refuse
to raise...
I don't buy this zero sum game. Would you really rather pay,
say, 10 bucks for Canadian made underwear than 1 dollar made
in China?

You can then use the 9 bucks you saved to buy other Canadian products,
well, such as bacon and beer. :-) You get the idea. Is it a good idea
to keep "jobs" home if those jobs are not being done well? Ultimately,
it all boils down to whether the product is worth it.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Society
Oh and don't overlook the corporate crimes
that took place during clinton's party years
and were uncovered on Bush watch.
Yet, the crimes continue... so the current Bush
watch has done no better than Clinton's...
Agreed. Note a lot of this is due to the fact that America HAS
a decent economy for all this kind of stuff to happen in the private
sector. In most other commie/socialist nations, the government
doesn't even bother reporting it. That's how it's SUPPOSED to work.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Society
Post by Andre Lieven
Clinton wasn't the Devil. Neither was either Bush. OK ?
OK.
Thats my point, really. Lets move away from demonising
either side, by either it's persons, or it's being an
opposition to the other, and consider that neither
party, or side of the ideological divide is wholly
correct.
This is moderate wussying. Hitler built bridges too and kept
the trains running on time. He did recover the economy
of his country (granted, until he ran it broke and had to start
his war of conquest early, thank heavens.)

Clinton and his ilk are dehumanizing socialists whose goal
is to destroy two parent families in order to create a single mother
welfare class dependant upon socialist voters. Fortunately,
he apparently was concerned more about his political survival
than his agenda. But that hardly makes him a nice guy.
Post by Andre Lieven
So, speaking for myself, for instance, I can support,
here in Canada, public medicine, which to my view,
works for us very well, indeed. Yet, at the same
time, I oppose gay " marriage ", and, as I'd tried to
point out on another newsgroup, when it was claimed that
such opponents had to be religiously based in their
opposition, that my opposition is wholly secular.
I think at one point in time, national education in the states worked
as well. Then, as the teachers unions kicked in and were protected
by the government (and could set prices the taxpayers HAD to pay),
it degenerated into a big mess. Now, trying to eliminate government
control of education is impossible.

Sure, the government CAN do a job effectively, but does that mean
you want to put your trust in it? How about this: Let's have
the government control all media including music and films.
After all, they do such a great job with healthcare surely
they can manage that too?
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Society
Yeah, the discussion in this and the "Curry or Chips"
thread has become overheated for a chat among
friendly acquaintances. I didn't intend anything
personal toward you, Andre.
Kewl. Like I said, I'm just trying to get a handle
on all this. I'd have to say that the degree of
polarisation in the US' politics, of late, is very
powerful, and not easily reconsidered by many.
Yet, I think that it is worth thinking about. And,
letting one see the Other as people, too. No
matter what specific Other that is.
Andre
Andre Lieven
2004-11-08 03:44:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
For instance, the current Republicans want to *spend
without actually paying for it*.
Let's discuss this claim.
You have a point, but note that the Democrats aren't much different.
This isn't an issue of party uber alles. Its a matter of,
who was President, and who was in Congress, when the government
spent no more than they took in, say, in 1999-2001.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Every dollar they get to "pay" for something would only inspire
them to spend it (and possibly more) immediately.
" Coulda, woulda, shoulda. "

Mark, who was President and who was in Congress, when the budget
was in surplus ?
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Yes, it's
an awful situation, but deficit spending is still better than
blowing twice as much money that's "paid" for.
Tell that to Visa...
Post by Mark Sobolewski
(I'm reminded of a Married with Children
episode where Al got his retirement funds and his wife
insisted upon holding onto them to hide them from creditors
and she blew it all on the home shopping network.)
OK. Who was President when the US budget was in surplus,
again ?
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Even to fools who view taxation as theft, this is a
felonious higher level of theft.
As I said, that depends upon how you look at it. Do you really
want to have your pocket picked MORE but thank heavens
it's not being assigned to credit?
Well, I don't agree with a view that sees taxes as being
" picked ".

Stuff costs. In both the private and public sectors...
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Ironically, the "deficit spending is evil" mantra does help in the
long run by making people worry about increased spending because
it can't be "paid" for. The fact is that there never will be enough
money in the American treasury for all the things the different
national daycare
national healthcare
national education
universities (also known as commie indoctrination camps)
new roads
druggie welfare senior citizens
You get the idea. There simply isn't enough money to "pay for" all of that!
Well, we socialists here in Canada have most of that, a budget
surplus, a healthy and growing economy, with a higher proportional
job growth rate than the US, a positive balance of trade, and so
on.

Now, if you let your patricians loot the US Treasury, for the benefit
of the uberrich, then yes, there won't be " enough " money.

But, not because there never was enough money...

BTW, Mondale opposed NASA for about the same reasons you just
listed... Yet, Armstrong walked on the Moon, anyway. Turned
out there was " enough " money... :-)
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Certainly not enough if "some guy behind the tree" is supposed to get the bill.
Kerry said he was only going to tax people above 200K and I think
everyone knew he was BSing and would say on day 1 "Oh, I guess
that's not possible. OK, we now need an 80% tax rate."
Well, all those numbers sound like BS to me...
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Let's discuss that: What do you think of trying to "pay for" things
with someone else's money? How about a tax to pay for it all
for guys named Andre? (No name changes allowed! that's tax
evasion!)
Naw. Thats, like, ya know... discrimination.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Seriously, the left sold these tax increases as for "the rich" when
the reality is they create loopholes for themselves anyway (Therea
Heinz had an effective 12% tax rate.)
How is she a " leftist " ?
Post by Mark Sobolewski
That's as bad as deficit spending since
it winds up being paid by the poor and middle class in the long run.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Society
Terrible that clinton can't honestly get credit
for "a balanced budget" (if Social Security
liabilities are omitted) or "a shrinking debt". ;-)
Well, Preseidents get the credit, and the debit.
It comes with the job, *either way*...
Indeed. Reagan won the cold war after all. :-)
Hey: When did you become Richie Soyack ?

Truman-Bush I, plus Churchill-Thatcher, plus a host
of others " won " the Cold War.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Society
Plus one can arguably claim that the costs of
coping with the injuries to the US economy
from the dot.com bust plus 9/11 and its
aftermath belong squarely on the clinton side
of the ledger -- just as honest business
accounting treats deferred maintenance
expenses.
Yet, they're hardly the worst factors in jobs
being shipped overseas ( See " Exporting
America ", by CNN host Lou Dobbs, who also has
a very good record with space advocacy ),
or in a fedeeal gov't spending what they refuse
to raise...
I don't buy this zero sum game. Would you really rather pay,
say, 10 bucks for Canadian made underwear than 1 dollar made
in China?
I often pay more, for a better product. And, I don't need
the last drams of " price drops " at WalMart, due to the stuff
being made by 12 year old Vietnamese, or prisoners in China.

My values sometimes do cost me something. But, if they never
did, would they be values, or mere rationalisations ?
Post by Mark Sobolewski
You can then use the 9 bucks you saved to buy other Canadian products,
well, such as bacon and beer. :-) You get the idea. Is it a good idea
to keep "jobs" home if those jobs are not being done well? Ultimately,
it all boils down to whether the product is worth it.
No, thats one data point. There are others, like, does a people
want to have some say over their nation's economy ?
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Society
Oh and don't overlook the corporate crimes
that took place during clinton's party years
and were uncovered on Bush watch.
Yet, the crimes continue... so the current Bush
watch has done no better than Clinton's...
Agreed. Note a lot of this is due to the fact that America HAS
a decent economy for all this kind of stuff to happen in the private
sector. In most other commie/socialist nations, the government
doesn't even bother reporting it. That's how it's SUPPOSED to work.
Yet, we know that corporate looting in the fUSSR has far surpassed
anything that was done there, prior to.

Well, the private sector seems to be best at dismantling nations...
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Society
Post by Andre Lieven
Clinton wasn't the Devil. Neither was either Bush. OK ?
OK.
Thats my point, really. Lets move away from demonising
either side, by either it's persons, or it's being an
opposition to the other, and consider that neither
party, or side of the ideological divide is wholly
correct.
This is moderate wussying. Hitler built bridges too and kept
the trains running on time. He did recover the economy
of his country (granted, until he ran it broke and had to start
his war of conquest early, thank heavens.)
OK: Godwin's Law. Argument over, you lose.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Clinton and his ilk are dehumanizing socialists whose goal
is to destroy two parent families in order to create a single mother
welfare class dependant upon socialist voters. Fortunately,
he apparently was concerned more about his political survival
than his agenda. But that hardly makes him a nice guy.
Ah, but I never suggested that he, or anyone else in office,
was a " nice guy ".

Consider: Using percentages, we can say that there are 100
( Well, 101, from 0 to 100 ) levels of " nice/not nice ", and
" effective/not ".

One can be on the " effective " side of that measure, and
still, as a person, be over to the " not nice " side of
that measure.

But, who cares ? I don't care if my leaders are " nice ",
I prefer them to be " effective ", in doing things like not
getting the next two generations in hock for what they did.

Our debt's dropping. Hows yours ?
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
So, speaking for myself, for instance, I can support,
here in Canada, public medicine, which to my view,
works for us very well, indeed. Yet, at the same
time, I oppose gay " marriage ", and, as I'd tried to
point out on another newsgroup, when it was claimed that
such opponents had to be religiously based in their
opposition, that my opposition is wholly secular.
I think at one point in time, national education in the states worked
as well. Then, as the teachers unions kicked in and were protected
by the government (and could set prices the taxpayers HAD to pay),
it degenerated into a big mess. Now, trying to eliminate government
control of education is impossible.
Well, the schools here do rather well. So, maybe your public
system is " nice ", but " not effective ".

BTW, " free enterprise " sucked from Oct 1929, for a decade.
Did you just junk it ?
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Sure, the government CAN do a job effectively, but does that mean
you want to put your trust in it?
Far more so, than Ken Lay/Enron or HMOs..
Post by Mark Sobolewski
How about this: Let's have
the government control all media including music and films.
After all, they do such a great job with healthcare surely
they can manage that too?
Naw. Whats the up side ? I can see the up side for our
health care, over yours. Everyone covered, and with less
cost to the nation ( 10% GDP in Canada, V/ 15% GDP for
HMO-Land... ).

Oh, and we do have some gov't oversight over what qualifies
as Canadian content. It created a Canadian recording industry,
and much of what came/comes from that, is heard the world
over now. Their voices just needed... some room.

Seems theres more than one way to get more good product.

The point, Mark, is that there is more than one way to
get things done, and what works, to some degree, for some,
though not all, in the US, is not necessarily the best
way for other lands, and peoples.

If you can find a copy of it, read Peter Gzowski's " The
Private Voice ". The essay dated from Canadian Thanksgiving
speaks well, and better than I've ever been able to say it,
to this point, and to the difference in how we, up here, see
these things. Its not that either is wrong, rather, its that
there is more than one way to get to whats right.

John Ralston Saul's " Reflections On A Siamese Twin ", is
also good about this.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Society
Yeah, the discussion in this and the "Curry or Chips"
thread has become overheated for a chat among
friendly acquaintances. I didn't intend anything
personal toward you, Andre.
Kewl. Like I said, I'm just trying to get a handle
on all this. I'd have to say that the degree of
polarisation in the US' politics, of late, is very
powerful, and not easily reconsidered by many.
Yet, I think that it is worth thinking about. And,
letting one see the Other as people, too. No
matter what specific Other that is.
Andre


--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.
Mark Sobolewski
2004-11-08 14:29:31 UTC
Permalink
Hello Andre,
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
For instance, the current Republicans want to *spend
without actually paying for it*.
Let's discuss this claim.
You have a point, but note that the Democrats aren't much different.
This isn't an issue of party uber alles. Its a matter of,
who was President, and who was in Congress, when the government
spent no more than they took in, say, in 1999-2001.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Every dollar they get to "pay" for something would only inspire
them to spend it (and possibly more) immediately.
" Coulda, woulda, shoulda. "
Mark, who was President and who was in Congress, when the budget
was in surplus ?
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Yes, it's
an awful situation, but deficit spending is still better than
blowing twice as much money that's "paid" for.
Tell that to Visa...
Post by Mark Sobolewski
(I'm reminded of a Married with Children
episode where Al got his retirement funds and his wife
insisted upon holding onto them to hide them from creditors
and she blew it all on the home shopping network.)
OK. Who was President when the US budget was in surplus,
again ?
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Society
Terrible that clinton can't honestly get credit
for "a balanced budget" (if Social Security
liabilities are omitted) or "a shrinking debt". ;-)
Well, Preseidents get the credit, and the debit.
It comes with the job, *either way*...
Indeed. Reagan won the cold war after all. :-)
Hey: When did you become Richie Soyack ?
Truman-Bush I, plus Churchill-Thatcher, plus a host
of others " won " the Cold War.
Who was in office when the cold war ended?

We could just as easily argue that Chamberlain deserves as much
credit as Churchill for winning WWII (appeasement was part
of his strategy, you see :-)

Your positions sound very selective, pardon me for saying so.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Even to fools who view taxation as theft, this is a
felonious higher level of theft.
As I said, that depends upon how you look at it. Do you really
want to have your pocket picked MORE but thank heavens
it's not being assigned to credit?
Well, I don't agree with a view that sees taxes as being
" picked ".
Stuff costs. In both the private and public sectors...
This sounds like an argument of obfuscation. Sure, stuff "costs"
but then why debate such issues as credit or efficiency in paying
for healthcare?

Stop waffling, Kerry! :-)
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Ironically, the "deficit spending is evil" mantra does help in the
long run by making people worry about increased spending because
it can't be "paid" for. The fact is that there never will be enough
money in the American treasury for all the things the different
national daycare
national healthcare
national education
universities (also known as commie indoctrination camps)
new roads
druggie welfare senior citizens
You get the idea. There simply isn't enough money to "pay for" all of that!
Well, we socialists here in Canada have most of that, a budget
surplus, a healthy and growing economy, with a higher proportional
job growth rate than the US, a positive balance of trade, and so
on.
Now, if you let your patricians loot the US Treasury, for the benefit
of the uberrich, then yes, there won't be " enough " money.
You probably also spend a lot less on national defense than the US
does. :-)

I have told you that I honestly don't know enough about Canada to feel
comfortable to make negative statements about it. What I think I do
know
is that what works (or appears to work) in Canada wouldn't apply to
the US
for a variety of reasons including (and correct me if I'm wrong)

1) Lower immigration and ethnic tensions than exist in the states.
2) I don't know about Canada in this case, but Europe supposedly just
outright
"steals" US pharmaceuticals patents by threatening to license them if
the
companies don't fix prices.
3) The US has been in a recession. It's coming out of it. We'll see
how much longer
Canada's "higher proportional job growth rate" lasts.

When you talk about looting the treasury, that's a perfect argument to
be made
for NOT nationalizing health care in this country. The educational
and university
system is a mess. The healthcare system wouldn't control costs but
would instead
see them leap out of control as the doctor's union insisted upon new
bond measures
to pay their salaries whether Americans used their health care or not.

In other words, Andre, I'm not taking this opportunity to bash Canada.
I'm merely
saying that what works for Canada simply wouldn't do the same here.
Fair enough?
Post by Andre Lieven
But, not because there never was enough money...
Oh, I'll kind of agree with you there. The US has a LOT of money
(real or not :-)
The problem is that the same forces that currently allow it to be
wasted would
only waste it that much faster if the government became larger.
Post by Andre Lieven
BTW, Mondale opposed NASA for about the same reasons you just
listed... Yet, Armstrong walked on the Moon, anyway. Turned
out there was " enough " money... :-)
Come now. You know that a mission with a clear, single objective is
far different
than a managerial one.

Once again, you kind of prove my point for me: After the moon landing,
NASA languished
because it didn't have any specific clear purpose. The space shuttle
was a boondoggle
and it's private companies that are now picking up the slack. Thank
you!

Oh, how many times has Canada landed on the moon?
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Certainly not enough if "some guy behind the tree" is supposed to get the bill.
Kerry said he was only going to tax people above 200K and I think
everyone knew he was BSing and would say on day 1 "Oh, I guess
that's not possible. OK, we now need an 80% tax rate."
Well, all those numbers sound like BS to me...
The first one was Kerry's. :-)
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Let's discuss that: What do you think of trying to "pay for" things
with someone else's money? How about a tax to pay for it all
for guys named Andre? (No name changes allowed! that's tax
evasion!)
Naw. Thats, like, ya know... discrimination.
Sure. "Positive" discrimination. :-) All the judges named Bruce will
agree
that it's not "bad" discrimination.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Seriously, the left sold these tax increases as for "the rich" when
the reality is they create loopholes for themselves anyway (Therea
Heinz had an effective 12% tax rate.)
How is she a " leftist " ?
Interesting enough, at the time she married the ketchup heir, she
wasn't.
Somehow, she turned into a total wacko marxist.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Society
Plus one can arguably claim that the costs of
coping with the injuries to the US economy
from the dot.com bust plus 9/11 and its
aftermath belong squarely on the clinton side
of the ledger -- just as honest business
accounting treats deferred maintenance
expenses.
Yet, they're hardly the worst factors in jobs
being shipped overseas ( See " Exporting
America ", by CNN host Lou Dobbs, who also has
a very good record with space advocacy ),
or in a fedeeal gov't spending what they refuse
to raise...
I don't buy this zero sum game. Would you really rather pay,
say, 10 bucks for Canadian made underwear than 1 dollar made
in China?
I often pay more, for a better product.
But what if it's not or it doesn't matter? If consumers want cheap
underwear
why is that a bad thing? Are they going to pass them down to their
children or something?

Regardless, you've missed the point: outsourcing doesn't necessarily
result in inferior products which is precisely what makes it so
dangerous.
Post by Andre Lieven
And, I don't need
the last drams of " price drops " at WalMart, due to the stuff
being made by 12 year old Vietnamese, or prisoners in China.
This is a legitimate moral argument, but it doesn't necessarily apply
to all
outsourcing. Sometimes, people in other countries are simply willing
to work for less because the cost of living is lower there.

You're waffling.
Post by Andre Lieven
My values sometimes do cost me something. But, if they never
did, would they be values, or mere rationalisations ?
Come now. Your primary concern (rightly so) is the impact of
joblessness
on the local economy. Focus on that rather than going for
red-herrings when
I bring up the point that cheaper products do provide a benefit.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
You can then use the 9 bucks you saved to buy other Canadian products,
well, such as bacon and beer. :-) You get the idea. Is it a good idea
to keep "jobs" home if those jobs are not being done well? Ultimately,
it all boils down to whether the product is worth it.
No, thats one data point. There are others, like, does a people
want to have some say over their nation's economy ?
So don't buy crappy, slave-labor made, products! Done!

It's one data point, but it's a pretty big data point: cost is the
first thing
people look at in buying something especially if it's a generic
commodity.
You pay for oil and probably don't think much about where it came
from.

The greatest concern with outsourcing in recent years has been
precisely
with products made by well qualified software engineers who aren't
being slave driven but rather living quite well.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Society
Oh and don't overlook the corporate crimes
that took place during clinton's party years
and were uncovered on Bush watch.
Yet, the crimes continue... so the current Bush
watch has done no better than Clinton's...
Agreed. Note a lot of this is due to the fact that America HAS
a decent economy for all this kind of stuff to happen in the private
sector. In most other commie/socialist nations, the government
doesn't even bother reporting it. That's how it's SUPPOSED to work.
Yet, we know that corporate looting in the fUSSR has far surpassed
anything that was done there, prior to.
Don't forget Western Europe (soon to be renamed New Algeria and
Turkey)
Post by Andre Lieven
Well, the private sector seems to be best at dismantling nations...
Once again, come now. Without the private sector, there isn't anyone
to pay enough taxes to make all those fantasy free handouts work
effectively to begin with! :-)
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Society
Post by Andre Lieven
Clinton wasn't the Devil. Neither was either Bush. OK ?
OK.
Thats my point, really. Lets move away from demonising
either side, by either it's persons, or it's being an
opposition to the other, and consider that neither
party, or side of the ideological divide is wholly
correct.
This is moderate wussying. Hitler built bridges too and kept
the trains running on time. He did recover the economy
of his country (granted, until he ran it broke and had to start
his war of conquest early, thank heavens.)
OK: Godwin's Law. Argument over, you lose.
If you want to run for the exit, go right ahead. But you aren't
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Clinton and his ilk are dehumanizing socialists whose goal
is to destroy two parent families in order to create a single mother
welfare class dependant upon socialist voters. Fortunately,
he apparently was concerned more about his political survival
than his agenda. But that hardly makes him a nice guy.
Ah, but I never suggested that he, or anyone else in office,
was a " nice guy ".
I would rather break Godwin's law than being obtuse as you appear
to be. Really, Andre, if you make such wuss
arguments than I say America ought to invade Canada again.
This time, we'd beat the pants off of you for sure! :-)

(But we really ought to wait until we get done with other business
first :-)

Paying more for healthcare isn't that much a big deal compared to the
possibility of further empowering a marxist, anti-western, anti-male
state. Address that point please.
Post by Andre Lieven
Consider: Using percentages, we can say that there are 100
( Well, 101, from 0 to 100 ) levels of " nice/not nice ", and
" effective/not ".
One can be on the " effective " side of that measure, and
still, as a person, be over to the " not nice " side of
that measure.
But, who cares ? I don't care if my leaders are " nice ",
I prefer them to be " effective ", in doing things like not
getting the next two generations in hock for what they did.
I don't want to break Godwin's law again, but do you just realize
the ticket you gave politicians? Do you want leaders who
are simply effective? Effectively anti-male? Effectively
out to disempower the individual?

It's interesting you should make that argument because I think the
current success of the American system is that it's not effective
for both sides. Do you think a left winger that gets elected on
slushing
money to it's constituencies wants the problems that drive their
voters to the polls to be solved? On the contrary: The worse the
problems
get, the more they can count on the slobs to run for their carrot.

Or to put it this way: National healthcare in the states would work as
well
as national education.

And that's a good thing. The US will provide leadership to end this
marxist
anti-male plague just as it ended the cold war.
Post by Andre Lieven
Our debt's dropping. Hows yours ?
Honestly, I see it dropping in about 2 years and then it will kick in
again
as social security goes bankrupt (thanks to a previous "efficient"
politician,
FDR)

And Bush will get all that credit for the next 4 years. Already, the
stock market
is rallying and job growth is through the roof.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
So, speaking for myself, for instance, I can support,
here in Canada, public medicine, which to my view,
works for us very well, indeed. Yet, at the same
time, I oppose gay " marriage ", and, as I'd tried to
point out on another newsgroup, when it was claimed that
such opponents had to be religiously based in their
opposition, that my opposition is wholly secular.
I think at one point in time, national education in the states worked
as well. Then, as the teachers unions kicked in and were protected
by the government (and could set prices the taxpayers HAD to pay),
it degenerated into a big mess. Now, trying to eliminate government
control of education is impossible.
Well, the schools here do rather well. So, maybe your public
system is " nice ", but " not effective ".
It's neither for the reasons I mentioned at the beginning of this
post.
Post by Andre Lieven
BTW, " free enterprise " sucked from Oct 1929, for a decade.
Did you just junk it ?
You forgot about socialism kicking in two years later. FDR got out of
it by going to war. Who says that war is a bad thing?
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Sure, the government CAN do a job effectively, but does that mean
you want to put your trust in it?
Far more so, than Ken Lay/Enron or HMOs..
Ok then. Whose asking you to?

Seriously Andre. You notice how I respectfully declined to criticize
Canadian politics.
Not just out of ignorance, but simply out of recognition that the
countries have
different issues to address.

If you don't like Enron or HMO's or our foreign policy, then don't
live here.
It's as simple as that. Ok, I am going to be a bit rude for a moment:
We're talking about all these things about the US because the US is a
leader.
Not just in Enron and HMO's and starting wars in Iraq, but the
Internet,
standing up to the USSR, and the pharmaceuticals industry (off the top
of my head.) That makes us a target for criticism. Guess why!
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
How about this: Let's have
the government control all media including music and films.
After all, they do such a great job with healthcare surely
they can manage that too?
Naw. Whats the up side ? I can see the up side for our
health care, over yours. Everyone covered, and with less
cost to the nation ( 10% GDP in Canada, V/ 15% GDP for
HMO-Land... ).
Even if what you were saying was true, Andre, there is a fundamental
reason I oppose it: It's too much power in the hands of a government
that doesn't yet recognize individual rights (specifically mine) as I
think
it should.

You are willing to hand over your freedom to people who aren't
"nice" but, for the present, are "efficient". I wouldn't. On the
contrary,
the last thing I want is a non-nice, efficient person to have power
over me.
You come across as a whore.
Post by Andre Lieven
Oh, and we do have some gov't oversight over what qualifies
as Canadian content. It created a Canadian recording industry,
and much of what came/comes from that, is heard the world
over now. Their voices just needed... some room.
Yeah, room to move here and make their careers. :-)
Hey, I love John Candy and Mike Meyers!

Then again, our private entertainment industry is so marxist that the
government
could hardly do a worse job. But that is thankfully changing.
Post by Andre Lieven
Seems theres more than one way to get more good product.
The point, Mark, is that there is more than one way to
get things done, and what works, to some degree, for some,
though not all, in the US, is not necessarily the best
way for other lands, and peoples.
Agreed. But the reverse applies as well: What works in Canada (or
appears to)
wouldn't necessarily work here.
Post by Andre Lieven
If you can find a copy of it, read Peter Gzowski's " The
Private Voice ". The essay dated from Canadian Thanksgiving
speaks well, and better than I've ever been able to say it,
to this point, and to the difference in how we, up here, see
these things. Its not that either is wrong, rather, its that
there is more than one way to get to whats right.
John Ralston Saul's " Reflections On A Siamese Twin ", is
also good about this.
I find it condescending and cowardly when someone refers to a reading
list in leau
of completing their argument. Tell you what: When you have read
these works well enough to make the points they raise on your own,
then
you'll have an intellectual right to cite them.

At the risk of violating Godwin's law (noting that the law referred to
using references to Hitler as an emotional ploy rather than in context
such as a discussion of WWII), I suggest you read Mein Kampf. It's
not
all that long and it's incredible how his philosophy of government
really isn't that far out of step with many modern socialists.

regards,
Mark Sobolewski
Andre Lieven
2004-11-08 17:11:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Hello Andre,
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
For instance, the current Republicans want to *spend
without actually paying for it*.
Let's discuss this claim.
You have a point, but note that the Democrats aren't much different.
This isn't an issue of party uber alles. Its a matter of,
who was President, and who was in Congress, when the government
spent no more than they took in, say, in 1999-2001.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Every dollar they get to "pay" for something would only inspire
them to spend it (and possibly more) immediately.
" Coulda, woulda, shoulda. "
Mark, who was President and who was in Congress, when the budget
was in surplus ?
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Yes, it's
an awful situation, but deficit spending is still better than
blowing twice as much money that's "paid" for.
Tell that to Visa...
Post by Mark Sobolewski
(I'm reminded of a Married with Children
episode where Al got his retirement funds and his wife
insisted upon holding onto them to hide them from creditors
and she blew it all on the home shopping network.)
OK. Who was President when the US budget was in surplus,
again ?
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Society
Terrible that clinton can't honestly get credit
for "a balanced budget" (if Social Security
liabilities are omitted) or "a shrinking debt". ;-)
Well, Preseidents get the credit, and the debit.
It comes with the job, *either way*...
Indeed. Reagan won the cold war after all. :-)
Hey: When did you become Richie Soyack ?
Truman-Bush I, plus Churchill-Thatcher, plus a host
of others " won " the Cold War.
Who was in office when the cold war ended?
GW Bush. Does that mean that " Truman won WW2 " ? After all,
" who was in office when WW2 ended ? "

The point remains, that these are more complex issues that
transcend any one man.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
We could just as easily argue that Chamberlain deserves as much
credit as Churchill for winning WWII (appeasement was part
of his strategy, you see :-)
So was rebuilding much of the UK's armed forces, with which his
successor then fought the war...
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Your positions sound very selective, pardon me for saying so.
Not really: I'm looking at big pictures.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Even to fools who view taxation as theft, this is a
felonious higher level of theft.
As I said, that depends upon how you look at it. Do you really
want to have your pocket picked MORE but thank heavens
it's not being assigned to credit?
Well, I don't agree with a view that sees taxes as being
" picked ".
Stuff costs. In both the private and public sectors...
This sounds like an argument of obfuscation. Sure, stuff "costs"
but then why debate such issues as credit or efficiency in paying
for healthcare?
Because any service provider can be properly measured in those
terms, *among others*...
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Stop waffling, Kerry! :-)
Non sequitur. I'm merely... being consistant. No waffles there.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Ironically, the "deficit spending is evil" mantra does help in the
long run by making people worry about increased spending because
it can't be "paid" for. The fact is that there never will be enough
money in the American treasury for all the things the different
national daycare
national healthcare
national education
universities (also known as commie indoctrination camps)
new roads
druggie welfare senior citizens
You get the idea. There simply isn't enough money to "pay for" all of that!
Well, we socialists here in Canada have most of that, a budget
surplus, a healthy and growing economy, with a higher proportional
job growth rate than the US, a positive balance of trade, and so
on.
Now, if you let your patricians loot the US Treasury, for the benefit
of the uberrich, then yes, there won't be " enough " money.
You probably also spend a lot less on national defense than the US
does. :-)
Sure: We don't need a nuclear deterrent. And, we don't engage in
empire building.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
I have told you that I honestly don't know enough about Canada to feel
comfortable to make negative statements about it. What I think I do
know is that what works (or appears to work) in Canada wouldn't apply
to the US
for a variety of reasons including (and correct me if I'm wrong)
1) Lower immigration and ethnic tensions than exist in the states.
Wrong. Canada has a *higher rate* of immigration, on a proportional
basis. Our population is around 32,000,000 right now, and we have
about 250,000 immigrants, per year, coming in. Oh, US immigration
into Canada is on the upswing...

But, racial tensions here are lower, yes.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
2) I don't know about Canada in this case, but Europe supposedly just
outright
"steals" US pharmaceuticals patents by threatening to license them if
the companies don't fix prices.
Since the gov't buys in *bulk*, it negotiates bulk buying prices.

Thats called using multinational corp. standards back at 'em.

" Turn about is fair play ".
Post by Mark Sobolewski
3) The US has been in a recession. It's coming out of it. We'll see
how much longer Canada's "higher proportional job growth rate" lasts.
Its doing pretty well, over the last five years...

And our dollar, which was at 62.5 cents US, almost two years ago,
is now closing in on 84 cents. That speaks to the *confidence* of
the world *marketplace* in Canada, and a lower rate of same wrt
the US...

So, Mark, the *marketplace* is speaking, and it's saying that not
everything going on within the US is *as good* as whats going on
in Canada.

" You're a liberated woman. Learn to *lose*. " Danny DeVito,
" Other People's Money ".
Post by Mark Sobolewski
When you talk about looting the treasury, that's a perfect argument to
be made
for NOT nationalizing health care in this country. The educational
and university
system is a mess. The healthcare system wouldn't control costs but
would instead
see them leap out of control as the doctor's union insisted upon new
bond measures
to pay their salaries whether Americans used their health care or not.
Well, do it our way, and that doesn't happen.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
In other words, Andre, I'm not taking this opportunity to bash Canada.
I'm merely
saying that what works for Canada simply wouldn't do the same here.
Fair enough?
Maybe: Have you ever *tried* ?
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
But, not because there never was enough money...
Oh, I'll kind of agree with you there. The US has a LOT of money
(real or not :-)
The problem is that the same forces that currently allow it to be
wasted would
only waste it that much faster if the government became larger.
That, Mark, is an article of *faith*.

" Show me the money ! " Jerry McGuire.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
BTW, Mondale opposed NASA for about the same reasons you just
listed... Yet, Armstrong walked on the Moon, anyway. Turned
out there was " enough " money... :-)
Come now. You know that a mission with a clear, single objective is
far different than a managerial one.
Yet, management was involved, without which, it would have failed.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Once again, you kind of prove my point for me: After the moon landing,
NASA languished
because it didn't have any specific clear purpose. The space shuttle
was a boondoggle
and it's private companies that are now picking up the slack. Thank
you!
Um... Tell me that when they orbit something. As has been elequently
discussed on sci.space.history, the issues of ballistic sub-orbital
flight, and orbital flight are so different, that doing the smaller
one doesn't prove that you can do the larger one for under several
*billion* more...
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Oh, how many times has Canada landed on the moon?
Lets see: 12 guys got to the Moon, 32,000,000 Canadians have health
care...
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Certainly not enough if "some guy behind the tree" is supposed to get the bill.
Kerry said he was only going to tax people above 200K and I think
everyone knew he was BSing and would say on day 1 "Oh, I guess
that's not possible. OK, we now need an 80% tax rate."
Well, all those numbers sound like BS to me...
The first one was Kerry's. :-)
So ? One hardly wants to overtax the poor; they don't have money.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Let's discuss that: What do you think of trying to "pay for" things
with someone else's money? How about a tax to pay for it all
for guys named Andre? (No name changes allowed! that's tax
evasion!)
Naw. Thats, like, ya know... discrimination.
Sure. "Positive" discrimination. :-) All the judges named Bruce will
agree that it's not "bad" discrimination.
Waffle.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Seriously, the left sold these tax increases as for "the rich" when
the reality is they create loopholes for themselves anyway (Therea
Heinz had an effective 12% tax rate.)
How is she a " leftist " ?
Interesting enough, at the time she married the ketchup heir, she
wasn't.
Somehow, she turned into a total wacko marxist.
In what way ? It's common to try, and succeed, in demonising
political opponents by slinging the word " liberal " at them.

I'm interested in what *substance* there is for such a claim.
I asked, and you offered... AbZero. I can make a reasonable
conclusion from that... That the claim is baseless.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Society
Plus one can arguably claim that the costs of
coping with the injuries to the US economy
from the dot.com bust plus 9/11 and its
aftermath belong squarely on the clinton side
of the ledger -- just as honest business
accounting treats deferred maintenance
expenses.
Yet, they're hardly the worst factors in jobs
being shipped overseas ( See " Exporting
America ", by CNN host Lou Dobbs, who also has
a very good record with space advocacy ),
or in a fedeeal gov't spending what they refuse
to raise...
I don't buy this zero sum game. Would you really rather pay,
say, 10 bucks for Canadian made underwear than 1 dollar made
in China?
I often pay more, for a better product.
But what if it's not or it doesn't matter?
<shrug>
Post by Mark Sobolewski
If consumers want cheap underwear why is that a bad thing?
If it means that one's economy goes down the crapper, then
that is a bad thing.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Are they going to pass them down to their children or something?
Well, they will, with their earned riches...
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Regardless, you've missed the point: outsourcing doesn't necessarily
result in inferior products which is precisely what makes it so
dangerous.
No, it just results in looted economies. Its quite reasonable for
a People to say, via their government ( When it's not in the
pockets of the uberrich, that is ), that " you wanna make money
here ? You're gonna spend some here, too. "
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
And, I don't need
the last drams of " price drops " at WalMart, due to the stuff
being made by 12 year old Vietnamese, or prisoners in China.
This is a legitimate moral argument, but it doesn't necessarily apply
to all
outsourcing. Sometimes, people in other countries are simply willing
to work for less because the cost of living is lower there.
Cite ? Uh huh...
Post by Mark Sobolewski
You're waffling.
<Projection> No proof offered ? Claim fails.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
My values sometimes do cost me something. But, if they never
did, would they be values, or mere rationalisations ?
Come now. Your primary concern (rightly so) is the impact of
joblessness on the local economy. Focus on that rather than going for
red-herrings when
I bring up the point that cheaper products do provide a benefit.
A one dollar " benefit " when you lose thousands is not a Good Thing...

That was your waffle, BTW. As I said, I'm looking at the big picture,
in spite of attempts to drop into the peripheral and irrelevent.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
You can then use the 9 bucks you saved to buy other Canadian products,
well, such as bacon and beer. :-) You get the idea. Is it a good idea
to keep "jobs" home if those jobs are not being done well? Ultimately,
it all boils down to whether the product is worth it.
No, thats one data point. There are others, like, does a people
want to have some say over their nation's economy ?
So don't buy crappy, slave-labor made, products! Done!
So, label them as such. Done !

Is is informed public a bad idea ? Why ?
Post by Mark Sobolewski
It's one data point, but it's a pretty big data point: cost is the
first thing
people look at in buying something especially if it's a generic
commodity.
Yet, not the *only* thing...
Post by Mark Sobolewski
You pay for oil and probably don't think much about where it came
from.
Sure I do. It comes from Alberta.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
The greatest concern with outsourcing in recent years has been
precisely
with products made by well qualified software engineers who aren't
being slave driven but rather living quite well.
In very dis-similar economies. Thats where " free trade " fails.

Oh, on that point: Why is it that the US likes " free trade "
*until* someone else does a thng better ? See " softwood
lumber "...

So, even your own nation doesn't believe in what you're saying...
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Society
Oh and don't overlook the corporate crimes
that took place during clinton's party years
and were uncovered on Bush watch.
Yet, the crimes continue... so the current Bush
watch has done no better than Clinton's...
Agreed. Note a lot of this is due to the fact that America HAS
a decent economy for all this kind of stuff to happen in the private
sector. In most other commie/socialist nations, the government
doesn't even bother reporting it. That's how it's SUPPOSED to work.
Yet, we know that corporate looting in the fUSSR has far surpassed
anything that was done there, prior to.
Don't forget Western Europe (soon to be renamed New Algeria and
Turkey)
One word: Enron...
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Well, the private sector seems to be best at dismantling nations...
Once again, come now. Without the private sector, there isn't anyone
to pay enough taxes to make all those fantasy free handouts work
effectively to begin with! :-)
Not when it isn't given... *limits*. We call those: laws.

Wanna revisit untrammeled capitalism ? We call that " The Great
Depression "...
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Society
Post by Andre Lieven
Clinton wasn't the Devil. Neither was either Bush. OK ?
OK.
Thats my point, really. Lets move away from demonising
either side, by either it's persons, or it's being an
opposition to the other, and consider that neither
party, or side of the ideological divide is wholly
correct.
This is moderate wussying. Hitler built bridges too and kept
the trains running on time. He did recover the economy
of his country (granted, until he ran it broke and had to start
his war of conquest early, thank heavens.)
OK: Godwin's Law. Argument over, you lose.
If you want to run for the exit, go right ahead. But you aren't
Just pointing out *your* having stepped over the line... While
I stuck to the issues.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Clinton and his ilk are dehumanizing socialists whose goal
is to destroy two parent families in order to create a single mother
welfare class dependant upon socialist voters. Fortunately,
he apparently was concerned more about his political survival
than his agenda. But that hardly makes him a nice guy.
Ah, but I never suggested that he, or anyone else in office,
was a " nice guy ".
I would rather break Godwin's law than being obtuse as you appear
to be. Really, Andre, if you make such wuss
arguments than I say America ought to invade Canada again.
<shrug> " There you go again "...

MS-ing my point... Or, avoiding it. <shrug>
Post by Mark Sobolewski
This time, we'd beat the pants off of you for sure! :-)
Well, you're 0 for 3, so far. I'm good with that record. <g>
Post by Mark Sobolewski
(But we really ought to wait until we get done with other business
first :-)
That means, we're safe, forever ! Yay !
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Paying more for healthcare isn't that much a big deal compared to the
possibility of further empowering a marxist, anti-western, anti-male
state. Address that point please.
Proof that Canada is " marxist " ? None offered ? Claim fails.

Done.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Consider: Using percentages, we can say that there are 100
( Well, 101, from 0 to 100 ) levels of " nice/not nice ", and
" effective/not ".
One can be on the " effective " side of that measure, and
still, as a person, be over to the " not nice " side of
that measure.
But, who cares ? I don't care if my leaders are " nice ",
I prefer them to be " effective ", in doing things like not
getting the next two generations in hock for what they did.
I don't want to break Godwin's law again, but do you just realize
the ticket you gave politicians? Do you want leaders who
are simply effective? Effectively anti-male? Effectively
out to disempower the individual?
Sigh. I would have thought that you understood that, my record
on issues of men's rights being reasonably clear, I was speaking
of doing reasonable and good things.

BTW, which of our two nations has " The Patriot Act " again ?

We name our laws a bit less... jingoistically... It lets people
oppose them without being deemed " anti-Canadian ".
Post by Mark Sobolewski
It's interesting you should make that argument because I think the
current success of the American system is that it's not effective
for both sides. Do you think a left winger that gets elected on
slushing
money to it's constituencies wants the problems that drive their
voters to the polls to be solved? On the contrary: The worse the
problems
get, the more they can count on the slobs to run for their carrot.
Again, thats rather simplistic, and jingoistic. Because it denies
that anyone can want to do Good, in the process, yet you ASSume
that the private sector will do Good, in it's process.

That, Mark, is being a True Believer. The truth of the *facts*
behind the belief become irrelevent to such people.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Or to put it this way: National healthcare in the states would work as
well as national education.
And, thats an article of... faith. Is public military force raising
working better than private such ? So much for claims, then, that
the public sector cannot do anything right...
Post by Mark Sobolewski
And that's a good thing. The US will provide leadership to end this
marxist anti-male plague just as it ended the cold war.
<shrug> Faith, again. Others do disagree. Canada, for one. We'll
do it our way, thank you very much, and too bad if you don't like
what that means. Including on seeing how you do things... more
poorly, due to that Faith.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Our debt's dropping. Hows yours ?
Honestly, I see it dropping in about 2 years and then it will kick in
again as social security goes bankrupt (thanks to a previous "efficient"
politician, FDR)
Well, you're alone in that faith based belief. The economic trend
lines are all going the other way. Thats *one reason* the Cdn $ is
climbing so dramatically.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
And Bush will get all that credit for the next 4 years. Already, the
stock market is rallying and job growth is through the roof.
Not according to the papers I'm reading...

BTW, is Iraq " pacified " yet ? Snarf.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
So, speaking for myself, for instance, I can support,
here in Canada, public medicine, which to my view,
works for us very well, indeed. Yet, at the same
time, I oppose gay " marriage ", and, as I'd tried to
point out on another newsgroup, when it was claimed that
such opponents had to be religiously based in their
opposition, that my opposition is wholly secular.
I think at one point in time, national education in the states worked
as well. Then, as the teachers unions kicked in and were protected
by the government (and could set prices the taxpayers HAD to pay),
it degenerated into a big mess. Now, trying to eliminate government
control of education is impossible.
Well, the schools here do rather well. So, maybe your public
system is " nice ", but " not effective ".
It's neither for the reasons I mentioned at the beginning of this
post.
Yet, you admit that you don't know much about Canada, so you make
such a claim ? Cites, please.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
BTW, " free enterprise " sucked from Oct 1929, for a decade.
Did you just junk it ?
You forgot about socialism kicking in two years later. FDR got out of
it by going to war. Who says that war is a bad thing?
Well, that " socialism " bought ships that won the Battle of Midway...

See how the Yorktown and Enterprise got ordered, funded, and built...
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Sure, the government CAN do a job effectively, but does that mean
you want to put your trust in it?
Far more so, than Ken Lay/Enron or HMOs..
Ok then. Whose asking you to?
Youse all.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Seriously Andre. You notice how I respectfully declined to criticize
Canadian politics.
Sure, because you admit that you don't know much about it. That isn't
a situation I share, wrt US politics. Our news media cover, well,
more than lifestyle pieces...
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Not just out of ignorance, but simply out of recognition that the
countries have different issues to address.
OK.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
If you don't like Enron or HMO's or our foreign policy, then don't
live here.
Then, don't tell us what to do, either.

But, given the number of times that the US has *violated* NAFTA
with Canada, that suggests that the word of the US is also in
deficit...
Post by Mark Sobolewski
We're talking about all these things about the US because the US is a
leader.
Size isn't competance...
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Not just in Enron and HMO's and starting wars in Iraq, but the Internet,
standing up to the USSR, and the pharmaceuticals industry (off the top
of my head.) That makes us a target for criticism. Guess why!
See above.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
How about this: Let's have
the government control all media including music and films.
After all, they do such a great job with healthcare surely
they can manage that too?
Naw. Whats the up side ? I can see the up side for our
health care, over yours. Everyone covered, and with less
cost to the nation ( 10% GDP in Canada, V/ 15% GDP for
HMO-Land... ).
Even if what you were saying was true, Andre, there is a fundamental
reason I oppose it: It's too much power in the hands of a government
that doesn't yet recognize individual rights (specifically mine) as I
think it should.
But, you would rather place such powers into *private* hands.

Yes, as I said: Thats an article of Faith.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
You are willing to hand over your freedom to people who aren't
"nice" but, for the present, are "efficient". I wouldn't.
Wrong. You wnat precisely that, by vesting all that in " the
private sector ".
Post by Mark Sobolewski
On the contrary,
the last thing I want is a non-nice, efficient person to have power
over me.
<laughs> Thats *exactly* what you do have, Mark. The power of
untrammeled, and un-demanded-to-be-responsible corporations.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
You come across as a whore.
Only to one who won't/can't see that there are legitimate opposing
points of view...
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Oh, and we do have some gov't oversight over what qualifies
as Canadian content. It created a Canadian recording industry,
and much of what came/comes from that, is heard the world
over now. Their voices just needed... some room.
Yeah, room to move here and make their careers. :-)
Hey, I love John Candy and Mike Meyers!
Sure, they'll take your money.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Then again, our private entertainment industry is so marxist that the
government
could hardly do a worse job. But that is thankfully changing.
I have no idea what you speak of. Shows that fail to get audiences
disappear, and ones that do, stay. Thats hardly " marxist ".
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Seems theres more than one way to get more good product.
The point, Mark, is that there is more than one way to
get things done, and what works, to some degree, for some,
though not all, in the US, is not necessarily the best
way for other lands, and peoples.
Agreed. But the reverse applies as well: What works in Canada (or
appears to) wouldn't necessarily work here.
Well, we're back to Faith, again.

Where is it written that the US *cannot learn from anyone else* ?
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
If you can find a copy of it, read Peter Gzowski's " The
Private Voice ". The essay dated from Canadian Thanksgiving
speaks well, and better than I've ever been able to say it,
to this point, and to the difference in how we, up here, see
these things. Its not that either is wrong, rather, its that
there is more than one way to get to whats right.
John Ralston Saul's " Reflections On A Siamese Twin ", is
also good about this.
I find it condescending and cowardly when someone refers to a reading
list in leau of completing their argument.
<shrug> You admitted that you know little about Canada. I offered
those so that you could close the gap, some.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Tell you what: When you have read
these works well enough to make the points they raise on your own,
then you'll have an intellectual right to cite them.
Theres, frankly, NO way to summarise them in under 100 words. Thats
a BS " standard ".

One might as well demand that a doctor summarise their education
in a five minute speech...
Post by Mark Sobolewski
At the risk of violating Godwin's law (noting that the law referred to
using references to Hitler as an emotional ploy rather than in context
such as a discussion of WWII), I suggest you read Mein Kampf. It's
not all that long and it's incredible how his philosophy of government
really isn't that far out of step with many modern socialists.
Its also a matter of learning that he didn't keep to any of those
ideas, when he was in power.

When one starts to claim that a well known liar was speaking truths,
well, I don't know how to address that, other than to point out the
massive fallaciousness thats involved.

Oh, and I have read that book, thank you. In context, of course.

Because, I really want to learn things, and not just buy into
them on Faith. On *any* issue.

So, show me an empiracally measurable better way, and I'll listen.

But, empty claims, ones at *variance* with the economic facts of
today, well, thats not that.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.
Ben
2004-11-09 02:01:29 UTC
Permalink
(Snip)
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Ironically, the "deficit spending is evil" mantra does help in the
long run by making people worry about increased spending because
it can't be "paid" for. The fact is that there never will be enough
money in the American treasury for all the things the different
national daycare
national healthcare
national education
universities (also known as commie indoctrination camps)
new roads
druggie welfare senior citizens
You get the idea. There simply isn't enough money to "pay for" all of that!
Well, we socialists here in Canada have most of that, a budget
surplus, a healthy and growing economy, with a higher proportional
job growth rate than the US, a positive balance of trade, and so
on.
Economic tides ebb and flow, Andre, you know that. It wasn't all that
long ago that the Asian economies were burning along while the U.S.
had stalled. Doom and gloom forecasts, pundits insisting the West was
fading into the, well, west. A relatively short time later, things
turned around.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Now, if you let your patricians loot the US Treasury, for the benefit
of the uberrich, then yes, there won't be " enough " money.
You probably also spend a lot less on national defense than the US
does. :-)
Sure: We don't need a nuclear deterrent.
Of course not--you have us. In a bad neighborhood, the businesses and
houses closest to the police station enjoy peace and quiet.
Post by Andre Lieven
And, we don't engage in
empire building.
Neither do we. Tell me, just how many countries have we occupied and
kept in the last century?
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
I have told you that I honestly don't know enough about Canada to feel
comfortable to make negative statements about it. What I think I do
know is that what works (or appears to work) in Canada wouldn't apply
to the US
for a variety of reasons including (and correct me if I'm wrong)
1) Lower immigration and ethnic tensions than exist in the states.
Wrong. Canada has a *higher rate* of immigration, on a proportional
basis. Our population is around 32,000,000 right now, and we have
about 250,000 immigrants, per year, coming in. Oh, US immigration
into Canada is on the upswing...
And Montreal is a hotbed of terrorist cells.
Post by Andre Lieven
But, racial tensions here are lower, yes.
I'm sure the Inuu would agree. Or perhaps not.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
2) I don't know about Canada in this case, but Europe supposedly just
outright
"steals" US pharmaceuticals patents by threatening to license them if
the companies don't fix prices.
Since the gov't buys in *bulk*, it negotiates bulk buying prices.
Thats called using multinational corp. standards back at 'em.
" Turn about is fair play ".
Post by Mark Sobolewski
3) The US has been in a recession. It's coming out of it. We'll see
how much longer Canada's "higher proportional job growth rate" lasts.
Its doing pretty well, over the last five years...
And our dollar, which was at 62.5 cents US, almost two years ago,
is now closing in on 84 cents. That speaks to the *confidence* of
the world *marketplace* in Canada, and a lower rate of same wrt
the US...
The U.S economy took a huge whack a few years ago. Ebbs and flows.
Post by Andre Lieven
So, Mark, the *marketplace* is speaking, and it's saying that not
everything going on within the US is *as good* as whats going on
in Canada.
" You're a liberated woman. Learn to *lose*. " Danny DeVito,
" Other People's Money ".
Post by Mark Sobolewski
When you talk about looting the treasury, that's a perfect argument to
be made
for NOT nationalizing health care in this country. The educational
and university
system is a mess. The healthcare system wouldn't control costs but
would instead
see them leap out of control as the doctor's union insisted upon new
bond measures
to pay their salaries whether Americans used their health care or not.
Well, do it our way, and that doesn't happen.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
In other words, Andre, I'm not taking this opportunity to bash Canada.
I'm merely
saying that what works for Canada simply wouldn't do the same here.
Fair enough?
Maybe: Have you ever *tried* ?
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
But, not because there never was enough money...
Oh, I'll kind of agree with you there. The US has a LOT of money
(real or not :-)
The problem is that the same forces that currently allow it to be
wasted would
only waste it that much faster if the government became larger.
That, Mark, is an article of *faith*.
" Show me the money ! " Jerry McGuire.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
BTW, Mondale opposed NASA for about the same reasons you just
listed... Yet, Armstrong walked on the Moon, anyway. Turned
out there was " enough " money... :-)
Come now. You know that a mission with a clear, single objective is
far different than a managerial one.
Yet, management was involved, without which, it would have failed.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Once again, you kind of prove my point for me: After the moon landing,
NASA languished
because it didn't have any specific clear purpose. The space shuttle
was a boondoggle
and it's private companies that are now picking up the slack. Thank
you!
Um... Tell me that when they orbit something. As has been elequently
discussed on sci.space.history, the issues of ballistic sub-orbital
flight, and orbital flight are so different, that doing the smaller
one doesn't prove that you can do the larger one for under several
*billion* more...
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Oh, how many times has Canada landed on the moon?
Lets see: 12 guys got to the Moon, 32,000,000 Canadians have health
care...
I've not yet tried to copy a URL, but I'll try it here:

http://www.fcpp.org/pdf/10%20myths%20about%20medicare%20frontier%20backgrounder%2013%20.PDF

In case it doesn't make it, the link goes to the Frontier Center for
Public Policy, and speaks about the 10 myths of Canadian health care
(most of which you seem to be perpetuating). It's written by Bryan
Crowley.

And for what it's worth, any American (hell, just about anyone) can go
into a medical facility and get treatment (how much they'll be asked
to pay will depend on their personal circumstances). It's more
accurate to say that those Americans don't have health insurance.

Not that I really want to insert myself too much into this debate, but
you, Andre, are coming across as entirely too smug about the U.S.
comparing to Canada. Sorry, but there's too much available over the
'net to allow you to simply make assertions about Canada's perfection
while sniping at the U.S.

Mark Steyn talks about the "soft power" of Canada, how it's ultimately
too vulnerable to outside hostile forces, and how
bureaucrats/politicians in those types of societies are really little
more than poseurs. He goes so far as to say that Australia "now
fills Canada's vacated slot as the doughty third warrior of the
Anglosphere."

Now, none of this is to say "Canada bad, U.S. good". But it sounds
like you're saying the reverse, and it just ain't so.
Andre Lieven
2004-11-09 03:10:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben
(Snip)
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Ironically, the "deficit spending is evil" mantra does help in the
long run by making people worry about increased spending because
it can't be "paid" for. The fact is that there never will be enough
money in the American treasury for all the things the different
national daycare
national healthcare
national education
universities (also known as commie indoctrination camps)
new roads
druggie welfare senior citizens
You get the idea. There simply isn't enough money to "pay for" all of that!
Well, we socialists here in Canada have most of that, a budget
surplus, a healthy and growing economy, with a higher proportional
job growth rate than the US, a positive balance of trade, and so
on.
Economic tides ebb and flow, Andre, you know that. It wasn't all that
long ago that the Asian economies were burning along while the U.S.
had stalled. Doom and gloom forecasts, pundits insisting the West was
fading into the, well, west. A relatively short time later, things
turned around.
Well, what was one of the major reasons for the east's meltdown ?
Bad debts, carried off of the books.

Kinda like the last four US budget years...
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Now, if you let your patricians loot the US Treasury, for the benefit
of the uberrich, then yes, there won't be " enough " money.
You probably also spend a lot less on national defense than the US
does. :-)
Sure: We don't need a nuclear deterrent.
Of course not--you have us. In a bad neighborhood, the businesses and
houses closest to the police station enjoy peace and quiet.
Yet, we do the peacekeeping ops, to the point that literally every
infantryman in the Cdn Forces has been overseas in the last ten
years.

So, you're wrong. Try again, and *learn* what Canada does, before
you spout off ignorance..
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
And, we don't engage in empire building.
Neither do we.
ROTFLMAO ! Apparently, history is not your long suite..
Post by Ben
Tell me, just how many countries have we occupied and
kept in the last century?
Hmm.... The Phillipines, Cuba, Haiti ( Loads of times ), not to mention
bases in former foe nations of WW2... Oh, Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia,
also come to mind...

Lets not forget Panama... which, before the US stuck it's nose in,
so as to get a US controlled Canal, was a part of Columbia...

Amazing, how people don't know their own history...

Oh, Iraq, *now*, comes to mind, too.
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
I have told you that I honestly don't know enough about Canada to feel
comfortable to make negative statements about it. What I think I do
know is that what works (or appears to work) in Canada wouldn't apply
to the US
for a variety of reasons including (and correct me if I'm wrong)
1) Lower immigration and ethnic tensions than exist in the states.
Wrong. Canada has a *higher rate* of immigration, on a proportional
basis. Our population is around 32,000,000 right now, and we have
about 250,000 immigrants, per year, coming in. Oh, US immigration
into Canada is on the upswing...
And Montreal is a hotbed of terrorist cells.
<laughs> Yeah, just like there were WMDs in Iraq...

Try again., This time, offer evidence.

<laughs>
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
But, racial tensions here are lower, yes.
I'm sure the Inuu would agree. Or perhaps not.
<shrug> Where is Wounded Knee, again ?
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
2) I don't know about Canada in this case, but Europe supposedly just
outright
"steals" US pharmaceuticals patents by threatening to license them if
the companies don't fix prices.
Since the gov't buys in *bulk*, it negotiates bulk buying prices.
Thats called using multinational corp. standards back at 'em.
" Turn about is fair play ".
Post by Mark Sobolewski
3) The US has been in a recession. It's coming out of it. We'll see
how much longer Canada's "higher proportional job growth rate" lasts.
Its doing pretty well, over the last five years...
And our dollar, which was at 62.5 cents US, almost two years ago,
is now closing in on 84 cents. That speaks to the *confidence* of
the world *marketplace* in Canada, and a lower rate of same wrt
the US...
The U.S economy took a huge whack a few years ago. Ebbs and flows.
Yet, ours, not so much. Nice rebound, with the Cdn dollar closing
almost 2/3rds of the gap between it and the US $, as of 12/02.
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
So, Mark, the *marketplace* is speaking, and it's saying that not
everything going on within the US is *as good* as whats going on
in Canada.
" You're a liberated woman. Learn to *lose*. " Danny DeVito,
" Other People's Money ".
Post by Mark Sobolewski
When you talk about looting the treasury, that's a perfect argument to
be made
for NOT nationalizing health care in this country. The educational
and university
system is a mess. The healthcare system wouldn't control costs but
would instead
see them leap out of control as the doctor's union insisted upon new
bond measures
to pay their salaries whether Americans used their health care or not.
Well, do it our way, and that doesn't happen.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
In other words, Andre, I'm not taking this opportunity to bash Canada.
I'm merely
saying that what works for Canada simply wouldn't do the same here.
Fair enough?
Maybe: Have you ever *tried* ?
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
But, not because there never was enough money...
Oh, I'll kind of agree with you there. The US has a LOT of money
(real or not :-)
The problem is that the same forces that currently allow it to be
wasted would
only waste it that much faster if the government became larger.
That, Mark, is an article of *faith*.
" Show me the money ! " Jerry McGuire.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
BTW, Mondale opposed NASA for about the same reasons you just
listed... Yet, Armstrong walked on the Moon, anyway. Turned
out there was " enough " money... :-)
Come now. You know that a mission with a clear, single objective is
far different than a managerial one.
Yet, management was involved, without which, it would have failed.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Once again, you kind of prove my point for me: After the moon landing,
NASA languished
because it didn't have any specific clear purpose. The space shuttle
was a boondoggle
and it's private companies that are now picking up the slack. Thank
you!
Um... Tell me that when they orbit something. As has been elequently
discussed on sci.space.history, the issues of ballistic sub-orbital
flight, and orbital flight are so different, that doing the smaller
one doesn't prove that you can do the larger one for under several
*billion* more...
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Oh, how many times has Canada landed on the moon?
Lets see: 12 guys got to the Moon, 32,000,000 Canadians have health
care...
http://www.fcpp.org/pdf/10%20myths%20about%20medicare%20frontier%20backgrounder%2013%20.PDF
In case it doesn't make it, the link goes to the Frontier Center for
Public Policy, and speaks about the 10 myths of Canadian health care
(most of which you seem to be perpetuating). It's written by Bryan
Crowley.
Who is, who ?
Post by Ben
And for what it's worth, any American (hell, just about anyone) can go
into a medical facility and get treatment (how much they'll be asked
to pay will depend on their personal circumstances). It's more
accurate to say that those Americans don't have health insurance.
Yet, any Canadian can go into a medical facility and get treatment,
and NOT be asked to pay.
Post by Ben
Not that I really want to insert myself too much into this debate, but
you, Andre, are coming across as entirely too smug about the U.S.
comparing to Canada.
Yep: Thats because I've spent culmative years in... *both*.

Match my credentials, ace.
Post by Ben
Sorry, but there's too much available over the
'net to allow you to simply make assertions about Canada's perfection
while sniping at the U.S.
Non sequitur. Please quote where I referred to " perfection ".

That, rather is your gig, about the US. I'm just pointing out
that that Empress is also not well dressed...

Deal with it.
Post by Ben
Mark Steyn talks about the "soft power" of Canada, how it's ultimately
too vulnerable to outside hostile forces, and how
bureaucrats/politicians in those types of societies are really little
more than poseurs. He goes so far as to say that Australia "now
fills Canada's vacated slot as the doughty third warrior of the
Anglosphere."
Well, neocons spout their Pargbage all over.

And, that Canada didn't get into the muck and morass of Iraq, to
me, is a Good Thing.
Post by Ben
Now, none of this is to say "Canada bad, U.S. good". But it sounds
like you're saying the reverse, and it just ain't so.
I'm just pointing out that the True Believer view of " USA Great,
all others suck " ain't so.

Deal with it. We do.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.
Ben
2004-11-09 16:15:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Ben
(Snip)
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Ironically, the "deficit spending is evil" mantra does help in the
long run by making people worry about increased spending because
it can't be "paid" for. The fact is that there never will be enough
money in the American treasury for all the things the different
national daycare
national healthcare
national education
universities (also known as commie indoctrination camps)
new roads
druggie welfare senior citizens
You get the idea. There simply isn't enough money to "pay for" all of
that!
Well, we socialists here in Canada have most of that, a budget
surplus, a healthy and growing economy, with a higher proportional
job growth rate than the US, a positive balance of trade, and so
on.
Economic tides ebb and flow, Andre, you know that. It wasn't all that
long ago that the Asian economies were burning along while the U.S.
had stalled. Doom and gloom forecasts, pundits insisting the West was
fading into the, well, west. A relatively short time later, things
turned around.
Well, what was one of the major reasons for the east's meltdown ?
Bad debts, carried off of the books.
Kinda like the last four US budget years...
A downturn is not a meltdown. You do know the difference, correct?
The 5.2% unemployment rate that the left screamed was so high is
almost exactly the same as it was for Clinton's second election bid,
when the left was lauding how low it was.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Now, if you let your patricians loot the US Treasury, for the benefit
of the uberrich, then yes, there won't be " enough " money.
You probably also spend a lot less on national defense than the US
does. :-)
Sure: We don't need a nuclear deterrent.
Of course not--you have us. In a bad neighborhood, the businesses and
houses closest to the police station enjoy peace and quiet.
Yet, we do the peacekeeping ops, to the point that literally every
infantryman in the Cdn Forces has been overseas in the last ten
years.
So, you're wrong. Try again, and *learn* what Canada does, before
you spout off ignorance..
Which has what to do with nuclear deterrence? Try and stay on topic
before you begin sniffing your sleeve.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
And, we don't engage in empire building.
Neither do we.
ROTFLMAO ! Apparently, history is not your long suite..
Post by Ben
Tell me, just how many countries have we occupied and
kept in the last century?
Hmm.... The Phillipines, Cuba, Haiti ( Loads of times ), not to mention
bases in former foe nations of WW2... Oh, Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia,
also come to mind...
We kept them? And bases in a nation hardly constitute "empire
building".
Post by Andre Lieven
Lets not forget Panama... which, before the US stuck it's nose in,
so as to get a US controlled Canal, was a part of Columbia...
Hmmm...didn't we give it back?
Post by Andre Lieven
Amazing, how people don't know their own history...
Amazing how you can't comprehend what you read. I'm beginning to
think Soyack is right.
Post by Andre Lieven
Oh, Iraq, *now*, comes to mind, too.
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
I have told you that I honestly don't know enough about Canada to feel
comfortable to make negative statements about it. What I think I do
know is that what works (or appears to work) in Canada wouldn't apply
to the US
for a variety of reasons including (and correct me if I'm wrong)
1) Lower immigration and ethnic tensions than exist in the states.
Wrong. Canada has a *higher rate* of immigration, on a proportional
basis. Our population is around 32,000,000 right now, and we have
about 250,000 immigrants, per year, coming in. Oh, US immigration
into Canada is on the upswing...
And Montreal is a hotbed of terrorist cells.
<laughs> Yeah, just like there were WMDs in Iraq...
Try again., This time, offer evidence.
<laughs>
lol Do you read anything current at all?
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
But, racial tensions here are lower, yes.
I'm sure the Inuu would agree. Or perhaps not.
<shrug> Where is Wounded Knee, again ?
At least you're not denying it. :)
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
2) I don't know about Canada in this case, but Europe supposedly just
outright
"steals" US pharmaceuticals patents by threatening to license them if
the companies don't fix prices.
Since the gov't buys in *bulk*, it negotiates bulk buying prices.
Thats called using multinational corp. standards back at 'em.
" Turn about is fair play ".
Post by Mark Sobolewski
3) The US has been in a recession. It's coming out of it. We'll see
how much longer Canada's "higher proportional job growth rate" lasts.
Its doing pretty well, over the last five years...
And our dollar, which was at 62.5 cents US, almost two years ago,
is now closing in on 84 cents. That speaks to the *confidence* of
the world *marketplace* in Canada, and a lower rate of same wrt
the US...
The U.S economy took a huge whack a few years ago. Ebbs and flows.
Yet, ours, not so much. Nice rebound, with the Cdn dollar closing
almost 2/3rds of the gap between it and the US $, as of 12/02.
I'm sure you meant 11/02. And so what? Ebbs and flows. Personally,
I'm glad to see Canada doing better. My paternal grandparents are
from Quebec, and I still have lots of family there. I get up that way
whenever I can. Any economic upturn benefits them.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
So, Mark, the *marketplace* is speaking, and it's saying that not
everything going on within the US is *as good* as whats going on
in Canada.
" You're a liberated woman. Learn to *lose*. " Danny DeVito,
" Other People's Money ".
Post by Mark Sobolewski
When you talk about looting the treasury, that's a perfect argument to
be made
for NOT nationalizing health care in this country. The educational
and university
system is a mess. The healthcare system wouldn't control costs but
would instead
see them leap out of control as the doctor's union insisted upon new
bond measures
to pay their salaries whether Americans used their health care or not.
Well, do it our way, and that doesn't happen.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
In other words, Andre, I'm not taking this opportunity to bash Canada.
I'm merely
saying that what works for Canada simply wouldn't do the same here.
Fair enough?
Maybe: Have you ever *tried* ?
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
But, not because there never was enough money...
Oh, I'll kind of agree with you there. The US has a LOT of money
(real or not :-)
The problem is that the same forces that currently allow it to be
wasted would
only waste it that much faster if the government became larger.
That, Mark, is an article of *faith*.
" Show me the money ! " Jerry McGuire.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
BTW, Mondale opposed NASA for about the same reasons you just
listed... Yet, Armstrong walked on the Moon, anyway. Turned
out there was " enough " money... :-)
Come now. You know that a mission with a clear, single objective is
far different than a managerial one.
Yet, management was involved, without which, it would have failed.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Once again, you kind of prove my point for me: After the moon landing,
NASA languished
because it didn't have any specific clear purpose. The space shuttle
was a boondoggle
and it's private companies that are now picking up the slack. Thank
you!
Um... Tell me that when they orbit something. As has been elequently
discussed on sci.space.history, the issues of ballistic sub-orbital
flight, and orbital flight are so different, that doing the smaller
one doesn't prove that you can do the larger one for under several
*billion* more...
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Oh, how many times has Canada landed on the moon?
Lets see: 12 guys got to the Moon, 32,000,000 Canadians have health
care...
http://www.fcpp.org/pdf/10%20myths%20about%20medicare%20frontier%20backgrounder%2013%20.PDF
In case it doesn't make it, the link goes to the Frontier Center for
Public Policy, and speaks about the 10 myths of Canadian health care
(most of which you seem to be perpetuating). It's written by Bryan
Crowley.
Who is, who ?
Um, an analyst for the Frontier Center. That would be in Canada.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Ben
And for what it's worth, any American (hell, just about anyone) can go
into a medical facility and get treatment (how much they'll be asked
to pay will depend on their personal circumstances). It's more
accurate to say that those Americans don't have health insurance.
Yet, any Canadian can go into a medical facility and get treatment,
and NOT be asked to pay.
If they can get *timely* treatment, and if they can get *competent*
treatment. You are aware, are you not, that many Canadians skip south
across the border to get better health care faster? Just out of
curiousity, how many Americans head north for their health care (Lasik
aside)?

Just asking, but could an illegal immigrant go into a Canadian health
care facility and get treatment?
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Ben
Not that I really want to insert myself too much into this debate, but
you, Andre, are coming across as entirely too smug about the U.S.
comparing to Canada.
Yep: Thats because I've spent culmative years in... *both*.
Match my credentials, ace.
What credentials? You lived somewhere? That tells me nothing.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Ben
Sorry, but there's too much available over the
'net to allow you to simply make assertions about Canada's perfection
while sniping at the U.S.
Non sequitur. Please quote where I referred to " perfection ".
lol Does that "non sequitor" shit actually work for you?
Post by Andre Lieven
That, rather is your gig, about the US. I'm just pointing out
that that Empress is also not well dressed...
Ohh, wait, is this where I whine "non sequitor" and ask you to point
out where I said the U.S. was perfect? lol
Post by Andre Lieven
Deal with it.
Post by Ben
Mark Steyn talks about the "soft power" of Canada, how it's ultimately
too vulnerable to outside hostile forces, and how
bureaucrats/politicians in those types of societies are really little
more than poseurs. He goes so far as to say that Australia "now
fills Canada's vacated slot as the doughty third warrior of the
Anglosphere."
Well, neocons spout their Pargbage all over.
Doesn't make him wrong, does it? :)
Post by Andre Lieven
And, that Canada didn't get into the muck and morass of Iraq, to
me, is a Good Thing.
And in Iran, where your Foreign Minister let Zahra Kazemi from
Montreal get beaten to death for doing nothing else except take
pictures and then agree with the Iranians that it was "probably an
accident"?
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Ben
Now, none of this is to say "Canada bad, U.S. good". But it sounds
like you're saying the reverse, and it just ain't so.
I'm just pointing out that the True Believer view of " USA Great,
all others suck " ain't so.
lol (Raising hand) Non-sequitor! Non-sequitor! Quote me where I
said that. lol You're too much sometimes. :)

Personally, Andre, I have nothing against Canada. I think Canadians
are great neighbors and fine people in general, and I'm proud of my
own Canadian heritage. I also think you guys do a lot of things
better than we do, and vice-versa. Which, as far as I can tell, is
quite a bit more open-minded that your position. I've got to wonder,
though, at the sheer vehemence of your response--extreme defensiveness
and all...
Mark Sobolewski
2004-11-09 22:56:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
And our dollar, which was at 62.5 cents US, almost two years ago,
is now closing in on 84 cents. That speaks to the *confidence* of
the world *marketplace* in Canada, and a lower rate of same wrt
the US...
The U.S economy took a huge whack a few years ago. Ebbs and flows.
Yet, ours, not so much. Nice rebound, with the Cdn dollar closing
almost 2/3rds of the gap between it and the US $, as of 12/02.
I'm sure you meant 11/02. And so what? Ebbs and flows. Personally,
I'm glad to see Canada doing better. My paternal grandparents are
from Quebec, and I still have lots of family there. I get up that way
whenever I can. Any economic upturn benefits them.
I find it amazing how Andre has to grasp at straws by citing the
strong Canadian dollar as something to brag about. ALL forms of
currency are up against the weaker US dollar by definition.
It's a classic example of Canadian inferiority complex.
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
Yet, any Canadian can go into a medical facility and get treatment,
and NOT be asked to pay.
If they can get *timely* treatment, and if they can get *competent*
treatment. You are aware, are you not, that many Canadians skip south
across the border to get better health care faster? Just out of
curiousity, how many Americans head north for their health care (Lasik
aside)?
Oooh! I am thinking about Lasik! Tell me, I have friends up there!
Is it really cheap or better somehow? Zap zap!

regards,
Mark Sobolewski
Ben
2004-11-10 03:16:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
And our dollar, which was at 62.5 cents US, almost two years ago,
is now closing in on 84 cents. That speaks to the *confidence* of
the world *marketplace* in Canada, and a lower rate of same wrt
the US...
The U.S economy took a huge whack a few years ago. Ebbs and flows.
Yet, ours, not so much. Nice rebound, with the Cdn dollar closing
almost 2/3rds of the gap between it and the US $, as of 12/02.
I'm sure you meant 11/02. And so what? Ebbs and flows. Personally,
I'm glad to see Canada doing better. My paternal grandparents are
from Quebec, and I still have lots of family there. I get up that way
whenever I can. Any economic upturn benefits them.
I find it amazing how Andre has to grasp at straws by citing the
strong Canadian dollar as something to brag about. ALL forms of
currency are up against the weaker US dollar by definition.
It's a classic example of Canadian inferiority complex.
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
Yet, any Canadian can go into a medical facility and get treatment,
and NOT be asked to pay.
If they can get *timely* treatment, and if they can get *competent*
treatment. You are aware, are you not, that many Canadians skip south
across the border to get better health care faster? Just out of
curiousity, how many Americans head north for their health care (Lasik
aside)?
Oooh! I am thinking about Lasik! Tell me, I have friends up there!
Is it really cheap or better somehow? Zap zap!
regards,
Mark Sobolewski
Hi Mark,

I have a couple of friends who both went to Canada for Lasik, one to
Montreal and one to Toronto. At the time (this was about six years
go), those two cities had a good rep for doing Lasik, and both my
friends have been happy with their surgeries.

I looked into Lasik myself last year and opted not to get it (for
chickenshit reasons, not because of the quality of the surgery), but
in doing the research, came to the conclusion that the locally
available facilities were doing excellent work. Personally, I
wouldn't hesitate to get it done in this country, but I'm close enough
to Canada that I know many people who go there. But, that's the
*only* procedure I myself am aware of that people will travel to
Canada for. At the time, it was cheaper--I don't know if that holds
true now.
Rich Soyack
2004-11-10 03:16:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
And our dollar, which was at 62.5 cents US, almost two years ago,
is now closing in on 84 cents. That speaks to the *confidence* of
the world *marketplace* in Canada, and a lower rate of same wrt
the US...
The U.S economy took a huge whack a few years ago. Ebbs and flows.
Yet, ours, not so much. Nice rebound, with the Cdn dollar closing
almost 2/3rds of the gap between it and the US $, as of 12/02.
I'm sure you meant 11/02. And so what? Ebbs and flows. Personally,
I'm glad to see Canada doing better. My paternal grandparents are
from Quebec, and I still have lots of family there. I get up that way
whenever I can. Any economic upturn benefits them.
I find it amazing how Andre has to grasp at straws by citing the
strong Canadian dollar as something to brag about. ALL forms of
currency are up against the weaker US dollar by definition.
It's a classic example of Canadian inferiority complex.
Andre, as I've show in the past, deal in the double standard. One standard
of proof for everyone else and another for Andre.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
Yet, any Canadian can go into a medical facility and get treatment,
and NOT be asked to pay.
If they can get *timely* treatment, and if they can get *competent*
treatment. You are aware, are you not, that many Canadians skip south
across the border to get better health care faster? Just out of
curiousity, how many Americans head north for their health care (Lasik
aside)?
If they want timely treatment they go across their souther border into
America.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Oooh! I am thinking about Lasik! Tell me, I have friends up there!
Is it really cheap or better somehow? Zap zap!
Rich Soyack
Andre Lieven
2004-11-10 04:22:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
And our dollar, which was at 62.5 cents US, almost two years ago,
is now closing in on 84 cents. That speaks to the *confidence* of
the world *marketplace* in Canada, and a lower rate of same wrt
the US...
The U.S economy took a huge whack a few years ago. Ebbs and flows.
Yet, ours, not so much. Nice rebound, with the Cdn dollar closing
almost 2/3rds of the gap between it and the US $, as of 12/02.
I'm sure you meant 11/02. And so what? Ebbs and flows. Personally,
I'm glad to see Canada doing better. My paternal grandparents are
from Quebec, and I still have lots of family there. I get up that way
whenever I can. Any economic upturn benefits them.
I find it amazing how Andre has to grasp at straws by citing the
strong Canadian dollar as something to brag about. ALL forms of
currency are up against the weaker US dollar by definition.
Indeed, and that was my point: That Canada is measurably doing better
than the US.

Lets recap: Which nation has a budget surplus, a positive balance
of trade, and a shrinking national debt ?

The " conservative, Republican " US, or the " socialist " Canada ?

<laughs>
Post by Mark Sobolewski
It's a classic example of Canadian inferiority complex.
Well, thats a thing that no one who has ever met me, has tried
to tag me with.

I'm a *proud* Canadian. Canada rocks.

And, when the rest of the commerical wotld say that our economy
is doing better, and by doing so, driving up our currency's
*value* ( For more on this, see the stock market. <g> ), well,
thats a good vote as to whihc place is doing... better.

I'm fine with that. :-)
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
Yet, any Canadian can go into a medical facility and get treatment,
and NOT be asked to pay.
If they can get *timely* treatment, and if they can get *competent*
treatment. You are aware, are you not, that many Canadians skip south
across the border to get better health care faster? Just out of
curiousity, how many Americans head north for their health care (Lasik
aside)?
Oooh! I am thinking about Lasik! Tell me, I have friends up there!
Is it really cheap or better somehow? Zap zap!
Dunno. I don't use a lot of medicine. But, the last stuff I had done,
was, by any examples of same that I've seen in the US ( And, lets
not forget that my ex was from NY, and I was with her, often down
there, for six years, then another g/f was from NJ, ditto her for
2.5 years, and the present- and last, cause she's that good- is
also from there, worked in the Superior Court in Philly, and so
on... ) was amazingly easy. No paperwork for me to deal with at all,
no " co pays ", or any such nonsense, driving up costs, and so on.

Canadian Medicare rocks, too.

But, I am amused at USians upset by other people being as proud
of their nations, as the USians seem to hold that only they can
so be. More provincialism, from people who don't even have a
province. <laughs>

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.
Ben
2004-11-10 12:11:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
And our dollar, which was at 62.5 cents US, almost two years ago,
is now closing in on 84 cents. That speaks to the *confidence* of
the world *marketplace* in Canada, and a lower rate of same wrt
the US...
The U.S economy took a huge whack a few years ago. Ebbs and flows.
Yet, ours, not so much. Nice rebound, with the Cdn dollar closing
almost 2/3rds of the gap between it and the US $, as of 12/02.
I'm sure you meant 11/02. And so what? Ebbs and flows. Personally,
I'm glad to see Canada doing better. My paternal grandparents are
from Quebec, and I still have lots of family there. I get up that way
whenever I can. Any economic upturn benefits them.
I find it amazing how Andre has to grasp at straws by citing the
strong Canadian dollar as something to brag about. ALL forms of
currency are up against the weaker US dollar by definition.
Indeed, and that was my point: That Canada is measurably doing better
than the US.
For now, and superficially. In the long run, as has been demonstrated
repeatedly in the past, the Canadian economy is simply not as robust
as the US.
Post by Andre Lieven
Lets recap: Which nation has a budget surplus, a positive balance
of trade, and a shrinking national debt ?
Wait until your health care bubble bursts. :) And, as Ralph pointed
out, your government can no longer afford to carry so much dead
weight.
Post by Andre Lieven
The " conservative, Republican " US, or the " socialist " Canada ?
<laughs>
Post by Mark Sobolewski
It's a classic example of Canadian inferiority complex.
Well, thats a thing that no one who has ever met me, has tried
to tag me with.
No. In fact, it sounds like your particular problem is the reverse.
Post by Andre Lieven
I'm a *proud* Canadian. Canada rocks.
I've already said Canada is a fine country.
Post by Andre Lieven
And, when the rest of the commerical wotld say that our economy
is doing better, and by doing so, driving up our currency's
*value* ( For more on this, see the stock market. <g> ), well,
thats a good vote as to whihc place is doing... better.
And the Canadians voting with their feet and coming to America?
Post by Andre Lieven
I'm fine with that. :-)
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
Yet, any Canadian can go into a medical facility and get treatment,
and NOT be asked to pay.
If they can get *timely* treatment, and if they can get *competent*
treatment. You are aware, are you not, that many Canadians skip south
across the border to get better health care faster? Just out of
curiousity, how many Americans head north for their health care (Lasik
aside)?
Oooh! I am thinking about Lasik! Tell me, I have friends up there!
Is it really cheap or better somehow? Zap zap!
Dunno. I don't use a lot of medicine. But, the last stuff I had done,
was, by any examples of same that I've seen in the US ( And, lets
not forget that my ex was from NY, and I was with her, often down
there, for six years, then another g/f was from NJ, ditto her for
2.5 years, and the present- and last, cause she's that good- is
also from there, worked in the Superior Court in Philly, and so
on... ) was amazingly easy. No paperwork for me to deal with at all,
no " co pays ", or any such nonsense, driving up costs, and so on.
Canadian Medicare rocks, too.
And yet, you can get better health care, faster, by more competent
professionals, in the US.
Post by Andre Lieven
But, I am amused at USians upset by other people being as proud
of their nations, as the USians seem to hold that only they can
so be. More provincialism, from people who don't even have a
province. <laughs>
Andre
I dunno, Andre. You can't seem to comprehend that what you're really
experiencing is a reaction to your flagrant anti-US posturing.
Andre Lieven
2004-11-10 16:33:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
And our dollar, which was at 62.5 cents US, almost two years ago,
is now closing in on 84 cents. That speaks to the *confidence* of
the world *marketplace* in Canada, and a lower rate of same wrt
the US...
The U.S economy took a huge whack a few years ago. Ebbs and flows.
Yet, ours, not so much. Nice rebound, with the Cdn dollar closing
almost 2/3rds of the gap between it and the US $, as of 12/02.
I'm sure you meant 11/02. And so what? Ebbs and flows. Personally,
I'm glad to see Canada doing better. My paternal grandparents are
from Quebec, and I still have lots of family there. I get up that way
whenever I can. Any economic upturn benefits them.
I find it amazing how Andre has to grasp at straws by citing the
strong Canadian dollar as something to brag about. ALL forms of
currency are up against the weaker US dollar by definition.
Indeed, and that was my point: That Canada is measurably doing better
than the US.
For now, and superficially.
<laughs> Its always fun to see USians who cannot admit that they're
being outdone by another nation...

Some of the work for the US Commerce Dept, which continues to
illegally discriminate against Canadian softwood lumber products,
due to lobbying by US producers who cannot compete with the Cdn,
firms.

Bitter bois... <g>
Post by Ben
In the long run, as has been demonstrated
repeatedly in the past, the Canadian economy is simply not as robust
as the US.
Yeah, that would be why Canada repeatedly got placed Number One on
a UN list of the best nations to live in... Oh, and the US... didn't.
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
Lets recap: Which nation has a budget surplus, a positive balance
of trade, and a shrinking national debt ?
Wait until your health care bubble bursts. :) And, as Ralph pointed
out, your government can no longer afford to carry so much dead
weight.
<laughs> See " Social Security ".

Pot. Kettle. Deep black...
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
The " conservative, Republican " US, or the " socialist " Canada ?
<laughs>
Post by Mark Sobolewski
It's a classic example of Canadian inferiority complex.
Well, thats a thing that no one who has ever met me, has tried
to tag me with.
No. In fact, it sounds like your particular problem is the reverse.
<laughs> Yeah, to a US Firster, anyone from another nation suggesting
that their nation rocks, is a " problem "...
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
I'm a *proud* Canadian. Canada rocks.
I've already said Canada is a fine country.
Good.
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
And, when the rest of the commerical wotld say that our economy
is doing better, and by doing so, driving up our currency's
*value* ( For more on this, see the stock market. <g> ), well,
thats a good vote as to whihc place is doing... better.
And the Canadians voting with their feet and coming to America?
And the USians voting with their feet and coming to Canada ?

Works both ways, you know: Thats my point.
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
I'm fine with that. :-)
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
Yet, any Canadian can go into a medical facility and get treatment,
and NOT be asked to pay.
If they can get *timely* treatment, and if they can get *competent*
treatment. You are aware, are you not, that many Canadians skip south
across the border to get better health care faster? Just out of
curiousity, how many Americans head north for their health care (Lasik
aside)?
Oooh! I am thinking about Lasik! Tell me, I have friends up there!
Is it really cheap or better somehow? Zap zap!
Dunno. I don't use a lot of medicine. But, the last stuff I had done,
was, by any examples of same that I've seen in the US ( And, lets
not forget that my ex was from NY, and I was with her, often down
there, for six years, then another g/f was from NJ, ditto her for
2.5 years, and the present- and last, cause she's that good- is
also from there, worked in the Superior Court in Philly, and so
on... ) was amazingly easy. No paperwork for me to deal with at all,
no " co pays ", or any such nonsense, driving up costs, and so on.
Canadian Medicare rocks, too.
And yet, you can get better health care, faster, by more competent
professionals, in the US.
Nope. Nice try, though.
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
But, I am amused at USians upset by other people being as proud
of their nations, as the USians seem to hold that only they can
so be. More provincialism, from people who don't even have a
province. <laughs>
Andre
I dunno, Andre. You can't seem to comprehend that what you're really
experiencing is a reaction to your flagrant anti-US posturing.
ROTFLMAO ! Yeah, stating that, in my view, Canada Rocks, is " anti-
US posturing ".

So then, is stating that the US Rocks More, " anti-Canadian
posturing " ? If one were *consistant*, it would *have to be*...

Take that tree out from your eye, before you try to speak of the
slivers that might be in others'....

And, most Canadians prefer Canada over the US. Thats not being
" anti-US ", thats being pro Canada, which I should hope that
anyone living in any nation would be at least somewhat " pro "
their nation.

Or, is it your claim that ONLY USians can be " pro " their home
and native land ?

Well... that would be.... HYPOCRISY.... Yours, it appears.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.
Ben
2004-11-11 04:25:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
And our dollar, which was at 62.5 cents US, almost two years ago,
is now closing in on 84 cents. That speaks to the *confidence* of
the world *marketplace* in Canada, and a lower rate of same wrt
the US...
The U.S economy took a huge whack a few years ago. Ebbs and flows.
Yet, ours, not so much. Nice rebound, with the Cdn dollar closing
almost 2/3rds of the gap between it and the US $, as of 12/02.
I'm sure you meant 11/02. And so what? Ebbs and flows. Personally,
I'm glad to see Canada doing better. My paternal grandparents are
from Quebec, and I still have lots of family there. I get up that way
whenever I can. Any economic upturn benefits them.
I find it amazing how Andre has to grasp at straws by citing the
strong Canadian dollar as something to brag about. ALL forms of
currency are up against the weaker US dollar by definition.
Indeed, and that was my point: That Canada is measurably doing better
than the US.
For now, and superficially.
<laughs> Its always fun to see USians who cannot admit that they're
being outdone by another nation...
No, it's consistent with my stance that economies ebb and flow. You
know, the stance you couldn't comprehend a few posts back.
Post by Andre Lieven
Some of the work for the US Commerce Dept, which continues to
illegally discriminate against Canadian softwood lumber products,
due to lobbying by US producers who cannot compete with the Cdn,
firms.
Well, both countries are guilty of whining about the competitive
process.
Post by Andre Lieven
Bitter bois... <g>
Post by Ben
In the long run, as has been demonstrated
repeatedly in the past, the Canadian economy is simply not as robust
as the US.
Yeah, that would be why Canada repeatedly got placed Number One on
a UN list of the best nations to live in... Oh, and the US... didn't.
A U.N list. Oh, my, there's an authoritative source. lol So how
does the U.N. report explain the number of Canadians moving south
across the border if this is such a lousy country?
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
Lets recap: Which nation has a budget surplus, a positive balance
of trade, and a shrinking national debt ?
Wait until your health care bubble bursts. :) And, as Ralph pointed
out, your government can no longer afford to carry so much dead
weight.
<laughs> See " Social Security ".
Which isn't really an answer, is it?
Post by Andre Lieven
Pot. Kettle. Deep black...
Still doesn't appear to be an answer.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
The " conservative, Republican " US, or the " socialist " Canada ?
<laughs>
Post by Mark Sobolewski
It's a classic example of Canadian inferiority complex.
Well, thats a thing that no one who has ever met me, has tried
to tag me with.
No. In fact, it sounds like your particular problem is the reverse.
<laughs> Yeah, to a US Firster, anyone from another nation suggesting
that their nation rocks, is a " problem "...
Oh, goody, I get to do it again! Non-sequitor, non-sequitor! Prove
where I said that! lol (By the way, don't you ever get embarrassed
by the sheer prissiness of saying that?)

No, I don't have a problem with your pride in Canada. In fact, if I
for some reason had to live in another country of my choice, Canada is
one of four or five that I'd choose--as I've said, I still have lots
of family there.

No, *your* problem (not "*a* problem") is your (unfounded) superiority
complex. In a sense, you remind me very much of a feminist who is not
content with simply expounding on the good things about being a woman,
but also has to compare herself to men and put men beneath her.

How...feminist of you. lol
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
I'm a *proud* Canadian. Canada rocks.
I've already said Canada is a fine country.
Good.
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
And, when the rest of the commerical wotld say that our economy
is doing better, and by doing so, driving up our currency's
*value* ( For more on this, see the stock market. <g> ), well,
thats a good vote as to whihc place is doing... better.
And the Canadians voting with their feet and coming to America?
And the USians voting with their feet and coming to Canada ?
And the numbers and the reasons for both sides?
Post by Andre Lieven
Works both ways, you know: Thats my point.
You don't seem to have a point, Andre, so much as you have a diatribe.
That, by the way, would be MY point.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
I'm fine with that. :-)
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
Yet, any Canadian can go into a medical facility and get treatment,
and NOT be asked to pay.
If they can get *timely* treatment, and if they can get *competent*
treatment. You are aware, are you not, that many Canadians skip south
across the border to get better health care faster? Just out of
curiousity, how many Americans head north for their health care (Lasik
aside)?
Oooh! I am thinking about Lasik! Tell me, I have friends up there!
Is it really cheap or better somehow? Zap zap!
Dunno. I don't use a lot of medicine. But, the last stuff I had done,
was, by any examples of same that I've seen in the US ( And, lets
not forget that my ex was from NY, and I was with her, often down
there, for six years, then another g/f was from NJ, ditto her for
2.5 years, and the present- and last, cause she's that good- is
also from there, worked in the Superior Court in Philly, and so
on... ) was amazingly easy. No paperwork for me to deal with at all,
no " co pays ", or any such nonsense, driving up costs, and so on.
Canadian Medicare rocks, too.
And yet, you can get better health care, faster, by more competent
professionals, in the US.
Nope. Nice try, though.
Yep. Read some of the reports in your own country. I'm sure you can
find them, and I even gave you one earlier that you must have
"forgotten" to look at.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
But, I am amused at USians upset by other people being as proud
of their nations, as the USians seem to hold that only they can
so be. More provincialism, from people who don't even have a
province. <laughs>
Andre
I dunno, Andre. You can't seem to comprehend that what you're really
experiencing is a reaction to your flagrant anti-US posturing.
ROTFLMAO ! Yeah, stating that, in my view, Canada Rocks, is " anti-
US posturing ".
I was right, you have comprehension issues.
Post by Andre Lieven
So then, is stating that the US Rocks More, " anti-Canadian
posturing " ? If one were *consistant*, it would *have to be*...
lol Now you're starting to argue like a teenager.
Post by Andre Lieven
Take that tree out from your eye, before you try to speak of the
slivers that might be in others'....
I'll tell you what. If you can find anything I've written that
indicates I believe Canada is inferior to the U.S. across the board,
I'll cede this argument immediately.

And I never said you had a sliver, Andre, just socialist blinders.
Post by Andre Lieven
And, most Canadians prefer Canada over the US.
So what? I prefer the U.S. to Australia, but I could happily settle
in Australia if I needed to. I'm betting you can't for a second
comprehend the difference between my point of view and yours.
Rich Soyack
2004-11-12 03:33:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
And our dollar, which was at 62.5 cents US, almost two years ago,
is now closing in on 84 cents. That speaks to the
*confidence* of
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
the world *marketplace* in Canada, and a lower rate of same wrt
the US...
The U.S economy took a huge whack a few years ago. Ebbs and flows.
Yet, ours, not so much. Nice rebound, with the Cdn dollar closing
almost 2/3rds of the gap between it and the US $, as of 12/02.
I'm sure you meant 11/02. And so what? Ebbs and flows.
Personally,
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Ben
I'm glad to see Canada doing better. My paternal grandparents are
from Quebec, and I still have lots of family there. I get up that way
whenever I can. Any economic upturn benefits them.
I find it amazing how Andre has to grasp at straws by citing the
strong Canadian dollar as something to brag about. ALL forms of
currency are up against the weaker US dollar by definition.
Indeed, and that was my point: That Canada is measurably doing better
than the US.
For now, and superficially.
<laughs> Its always fun to see USians who cannot admit that they're
being outdone by another nation...
No, it's consistent with my stance that economies ebb and flow. You
know, the stance you couldn't comprehend a few posts back.
Post by Andre Lieven
Some of the work for the US Commerce Dept, which continues to
illegally discriminate against Canadian softwood lumber products,
due to lobbying by US producers who cannot compete with the Cdn,
firms.
Well, both countries are guilty of whining about the competitive
process.
Post by Andre Lieven
Bitter bois... <g>
Post by Ben
In the long run, as has been demonstrated
repeatedly in the past, the Canadian economy is simply not as robust
as the US.
Yeah, that would be why Canada repeatedly got placed Number One on
a UN list of the best nations to live in... Oh, and the US... didn't.
A U.N list. Oh, my, there's an authoritative source. lol So how
does the U.N. report explain the number of Canadians moving south
across the border if this is such a lousy country?
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
Lets recap: Which nation has a budget surplus, a positive balance
of trade, and a shrinking national debt ?
Wait until your health care bubble bursts. :) And, as Ralph pointed
out, your government can no longer afford to carry so much dead
weight.
<laughs> See " Social Security ".
Which isn't really an answer, is it?
Post by Andre Lieven
Pot. Kettle. Deep black...
Still doesn't appear to be an answer.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
The " conservative, Republican " US, or the " socialist " Canada ?
<laughs>
Post by Mark Sobolewski
It's a classic example of Canadian inferiority complex.
Well, thats a thing that no one who has ever met me, has tried
to tag me with.
No. In fact, it sounds like your particular problem is the reverse.
<laughs> Yeah, to a US Firster, anyone from another nation suggesting
that their nation rocks, is a " problem "...
Oh, goody, I get to do it again! Non-sequitor, non-sequitor! Prove
where I said that! lol (By the way, don't you ever get embarrassed
by the sheer prissiness of saying that?)
No, I don't have a problem with your pride in Canada. In fact, if I
for some reason had to live in another country of my choice, Canada is
one of four or five that I'd choose--as I've said, I still have lots
of family there.
No, *your* problem (not "*a* problem") is your (unfounded) superiority
complex. In a sense, you remind me very much of a feminist who is not
content with simply expounding on the good things about being a woman,
but also has to compare herself to men and put men beneath her.
How...feminist of you. lol
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
I'm a *proud* Canadian. Canada rocks.
I've already said Canada is a fine country.
Good.
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
And, when the rest of the commerical wotld say that our economy
is doing better, and by doing so, driving up our currency's
*value* ( For more on this, see the stock market. <g> ), well,
thats a good vote as to whihc place is doing... better.
And the Canadians voting with their feet and coming to America?
And the USians voting with their feet and coming to Canada ?
And the numbers and the reasons for both sides?
Post by Andre Lieven
Works both ways, you know: Thats my point.
You don't seem to have a point, Andre, so much as you have a diatribe.
That, by the way, would be MY point.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
I'm fine with that. :-)
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
Yet, any Canadian can go into a medical facility and get treatment,
and NOT be asked to pay.
If they can get *timely* treatment, and if they can get *competent*
treatment. You are aware, are you not, that many Canadians skip south
across the border to get better health care faster? Just out of
curiousity, how many Americans head north for their health care (Lasik
aside)?
Oooh! I am thinking about Lasik! Tell me, I have friends up there
!
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Is it really cheap or better somehow? Zap zap!
Dunno. I don't use a lot of medicine. But, the last stuff I had done,
was, by any examples of same that I've seen in the US ( And, lets
not forget that my ex was from NY, and I was with her, often down
there, for six years, then another g/f was from NJ, ditto her for
2.5 years, and the present- and last, cause she's that good- is
also from there, worked in the Superior Court in Philly, and so
on... ) was amazingly easy. No paperwork for me to deal with at all,
no " co pays ", or any such nonsense, driving up costs, and so on.
Canadian Medicare rocks, too.
And yet, you can get better health care, faster, by more competent
professionals, in the US.
Nope. Nice try, though.
Yep. Read some of the reports in your own country. I'm sure you can
find them, and I even gave you one earlier that you must have
"forgotten" to look at.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
But, I am amused at USians upset by other people being as proud
of their nations, as the USians seem to hold that only they can
so be. More provincialism, from people who don't even have a
province. <laughs>
Andre
I dunno, Andre. You can't seem to comprehend that what you're really
experiencing is a reaction to your flagrant anti-US posturing.
ROTFLMAO ! Yeah, stating that, in my view, Canada Rocks, is " anti-
US posturing ".
I was right, you have comprehension issues.
Post by Andre Lieven
So then, is stating that the US Rocks More, " anti-Canadian
posturing " ? If one were *consistant*, it would *have to be*...
lol Now you're starting to argue like a teenager.
Post by Andre Lieven
Take that tree out from your eye, before you try to speak of the
slivers that might be in others'....
I'll tell you what. If you can find anything I've written that
indicates I believe Canada is inferior to the U.S. across the board,
I'll cede this argument immediately.
And I never said you had a sliver, Andre, just socialist blinders.
Post by Andre Lieven
And, most Canadians prefer Canada over the US.
So what? I prefer the U.S. to Australia, but I could happily settle
in Australia if I needed to. I'm betting you can't for a second
comprehend the difference between my point of view and yours.
Andre's main problem is that he can't admit that he is wrong, no matter how
small the issue. One of his other problems is that he can't possibly
comprehend
what is meant by my first sentence.

Rich Soyack

Mark Sobolewski
2004-11-10 15:58:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
And our dollar, which was at 62.5 cents US, almost two years ago,
is now closing in on 84 cents. That speaks to the *confidence* of
the world *marketplace* in Canada, and a lower rate of same wrt
the US...
The U.S economy took a huge whack a few years ago. Ebbs and flows.
Yet, ours, not so much. Nice rebound, with the Cdn dollar closing
almost 2/3rds of the gap between it and the US $, as of 12/02.
I'm sure you meant 11/02. And so what? Ebbs and flows. Personally,
I'm glad to see Canada doing better. My paternal grandparents are
from Quebec, and I still have lots of family there. I get up that way
whenever I can. Any economic upturn benefits them.
I find it amazing how Andre has to grasp at straws by citing the
strong Canadian dollar as something to brag about. ALL forms of
currency are up against the weaker US dollar by definition.
Indeed, and that was my point: That Canada is measurably doing better
than the US.
HAHAHAHA! By this measure, then Iran is measurably doing better
than the US (Ok, I should probably restate that... :-)

In other words, the US currency is down overall. This doesn't make
Canada "better" than the US. It's especially funny you should
make such a simplistic comparison when you didn't want to consider
a consumer purchasing a cheaper foreign product, for instance.
Post by Andre Lieven
Lets recap: Which nation has a budget surplus, a positive balance
of trade, and a shrinking national debt ?
The " conservative, Republican " US, or the " socialist " Canada ?
<laughs>
<shrug>

Lessee:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/business/national/2004/11/05/jobs_110504.html

says that Canada's unemployment rate is at 7.2 percent (compared to
the current US administration's rate of 5.2 percent and shrinking....)

Canada does have a trade surplus (drum roll) of _7_ billion dollars!

http://www.cbc.ca/story/business/national/2004/10/14/trade_041014.html

Wow! That must be BIG money to you all up there! (We spend that
much on a few shuttle launches. :-) Our trade deficit is 54 billion
with about 16 billion in oil imports. This is for an economy measured
in TRILLIONS of dollars!

Next, the debt that was started by FDR who pushed the country deeper
into a depression for 10 years before dragging the US into a war.
(Gee, GW could learn a lot from him). The USA has a huge problem
with social security and medicaid that dwarfs
all of these issues at least as far as the states is concerned.

As I said, I don't know a lot about Canada (which hardly makes
me all that different from most of the world out there. I am
not saying this as a rude attack, but merely as a reasonable
explanation of my ignorance. But yes, at the same time, it
also is a reasonable explanation for why you know so much
about the US: Because the US provides a leadership role
and is a larger, more powerful economy. That counts for somethin'.

Next, check out this URL:
http://www.kaminternational.com/index.asp

It turns out that failed socialist Clinton also ran a trade deficit!
So this means that it's been going on for at least 4 years and
the sky hasn't fallen yet.

Finally, I decided to read up on Canadian health care because
I got tired of your gloating. Here's what I found:
http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/Canada.pdf

For example, in its 2001 annual survey involving more than 2,500
doctors in twelve different specialties, the Canadian think tank,
the Fraser Institute, found that, for patients requiring surgery,
the total average waiting time from the initial visit to the family
doctor through to surgery was sixteen weeks, a significant increase
over the last year of the study. In every category, physicians felt
waiting times had exceeded "clinically reasonable" delays
(Gratzer, 2002, pg 20). Canadians wait an average of 5 months for
a cranial MRI scan; Americans just 3 days (Bell, et al, 1998).
Indeed, Canada has fewer MRIs per capita than Iceland, Hungary,
South Korea, and the Czech Republic (Gratzer, 2002, pg 53).
Unsurprisingly, many choose to fly south to the US for diagnosis
and treatment. A key factor behind these statistics is the
inability of the Canadian system to provide even equipment
deemed basic, let alone new technology. Dozens of diagnostic
and therapeutic products developed decades ago, in widespread
use in other countries, are relatively unavailable to Canadians.
One example is the SynchroMed implantable drug infusion pump, a
therapeutic device that, when combined with an antispasmodic drug,
can be used in patients with severe spasticity resulting from
injury (spinal cord trauma, brain injury) or disease (multiple
sclerosis, cerebral palsy) to regain their mobility and
independence, and to control their pain. Patients use SynchroMed,
in Yugoslavia and Russia, saving their respective health care
systems upwards of $100,000 per year in treatment costs.
Canadian hospitals, however, refuse to provide patients
with the $8,000 device (Gratzer, 2002, pg 83)

By comparison, with my PPO, my wife had access to an emergency room
when she needed it and they gave her (I'm not making this up):
An X-ray, a CT scan, AND a sonogram that day!!! (This may explain
where a lot of the extra money in the US system goes). They wanted
to make sure it was safe to release her lest ambulance chasers such
as Edwards sue the hospital. She needs a minor surgery
this weekend (20 minutes) and it took about 2 weeks to get it all
scheduled.

If this had all happened north of the border, she would have had to
wait 4 months and deal with the pain of her condition (trust me,
I don't enjoy listening to her complain). She wanted to get
surgery the NEXT DAY and I explained to her that normal surgery takes
time to schedule. She argued that, in Ukraine, you just pay up
front for private services and that's that. She has a point. :-)

(NOTE: I didn't just assign you a reading list. I posted a brief
summary of my position. Wasn't that so much easier?)
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
It's a classic example of Canadian inferiority complex.
Well, thats a thing that no one who has ever met me, has tried
to tag me with.
I'm a *proud* Canadian. Canada rocks.
I'm happy for you. It may amuse you to know that most Americans
are generally unsatisfied nowadays with their country. Either the left
complains endlessly about government not being big enough to
give them all the handouts they want (or too big and conquering the world)
OR the right wingers, such as I, complain that too many of these
chickens are coming home to roost and making the place into a cultureless
shithole. However, I remain optimistic due to recent events.

All that said, it's unconvincing of you to argue that you're proud
to be a canadian yet display such a fervent interest in US affairs.
It's like a man saying he loves his nice, plain, practical wife but
constantly complaining that his neighbor's porn star mistress
should cook and clean for the guy more.
Post by Andre Lieven
And, when the rest of the commerical wotld say that our economy
is doing better,
HAHAHAHAHA!

The same can be said of Poland.
Post by Andre Lieven
and by doing so, driving up our currency's
*value* ( For more on this, see the stock market. <g> ),
As I pointed out above, the same can be said of most countries especially
in relation to the US dollar. Find something else to cluck about.
Post by Andre Lieven
well,
thats a good vote as to whihc place is doing... better.
Indeed. But they (and you) don't vote for the US president. I did.
Deal with it.
Post by Andre Lieven
I'm fine with that. :-)
As am I. I wish Canada (and for that matter, all countries) the best.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
Yet, any Canadian can go into a medical facility and get treatment,
and NOT be asked to pay.
If they can get *timely* treatment, and if they can get *competent*
treatment. You are aware, are you not, that many Canadians skip south
across the border to get better health care faster? Just out of
curiousity, how many Americans head north for their health care (Lasik
aside)?
Oooh! I am thinking about Lasik! Tell me, I have friends up there!
Is it really cheap or better somehow? Zap zap!
Dunno. I don't use a lot of medicine. But, the last stuff I had done,
was, by any examples of same that I've seen in the US ( And, lets
not forget that my ex was from NY, and I was with her, often down
there, for six years, then another g/f was from NJ, ditto her for
2.5 years, and the present- and last, cause she's that good- is
also from there, worked in the Superior Court in Philly, and so
on... ) was amazingly easy. No paperwork for me to deal with at all,
no " co pays ", or any such nonsense, driving up costs, and so on.
My co-pays weren't that outrageous. 50 bucks for the emergency room
and 20 bucks for her gynecologist. 300 bucks for her operation this
weekend. Yes, that's money but that's the end of it. And it all
got done in 2 weeks!
Post by Andre Lieven
Canadian Medicare rocks, too.
But, I am amused at USians upset by other people being as proud
of their nations,
I don't think I, nor most people here, have been upset so much
as disputing the points you seem to be trying to make at the US's
expense. I would almost argue such behaviour is stereotypical
of the ugly american.
Post by Andre Lieven
as the USians seem to hold that only they can
so be. More provincialism, from people who don't even have a
province. <laughs>
Andre
I think socialism can work for very small populations which live
in peaceful conditions AND don't have ethnic, cultural or immigration
issues. Outside of that, a free market is best.

regards,
Mark Sobolewski
Andre Lieven
2004-11-10 17:09:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
And our dollar, which was at 62.5 cents US, almost two years ago,
is now closing in on 84 cents. That speaks to the *confidence* of
the world *marketplace* in Canada, and a lower rate of same wrt
the US...
The U.S economy took a huge whack a few years ago. Ebbs and flows.
Yet, ours, not so much. Nice rebound, with the Cdn dollar closing
almost 2/3rds of the gap between it and the US $, as of 12/02.
I'm sure you meant 11/02. And so what? Ebbs and flows. Personally,
I'm glad to see Canada doing better. My paternal grandparents are
from Quebec, and I still have lots of family there. I get up that way
whenever I can. Any economic upturn benefits them.
I find it amazing how Andre has to grasp at straws by citing the
strong Canadian dollar as something to brag about. ALL forms of
currency are up against the weaker US dollar by definition.
Indeed, and that was my point: That Canada is measurably doing better
than the US.
HAHAHAHA! By this measure, then Iran is measurably doing better
than the US (Ok, I should probably restate that... :-)
Is Iran exporting jobs ? Aside from suicide bombers ? <g>
Post by Mark Sobolewski
In other words, the US currency is down overall. This doesn't make
Canada "better" than the US. It's especially funny you should
make such a simplistic comparison when you didn't want to consider
a consumer purchasing a cheaper foreign product, for instance.
Cheaper foreign products don't make for manufacturing jobs at home.
So, one might want there to be some of those remaining within country.

Besides, Mark, you just made an *error*, a basic one, of economics:
When a nation's currency goes UP in value, said nation's buying costs
of buying foreign goods goes DOWN.

Take another cource on Basic Economics, and, this time... pass it.

So, with the recent gains in the Cdn. $, V/ the US $, I don't need
for anything sold in the US to change it's price, but all such
stable priced US goods just went DOWN in price to *me*, and any
and all Canadians, because our dollar now buys more of a US dollar.

Amazon.com, here I come ! <g>
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Lets recap: Which nation has a budget surplus, a positive balance
of trade, and a shrinking national debt ?
The " conservative, Republican " US, or the " socialist " Canada ?
<laughs>
<shrug>
http://www.cbc.ca/story/business/national/2004/11/05/jobs_110504.html
says that Canada's unemployment rate is at 7.2 percent (compared to
the current US administration's rate of 5.2 percent and shrinking....)
Sure. We measure more of our unemployed.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Canada does have a trade surplus (drum roll) of _7_ billion dollars!
Beats a hundreds of billions of dollars of trade *deficit*...
Post by Mark Sobolewski
http://www.cbc.ca/story/business/national/2004/10/14/trade_041014.html
Wow! That must be BIG money to you all up there! (We spend that
much on a few shuttle launches. :-)
Not in the last 21 months...
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Our trade deficit is 54 billion
with about 16 billion in oil imports. This is for an economy measured
in TRILLIONS of dollars!
Sure: You have around 280,000,000 people. We have 32,000,000. So,
we don't need an economy thats in the same size range, else we'd
all be *nine times* richer than you all...
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Next, the debt that was started by FDR who pushed the country deeper
into a depression for 10 years before dragging the US into a war.
(Gee, GW could learn a lot from him). The USA has a huge problem
with social security and medicaid that dwarfs
all of these issues at least as far as the states is concerned.
Well, thats more of the US's propensity for spending on themselves,
but hating paying for what they bought.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
As I said, I don't know a lot about Canada (which hardly makes
me all that different from most of the world out there. I am
not saying this as a rude attack, but merely as a reasonable
explanation of my ignorance.
Of course: We're not in most of the news, as we don't manufacture
much world Bad News for anyone. And, the media, especially in the
US, loves the " if it bleeds, it leads " kinda reporting.

I in no way took your relative ignorance of things Canadian as any
sort of " attack ", rude or otherwards. It merely is, as you point
out, a fact of life for most USians, as most US news barely lets
you know where the places bombing US peoples are.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
But yes, at the same time, it
also is a reasonable explanation for why you know so much
about the US: Because the US provides a leadership role
and is a larger, more powerful economy. That counts for somethin'.
Well, you are next door, and we Canadians have a media that covers
the actual world...

I will relate a tale from Millenium Eve, covered by CNN. I was
watching it, as I was in NJ that evening.

At a bit after midnight, Eastern, CNN went to a live video feed
showing Parliament Hill, and a nice shot of the Parliament
Buildings. Even the Cdn flag flying at the top of the Peace
Tower, was visible.

CNN captioned the shot " Cincinatti ". Really.

To prove that that wasn't an anamoly, when CNN next showed that
same feed, about 25 minutes later, it captioned that shot as
" Toronto ". ( OK, now we're in the right nation and province... )

So, I coined CNN's new then slogan: " CNN, we cover the world.
We just don't know where all of it *is*... "
Post by Mark Sobolewski
http://www.kaminternational.com/index.asp
It turns out that failed socialist Clinton also ran a trade deficit!
So this means that it's been going on for at least 4 years and
the sky hasn't fallen yet.
Sure. You guys like buying cheaper foreign goods.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Finally, I decided to read up on Canadian health care because
http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/Canada.pdf
For example, in its 2001 annual survey involving more than 2,500
doctors in twelve different specialties, the Canadian
... neo-con, US sucking up to...
Post by Mark Sobolewski
think tank,
the Fraser Institute, found that, for patients requiring surgery,
the total average waiting time from the initial visit to the family
doctor through to surgery was sixteen weeks, a significant increase
over the last year of the study. In every category, physicians felt
waiting times had exceeded "clinically reasonable" delays
(Gratzer, 2002, pg 20). Canadians wait an average of 5 months for
a cranial MRI scan; Americans just 3 days (Bell, et al, 1998).
Indeed, Canada has fewer MRIs per capita than Iceland, Hungary,
South Korea, and the Czech Republic (Gratzer, 2002, pg 53).
Unsurprisingly, many choose to fly south to the US for diagnosis
and treatment.
And, enough USians were coming to Ontario, and using our facilities,
under the table, that Ontario Health cards are now photo-ID ones.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
A key factor behind these statistics is the
inability of the Canadian system to provide even equipment
deemed basic, let alone new technology. Dozens of diagnostic
and therapeutic products developed decades ago, in widespread
use in other countries, are relatively unavailable to Canadians.
I keep hearing this calumny, yet its not true. In a US election,
a couple of cycles back, before 2000, one US senatorial candidate
claimed that his cancer would have killed him, had he been under
Canadian Medicare.

The next day, the Globe & Mail published a letter from a top
Cdn. researcher, who was a developer of the treatment that
saved said US Senator, and in the letter, the doc pointed out
that a lot of the work in developing the Senator's life saving
treatment was done in Canada, by Canadians, funded by Canadian
Medicare.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
One example is the SynchroMed implantable drug infusion pump, a
therapeutic device that, when combined with an antispasmodic drug,
can be used in patients with severe spasticity resulting from
injury (spinal cord trauma, brain injury) or disease (multiple
sclerosis, cerebral palsy) to regain their mobility and
independence, and to control their pain. Patients use SynchroMed,
in Yugoslavia and Russia, saving their respective health care
systems upwards of $100,000 per year in treatment costs.
Canadian hospitals, however, refuse to provide patients
with the $8,000 device (Gratzer, 2002, pg 83)
Sure. I never said Medicare was prefect. I just prefer it to
the US mess of HMOs.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
By comparison, with my PPO, my wife had access to an emergency room
An X-ray, a CT scan, AND a sonogram that day!!! (This may explain
where a lot of the extra money in the US system goes).
Yeah; Making sure that there won't be a malpractice suit filed...
Post by Mark Sobolewski
They wanted
to make sure it was safe to release her lest ambulance chasers such
as Edwards sue the hospital. She needs a minor surgery
this weekend (20 minutes) and it took about 2 weeks to get it all
scheduled.
<shrug> When my mom, then being in her late 70s, needed cataract
work done, two separate times, over a year apart, for both eyes
( One at a time; the docs didn't find that she needed both done,
the first time, and the second time, well, the first one was done ),
it was very brisk, and she wasn't in any imminent danger of going
blind, or anything, and it was done within a week, each time, from
initial consult, to going to hospital, and getting it done.

I don't recall her ever waiting as much as two weeks for anything
that she needed.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
If this had all happened north of the border, she would have had to
wait 4 months and deal with the pain of her condition (trust me,
I don't enjoy listening to her complain). She wanted to get
surgery the NEXT DAY and I explained to her that normal surgery takes
time to schedule. She argued that, in Ukraine, you just pay up
front for private services and that's that. She has a point. :-)
One that suggests that the poor should deal with the pain...
Post by Mark Sobolewski
(NOTE: I didn't just assign you a reading list. I posted a brief
summary of my position. Wasn't that so much easier?)
Well, based on our relative different knowledge bases on our
two respective nations of nearby, I don't need the reading list.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
It's a classic example of Canadian inferiority complex.
Well, thats a thing that no one who has ever met me, has tried
to tag me with.
I'm a *proud* Canadian. Canada rocks.
I'm happy for you. It may amuse you to know that most Americans
are generally unsatisfied nowadays with their country.
Indeed: You may be becoming what we used to be called... <g>
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Either the left
complains endlessly about government not being big enough to
give them all the handouts they want (or too big and conquering the world)
OR the right wingers, such as I, complain that too many of these
chickens are coming home to roost and making the place into a cultureless
shithole. However, I remain optimistic due to recent events.
Well, them deficits will come to roost....

Oh, we don't have any. <bg>
Post by Mark Sobolewski
All that said, it's unconvincing of you to argue that you're proud
to be a canadian yet display such a fervent interest in US affairs.
<laughs> " Fervent ", indeed. Mark, my S/O is from the US, and it's
at least basic politeness for me to be as engaged with what goes
on in her nation, as she does by being in mine.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
It's like a man saying he loves his nice, plain, practical wife but
constantly complaining that his neighbor's porn star mistress
should cook and clean for the guy more.
Naw. I have AbZero wish to live in the US. I'll happily visit,
even buy some goods, now that my dollar buys so much, in certain
categories of goods, while the rest stay better priced up here,
but thats it.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
And, when the rest of the commerical wotld say that our economy
is doing better,
HAHAHAHAHA!
The same can be said of Poland.
The point remains: The rest of the commercial world isn't looking
that favourably at the US economy, in no small part because your
leaders are spending piles of loot that you don't want to pony up.

The US: DeadBeat Nation...
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
and by doing so, driving up our currency's
*value* ( For more on this, see the stock market. <g> ),
As I pointed out above, the same can be said of most countries especially
in relation to the US dollar. Find something else to cluck about.
OK: No budget deficit here, no trade deficit here, a shrinking
national debt here...

Thats three more. Thats enough. <bg>
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
well,
thats a good vote as to which place is doing... better.
Indeed. But they (and you) don't vote for the US president. I did.
Deal with it.
I'm fine with that. Really. I was more interested in seeing if your
recent one would take as long to sort out, as it did make for an
interesting bit of political theatre, last time.

It was also well pointed out that a Kerry win would not have had
wholly positive reprecussions for Canada, in matters of trade, at
al. So, please don't assume that I had a major partisan stake in
your election.

The one in 2000 was great teevee... :-)
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
I'm fine with that. :-)
As am I. I wish Canada (and for that matter, all countries) the best.
Indeed, and one reason we Canadians sometimes seem to be " coming down "
on the US, is that we appreciate that the US *is* often a force and
presence for good in the world, and a very good neighbour. So, when
it appears to us that that potential is being squandered, we feel
for you, and we would prefer that you get back to being what you
*can* be, in the best meaning of that.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
Yet, any Canadian can go into a medical facility and get treatment,
and NOT be asked to pay.
If they can get *timely* treatment, and if they can get *competent*
treatment. You are aware, are you not, that many Canadians skip south
across the border to get better health care faster? Just out of
curiousity, how many Americans head north for their health care (Lasik
aside)?
Oooh! I am thinking about Lasik! Tell me, I have friends up there!
Is it really cheap or better somehow? Zap zap!
Dunno. I don't use a lot of medicine. But, the last stuff I had done,
was, by any examples of same that I've seen in the US ( And, lets
not forget that my ex was from NY, and I was with her, often down
there, for six years, then another g/f was from NJ, ditto her for
2.5 years, and the present- and last, cause she's that good- is
also from there, worked in the Superior Court in Philly, and so
on... ) was amazingly easy. No paperwork for me to deal with at all,
no " co pays ", or any such nonsense, driving up costs, and so on.
My co-pays weren't that outrageous. 50 bucks for the emergency room
and 20 bucks for her gynecologist. 300 bucks for her operation this
weekend. Yes, that's money but that's the end of it. And it all
got done in 2 weeks!
As I said, my mom's stuff was done fast, and no payouts at all.

When I had a small cyst removed from the back of my neck, in winter
2000, my regular doc checked it out, and set up the specialist, and
the only reason that went over two weeks, was my own schedule not having
a hole in it, that soon. But, once the procedure was set up, the
two visits were done within a week of set up. No paperwork for me,
none to submit to anyone for me to do, and not a sou to give to anyone.

Badda bing. <g>
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Canadian Medicare rocks, too.
But, I am amused at USians upset by other people being as proud
of their nations,
I don't think I, nor most people here, have been upset so much
as disputing the points you seem to be trying to make at the US's
expense. I would almost argue such behaviour is stereotypical
of the ugly american.
Maybe, if we had a history of doing that.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
as the USians seem to hold that only they can
so be. More provincialism, from people who don't even have a
province. <laughs>
Andre
I think socialism can work for very small populations which live
in peaceful conditions AND don't have ethnic, cultural or immigration
issues.
BWAH HA HA ! Oh man, Mark, you are SO off on all three ! We've
got all of those involved, not to mention a matter of possible
Quebec secession, circa 1976-1995. Canadian internal politics are
far more complex, in all three of those areas, than you seem to
appreciate.

Oh, our proportional rate of immigration is *higher* than the
US'. So, we have more to do in that area, too.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Outside of that, a free market is best.
If it's regulated, perhaps. Regulated, as in, the rules apply
to all, not just the rich/women, et all...

And, thats the key to understanding my views on this, is that
they are consistant with my other views.

So, that I want women to be treated no better than men, and
men no better than women, aside from what differences each
*earns*, I have the same view of nations and economies. The
Rules apply to all, and any " waivers " are based on actual
performance.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.
Mark Sobolewski
2004-11-11 16:39:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
And our dollar, which was at 62.5 cents US, almost two years ago,
is now closing in on 84 cents. That speaks to the *confidence* of
the world *marketplace* in Canada, and a lower rate of same wrt
the US...
The U.S economy took a huge whack a few years ago. Ebbs and flows.
Yet, ours, not so much. Nice rebound, with the Cdn dollar closing
almost 2/3rds of the gap between it and the US $, as of 12/02.
I'm sure you meant 11/02. And so what? Ebbs and flows. Personally,
I'm glad to see Canada doing better. My paternal grandparents are
from Quebec, and I still have lots of family there. I get up that way
whenever I can. Any economic upturn benefits them.
I find it amazing how Andre has to grasp at straws by citing the
strong Canadian dollar as something to brag about. ALL forms of
currency are up against the weaker US dollar by definition.
Indeed, and that was my point: That Canada is measurably doing better
than the US.
HAHAHAHA! By this measure, then Iran is measurably doing better
than the US (Ok, I should probably restate that... :-)
Is Iran exporting jobs ? Aside from suicide bombers ? <g>
Probably yes. This is actually a good example of what I've been
saying: That exchange rates and trade deficits don't mean anything
when it comes to the actual employment rate of a country.

Iran, like many nations of the middle east, exports a tremendous
amount of oil. There is no guarantee that this industry
employes as many people as the industries that produce products
they import EVEN IF Iran has a trade surplus on paper.

Canada, for example, has a higher rate of unemployment than the US!!!
(I notice how you failed to notice that :-) So you can cluck
about the trade deficit and exchange rate all you like, but it
doesn't make a difference in the bottom line.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
In other words, the US currency is down overall. This doesn't make
Canada "better" than the US. It's especially funny you should
make such a simplistic comparison when you didn't want to consider
a consumer purchasing a cheaper foreign product, for instance.
Cheaper foreign products don't make for manufacturing jobs at home.
So, one might want there to be some of those remaining within country.
When a nation's currency goes UP in value, said nation's buying costs
of buying foreign goods goes DOWN.
Take another cource on Basic Economics, and, this time... pass it.
Er, I don't think I said otherwise. On the contrary, I wrote in
another post to you that this was one way that trade imbalanced
worked out in a free market: A country selling more than it produces
sees their buying power go up.
Post by Andre Lieven
So, with the recent gains in the Cdn. $, V/ the US $, I don't need
for anything sold in the US to change it's price, but all such
stable priced US goods just went DOWN in price to *me*, and any
and all Canadians, because our dollar now buys more of a US dollar.
Amazon.com, here I come ! <g
Indeed. So what? The same can be said of most nations at this time.

You keep trying to brag about Canada, but you need to do it in
comparison to the US currency. What does that say, exactly? :-)
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Lets recap: Which nation has a budget surplus, a positive balance
of trade, and a shrinking national debt ?
The " conservative, Republican " US, or the " socialist " Canada ?
<laughs>
<shrug>
http://www.cbc.ca/story/business/national/2004/11/05/jobs_110504.html
says that Canada's unemployment rate is at 7.2 percent (compared to
the current US administration's rate of 5.2 percent and shrinking....)
Sure. We measure more of our unemployed.
HAHAHAHA!

Maybe the same can be said of the US's health care system?
Maybe Canada's supposedly great, efficient health care system
is merely a product of creative government and political accounting?

Oh, and check out the cite. They argue that many of the recently employed
were only hired part-time. I guess that's how you "measure" things up there!
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Canada does have a trade surplus (drum roll) of _7_ billion dollars!
Beats a hundreds of billions of dollars of trade *deficit*...
Cite?
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
http://www.cbc.ca/story/business/national/2004/10/14/trade_041014.html
Wow! That must be BIG money to you all up there! (We spend that
much on a few shuttle launches. :-)
Not in the last 21 months...
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Our trade deficit is 54 billion
with about 16 billion in oil imports. This is for an economy measured
in TRILLIONS of dollars!
Er, is 54 equal to "hundreds?"

Take a basic algebra course and this time, PASS IT! :-)
Post by Andre Lieven
Sure: You have around 280,000,000 people. We have 32,000,000. So,
we don't need an economy thats in the same size range, else we'd
all be *nine times* richer than you all...
Indeed. Which is precisely why I argued that your, how shall I put it,
QUAINT economy can't necessarily scale up to the US. Are you
aware of what the word "scale" means in economic discussions? :-)
(Gee, with all that money per capita, shouldn't you have a lower
unemployment rate? :-)

Back to health care for a moment: During the Clinton era, Hillary argued
that millions of Americans were without health care and using emergency
government services which cost the taxpayers billions. So some
smart conservatives argued that maybe she ought to start with them
as a pilot project.

She declined.

As the Russian joke says about socialism: It's clear that it wasn't
thought up by scientists because scientists would have tested
it on rats first.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Next, the debt that was started by FDR who pushed the country deeper
into a depression for 10 years before dragging the US into a war.
(Gee, GW could learn a lot from him). The USA has a huge problem
with social security and medicaid that dwarfs
all of these issues at least as far as the states is concerned.
Well, thats more of the US's propensity for spending on themselves,
but hating paying for what they bought.
INDEED! This is precisely why the US is not in a rush to create
another piggy socialist program! I almost want to kiss FDR's grave.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
As I said, I don't know a lot about Canada (which hardly makes
me all that different from most of the world out there. I am
not saying this as a rude attack, but merely as a reasonable
explanation of my ignorance.
Of course: We're not in most of the news, as we don't manufacture
much world Bad News for anyone. And, the media, especially in the
US, loves the " if it bleeds, it leads " kinda reporting.
Was winning the cold war bad news?
Post by Andre Lieven
I in no way took your relative ignorance of things Canadian as any
sort of " attack ", rude or otherwards. It merely is, as you point
out, a fact of life for most USians, as most US news barely lets
you know where the places bombing US peoples are.
That last sentence doesn't make sense.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
But yes, at the same time, it
also is a reasonable explanation for why you know so much
about the US: Because the US provides a leadership role
and is a larger, more powerful economy. That counts for somethin'.
Well, you are next door, and we Canadians have a media that covers
the actual world...
Hey, I'll agree there. Note that it's the leftist media that
endorsed Kerry and kept Americans in the dark.
Post by Andre Lieven
I will relate a tale from Millenium Eve, covered by CNN. I was
watching it, as I was in NJ that evening.
What? You weren't watching your superior Canadian media?

For that matter, if it's so great why does my wife's family
get CNN in Ukraine rather than a Canadian news channel? (She also
gets BBC which is little better nowadays.)
Post by Andre Lieven
At a bit after midnight, Eastern, CNN went to a live video feed
showing Parliament Hill, and a nice shot of the Parliament
Buildings. Even the Cdn flag flying at the top of the Peace
Tower, was visible.
CNN captioned the shot " Cincinatti ". Really.
To prove that that wasn't an anamoly, when CNN next showed that
same feed, about 25 minutes later, it captioned that shot as
" Toronto ". ( OK, now we're in the right nation and province... )
So, I coined CNN's new then slogan: " CNN, we cover the world.
We just don't know where all of it *is*... "
Actually, these mistakes are common with all news media. They'll
throw up the wrong caption or even audio from time to time.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
http://www.kaminternational.com/index.asp
It turns out that failed socialist Clinton also ran a trade deficit!
So this means that it's been going on for at least 4 years and
the sky hasn't fallen yet.
Sure. You guys like buying cheaper foreign goods.
And the sky hasn't fallen and our dishonest unemployment rate
is still lower than yours even during a recession.

As the economy recovers, I'm sure more Canadian doctors and
scientists will "head for the border" again!
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Finally, I decided to read up on Canadian health care because
http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/Canada.pdf
For example, in its 2001 annual survey involving more than 2,500
doctors in twelve different specialties, the Canadian
... neo-con, US sucking up to...
Translation: Any cited statistic that Andre doesn't like is false
by definition and a lie created by self-delusioned Americans.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
think tank,
the Fraser Institute, found that, for patients requiring surgery,
the total average waiting time from the initial visit to the family
doctor through to surgery was sixteen weeks, a significant increase
over the last year of the study. In every category, physicians felt
waiting times had exceeded "clinically reasonable" delays
(Gratzer, 2002, pg 20). Canadians wait an average of 5 months for
a cranial MRI scan; Americans just 3 days (Bell, et al, 1998).
Indeed, Canada has fewer MRIs per capita than Iceland, Hungary,
South Korea, and the Czech Republic (Gratzer, 2002, pg 53).
Unsurprisingly, many choose to fly south to the US for diagnosis
and treatment.
And, enough USians were coming to Ontario, and using our facilities,
under the table, that Ontario Health cards are now photo-ID ones.
Sure, because it's "free". :-)
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
A key factor behind these statistics is the
inability of the Canadian system to provide even equipment
deemed basic, let alone new technology. Dozens of diagnostic
and therapeutic products developed decades ago, in widespread
use in other countries, are relatively unavailable to Canadians.
I keep hearing this calumny, yet its not true. In a US election,
a couple of cycles back, before 2000, one US senatorial candidate
claimed that his cancer would have killed him, had he been under
Canadian Medicare.
The next day, the Globe & Mail published a letter from a top
Cdn. researcher, who was a developer of the treatment that
saved said US Senator, and in the letter, the doc pointed out
that a lot of the work in developing the Senator's life saving
treatment was done in Canada, by Canadians, funded by Canadian
Medicare.
Are you aware there's a difference between development and
deployment?
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
One example is the SynchroMed implantable drug infusion pump, a
therapeutic device that, when combined with an antispasmodic drug,
can be used in patients with severe spasticity resulting from
injury (spinal cord trauma, brain injury) or disease (multiple
sclerosis, cerebral palsy) to regain their mobility and
independence, and to control their pain. Patients use SynchroMed,
in Yugoslavia and Russia, saving their respective health care
systems upwards of $100,000 per year in treatment costs.
Canadian hospitals, however, refuse to provide patients
with the $8,000 device (Gratzer, 2002, pg 83)
Sure. I never said Medicare was prefect. I just prefer it to
the US mess of HMOs.
Ironically, this mess was created by the same people who want
to create national healthcare!!! Yet another good reason
for the US to NOT adopt national healthcare.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
By comparison, with my PPO, my wife had access to an emergency room
An X-ray, a CT scan, AND a sonogram that day!!! (This may explain
where a lot of the extra money in the US system goes).
Yeah; Making sure that there won't be a malpractice suit filed...
Agreed. Once again, the same guys who want to create a socialist
healthcare system are funded by trial lawyers.

For someone who claims to be so much more knowledgeable about the US
than I am of Canada (which I won't deny), you show an incredible
arrogance only matched by your ignorance at times when you try
to talk about how the US should emulate Canada.

All of this history above makes it unthinkable to try to successfully
impliment a Canadian style national healthcare system. If you
just simply said that you liked Canadian health care and it
was better than the US, maybe some of us could buy that but you
don't stop there. You try to make unfounded assertions about
how the US should run things.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
They wanted
to make sure it was safe to release her lest ambulance chasers such
as Edwards sue the hospital. She needs a minor surgery
this weekend (20 minutes) and it took about 2 weeks to get it all
scheduled.
<shrug> When my mom, then being in her late 70s, needed cataract
work done, two separate times, over a year apart, for both eyes
( One at a time; the docs didn't find that she needed both done,
the first time, and the second time, well, the first one was done ),
it was very brisk, and she wasn't in any imminent danger of going
blind, or anything, and it was done within a week, each time, from
initial consult, to going to hospital, and getting it done.
I don't recall her ever waiting as much as two weeks for anything
that she needed.
Yet, this is what's being published. I don't know anyone who
rotting in the US due to a lack of medical care either...
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
If this had all happened north of the border, she would have had to
wait 4 months and deal with the pain of her condition (trust me,
I don't enjoy listening to her complain). She wanted to get
surgery the NEXT DAY and I explained to her that normal surgery takes
time to schedule. She argued that, in Ukraine, you just pay up
front for private services and that's that. She has a point. :-)
One that suggests that the poor should deal with the pain...
Except that medical care is a lot cheaper because it's subject
to a free market.

If the HMO's are a mess, it's because they created a disincentive for
the doctors and patients to reduce costs.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
(NOTE: I didn't just assign you a reading list. I posted a brief
summary of my position. Wasn't that so much easier?)
Well, based on our relative different knowledge bases on our
two respective nations of nearby, I don't need the reading list.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
It's a classic example of Canadian inferiority complex.
Well, thats a thing that no one who has ever met me, has tried
to tag me with.
I'm a *proud* Canadian. Canada rocks.
I'm happy for you. It may amuse you to know that most Americans
are generally unsatisfied nowadays with their country.
Indeed: You may be becoming what we used to be called... <g>
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Either the left
complains endlessly about government not being big enough to
give them all the handouts they want (or too big and conquering the world)
OR the right wingers, such as I, complain that too many of these
chickens are coming home to roost and making the place into a cultureless
shithole. However, I remain optimistic due to recent events.
Well, them deficits will come to roost....
They've been roosting since that socialist FDR dragged out a depression
for 10 years...

Note that they'll be coming home to roost in Europe as well.
Are you aware of the size of the US social security liability?
Or the French, Italian, or German pensions liabilities?
Yet, you squawk about exchange rates and trade deficits. Grow up!
Post by Andre Lieven
Oh, we don't have any. <bg>
Post by Mark Sobolewski
All that said, it's unconvincing of you to argue that you're proud
to be a canadian yet display such a fervent interest in US affairs.
<laughs> " Fervent ", indeed. Mark, my S/O is from the US, and it's
at least basic politeness for me to be as engaged with what goes
on in her nation, as she does by being in mine.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
It's like a man saying he loves his nice, plain, practical wife but
constantly complaining that his neighbor's porn star mistress
should cook and clean for the guy more.
Naw. I have AbZero wish to live in the US. I'll happily visit,
even buy some goods, now that my dollar buys so much, in certain
categories of goods, while the rest stay better priced up here,
but thats it.
I honestly doubt it.

I've been up there and most goods cost more because they have
high sales taxes to pay for the "free" medical care.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
And, when the rest of the commerical wotld say that our economy
is doing better,
HAHAHAHAHA!
The same can be said of Poland.
The point remains: The rest of the commercial world isn't looking
that favourably at the US economy, in no small part because your
leaders are spending piles of loot that you don't want to pony up.
The US: DeadBeat Nation...
We'll talk again in a year or so when those unemployed Canadian professionals
cross the border again.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
and by doing so, driving up our currency's
*value* ( For more on this, see the stock market. <g> ),
As I pointed out above, the same can be said of most countries especially
in relation to the US dollar. Find something else to cluck about.
OK: No budget deficit here, no trade deficit here, a shrinking
national debt here...
Oh, wait, a _shrinking_ national debt? :-)

So you got debt, yes?
Post by Andre Lieven
Thats three more. Thats enough. <bg>
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
well,
thats a good vote as to which place is doing... better.
Indeed. But they (and you) don't vote for the US president. I did.
Deal with it.
I'm fine with that. Really. I was more interested in seeing if your
recent one would take as long to sort out, as it did make for an
interesting bit of political theatre, last time.
It was also well pointed out that a Kerry win would not have had
wholly positive reprecussions for Canada, in matters of trade, at
al. So, please don't assume that I had a major partisan stake in
your election.
The one in 2000 was great teevee... :-)
Agreed. It was great TV.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
I'm fine with that. :-)
As am I. I wish Canada (and for that matter, all countries) the best.
Indeed, and one reason we Canadians sometimes seem to be " coming down "
on the US, is that we appreciate that the US *is* often a force and
presence for good in the world, and a very good neighbour. So, when
it appears to us that that potential is being squandered, we feel
for you, and we would prefer that you get back to being what you
*can* be, in the best meaning of that.
So lessee: You argue that a national debt is the worst possible
thing so what do you suggest, why, create a HUGE socialist program
in the same spirit as social security which is the single
largest liability now facing the budget.

If you're going to give advice, Andre, give good advice.

Us Americans are usually the first the criticize our own nation
(whether left or right) and I think the US owes the world an
apology for exporting British born but American gestated feminism
to the rest of the world.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
Yet, any Canadian can go into a medical facility and get treatment,
and NOT be asked to pay.
If they can get *timely* treatment, and if they can get *competent*
treatment. You are aware, are you not, that many Canadians skip south
across the border to get better health care faster? Just out of
curiousity, how many Americans head north for their health care (Lasik
aside)?
Oooh! I am thinking about Lasik! Tell me, I have friends up there!
Is it really cheap or better somehow? Zap zap!
Dunno. I don't use a lot of medicine. But, the last stuff I had done,
was, by any examples of same that I've seen in the US ( And, lets
not forget that my ex was from NY, and I was with her, often down
there, for six years, then another g/f was from NJ, ditto her for
2.5 years, and the present- and last, cause she's that good- is
also from there, worked in the Superior Court in Philly, and so
on... ) was amazingly easy. No paperwork for me to deal with at all,
no " co pays ", or any such nonsense, driving up costs, and so on.
My co-pays weren't that outrageous. 50 bucks for the emergency room
and 20 bucks for her gynecologist. 300 bucks for her operation this
weekend. Yes, that's money but that's the end of it. And it all
got done in 2 weeks!
As I said, my mom's stuff was done fast, and no payouts at all.
When I had a small cyst removed from the back of my neck, in winter
2000, my regular doc checked it out, and set up the specialist, and
the only reason that went over two weeks, was my own schedule not having
a hole in it, that soon. But, once the procedure was set up, the
two visits were done within a week of set up. No paperwork for me,
none to submit to anyone for me to do, and not a sou to give to anyone.
Badda bing. <g>
More or less the same for me. Other than co-pays, everything was
very smooth. Just show my PPO card and that's that. When I was
unemployed, I went to the county hospital and they were slow,
but very competent.

As I said, I won't bash Canadian healthcare at this time too much
but would only say that the US is leading in some specific
political and economic issues that makes any thought of national
healthcare ludicrous. It's a "war" (a culture war) right now.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Canadian Medicare rocks, too.
But, I am amused at USians upset by other people being as proud
of their nations,
I don't think I, nor most people here, have been upset so much
as disputing the points you seem to be trying to make at the US's
expense. I would almost argue such behaviour is stereotypical
of the ugly american.
Maybe, if we had a history of doing that.
It comes across as some kind of insecurity on your part. "Look!
We've got great healthcare and our dollar is up! Yours sucks!"
It comes across as if you have something to prove.

Hey, I'll be the first to say that many Americans on both sides
of the political divide can be arrogant and ignorant bastards
from time to time. American movies often SUCK. Our music
is often uncreative, recycled pop crap. Our cities are often
little more than isolated strip malls selling the same
crap from city to city. Our women, especially, are confused,
spoiled, and often fat. I live here because this is where
the work is. If I could work there, I would be in Poland in a matter
of seconds.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
as the USians seem to hold that only they can
so be. More provincialism, from people who don't even have a
province. <laughs>
Andre
I think socialism can work for very small populations which live
in peaceful conditions AND don't have ethnic, cultural or immigration
issues.
BWAH HA HA ! Oh man, Mark, you are SO off on all three ! We've
got all of those involved, not to mention a matter of possible
Quebec secession, circa 1976-1995.
Yeah, except I've read some stuff about Quebec and they argue that
Quebec socialists don't want to give up tax revenue from the English
speakers.

And you're weaseling or being incredibly ignorant. What's the
distribution of ethnic minorities in Canada at this time? 4% black?
In the US, it's 17%. All other ethnic minorities are also more
greatly represented. Plus, it's all on a much greater scale:
Multiply everything by 9.

I'm a firm believer in reasonable population and having sustainable
families. My wife is shocked to see families in the US with 4 kids.
You are really being obtuse if you insist upon trying to say
that the Canada has cultural issues even in the same ballpark
as the US. While politically, you guys are just slightly right
of Michael Moore, your ethnic and cultural layout is similar to the midwest.
Post by Andre Lieven
Canadian internal politics are
far more complex, in all three of those areas, than you seem to
appreciate.
Oh, our proportional rate of immigration is *higher* than the
US'. So, we have more to do in that area, too.
Yeah, but you have a lot more land to put them on and the US has
has this sustained rate for DECADES.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Outside of that, a free market is best.
If it's regulated, perhaps. Regulated, as in, the rules apply
to all, not just the rich/women, et all...
Consider, which is more difficult: To regulate something, or to
have something regulate itself?

And I find your argument rather simplistic. The rules can never
truly apply to all. A rich person is fined 300 bucks for sleeping
under a bridge just like a poor man. The devil is in the details.
This is why I view all regulation with a degree of skepticism.
Post by Andre Lieven
And, thats the key to understanding my views on this, is that
they are consistant with my other views.
So, that I want women to be treated no better than men, and
men no better than women, aside from what differences each
*earns*, I have the same view of nations and economies. The
Rules apply to all, and any " waivers " are based on actual
performance.
Andre
I think "better" in this context is similar to the teasing you
gave me for talking about "nice" politicians. Women were
treated differently when they weren't "equal" to men and
they are treated differently today.

regards,
Mark Sobolewski
Mark Sobolewski
2004-11-11 16:39:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
And our dollar, which was at 62.5 cents US, almost two years ago,
is now closing in on 84 cents. That speaks to the *confidence* of
the world *marketplace* in Canada, and a lower rate of same wrt
the US...
The U.S economy took a huge whack a few years ago. Ebbs and flows.
Yet, ours, not so much. Nice rebound, with the Cdn dollar closing
almost 2/3rds of the gap between it and the US $, as of 12/02.
I'm sure you meant 11/02. And so what? Ebbs and flows. Personally,
I'm glad to see Canada doing better. My paternal grandparents are
from Quebec, and I still have lots of family there. I get up that way
whenever I can. Any economic upturn benefits them.
I find it amazing how Andre has to grasp at straws by citing the
strong Canadian dollar as something to brag about. ALL forms of
currency are up against the weaker US dollar by definition.
Indeed, and that was my point: That Canada is measurably doing better
than the US.
HAHAHAHA! By this measure, then Iran is measurably doing better
than the US (Ok, I should probably restate that... :-)
Is Iran exporting jobs ? Aside from suicide bombers ? <g>
Probably yes. This is actually a good example of what I've been
saying: That exchange rates and trade deficits don't mean anything
when it comes to the actual employment rate of a country.

Iran, like many nations of the middle east, exports a tremendous
amount of oil. There is no guarantee that this industry
employes as many people as the industries that produce products
they import EVEN IF Iran has a trade surplus on paper.

Canada, for example, has a higher rate of unemployment than the US!!!
(I notice how you failed to notice that :-) So you can cluck
about the trade deficit and exchange rate all you like, but it
doesn't make a difference in the bottom line.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
In other words, the US currency is down overall. This doesn't make
Canada "better" than the US. It's especially funny you should
make such a simplistic comparison when you didn't want to consider
a consumer purchasing a cheaper foreign product, for instance.
Cheaper foreign products don't make for manufacturing jobs at home.
So, one might want there to be some of those remaining within country.
When a nation's currency goes UP in value, said nation's buying costs
of buying foreign goods goes DOWN.
Take another cource on Basic Economics, and, this time... pass it.
Er, I don't think I said otherwise. On the contrary, I wrote in
another post to you that this was one way that trade imbalanced
worked out in a free market: A country selling more than it produces
sees their buying power go up.
Post by Andre Lieven
So, with the recent gains in the Cdn. $, V/ the US $, I don't need
for anything sold in the US to change it's price, but all such
stable priced US goods just went DOWN in price to *me*, and any
and all Canadians, because our dollar now buys more of a US dollar.
Amazon.com, here I come ! <g
Indeed. So what? The same can be said of most nations at this time.

You keep trying to brag about Canada, but you need to do it in
comparison to the US currency. What does that say, exactly? :-)
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Lets recap: Which nation has a budget surplus, a positive balance
of trade, and a shrinking national debt ?
The " conservative, Republican " US, or the " socialist " Canada ?
<laughs>
<shrug>
http://www.cbc.ca/story/business/national/2004/11/05/jobs_110504.html
says that Canada's unemployment rate is at 7.2 percent (compared to
the current US administration's rate of 5.2 percent and shrinking....)
Sure. We measure more of our unemployed.
HAHAHAHA!

Maybe the same can be said of the US's health care system?
Maybe Canada's supposedly great, efficient health care system
is merely a product of creative government and political accounting?

Oh, and check out the cite. They argue that many of the recently employed
were only hired part-time. I guess that's how you "measure" things up there!
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Canada does have a trade surplus (drum roll) of _7_ billion dollars!
Beats a hundreds of billions of dollars of trade *deficit*...
Cite?
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
http://www.cbc.ca/story/business/national/2004/10/14/trade_041014.html
Wow! That must be BIG money to you all up there! (We spend that
much on a few shuttle launches. :-)
Not in the last 21 months...
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Our trade deficit is 54 billion
with about 16 billion in oil imports. This is for an economy measured
in TRILLIONS of dollars!
Er, is 54 equal to "hundreds?"

Take a basic algebra course and this time, PASS IT! :-)
Post by Andre Lieven
Sure: You have around 280,000,000 people. We have 32,000,000. So,
we don't need an economy thats in the same size range, else we'd
all be *nine times* richer than you all...
Indeed. Which is precisely why I argued that your, how shall I put it,
QUAINT economy can't necessarily scale up to the US. Are you
aware of what the word "scale" means in economic discussions? :-)
(Gee, with all that money per capita, shouldn't you have a lower
unemployment rate? :-)

Back to health care for a moment: During the Clinton era, Hillary argued
that millions of Americans were without health care and using emergency
government services which cost the taxpayers billions. So some
smart conservatives argued that maybe she ought to start with them
as a pilot project.

She declined.

As the Russian joke says about socialism: It's clear that it wasn't
thought up by scientists because scientists would have tested
it on rats first.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Next, the debt that was started by FDR who pushed the country deeper
into a depression for 10 years before dragging the US into a war.
(Gee, GW could learn a lot from him). The USA has a huge problem
with social security and medicaid that dwarfs
all of these issues at least as far as the states is concerned.
Well, thats more of the US's propensity for spending on themselves,
but hating paying for what they bought.
INDEED! This is precisely why the US is not in a rush to create
another piggy socialist program! I almost want to kiss FDR's grave.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
As I said, I don't know a lot about Canada (which hardly makes
me all that different from most of the world out there. I am
not saying this as a rude attack, but merely as a reasonable
explanation of my ignorance.
Of course: We're not in most of the news, as we don't manufacture
much world Bad News for anyone. And, the media, especially in the
US, loves the " if it bleeds, it leads " kinda reporting.
Was winning the cold war bad news?
Post by Andre Lieven
I in no way took your relative ignorance of things Canadian as any
sort of " attack ", rude or otherwards. It merely is, as you point
out, a fact of life for most USians, as most US news barely lets
you know where the places bombing US peoples are.
That last sentence doesn't make sense.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
But yes, at the same time, it
also is a reasonable explanation for why you know so much
about the US: Because the US provides a leadership role
and is a larger, more powerful economy. That counts for somethin'.
Well, you are next door, and we Canadians have a media that covers
the actual world...
Hey, I'll agree there. Note that it's the leftist media that
endorsed Kerry and kept Americans in the dark.
Post by Andre Lieven
I will relate a tale from Millenium Eve, covered by CNN. I was
watching it, as I was in NJ that evening.
What? You weren't watching your superior Canadian media?

For that matter, if it's so great why does my wife's family
get CNN in Ukraine rather than a Canadian news channel? (She also
gets BBC which is little better nowadays.)
Post by Andre Lieven
At a bit after midnight, Eastern, CNN went to a live video feed
showing Parliament Hill, and a nice shot of the Parliament
Buildings. Even the Cdn flag flying at the top of the Peace
Tower, was visible.
CNN captioned the shot " Cincinatti ". Really.
To prove that that wasn't an anamoly, when CNN next showed that
same feed, about 25 minutes later, it captioned that shot as
" Toronto ". ( OK, now we're in the right nation and province... )
So, I coined CNN's new then slogan: " CNN, we cover the world.
We just don't know where all of it *is*... "
Actually, these mistakes are common with all news media. They'll
throw up the wrong caption or even audio from time to time.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
http://www.kaminternational.com/index.asp
It turns out that failed socialist Clinton also ran a trade deficit!
So this means that it's been going on for at least 4 years and
the sky hasn't fallen yet.
Sure. You guys like buying cheaper foreign goods.
And the sky hasn't fallen and our dishonest unemployment rate
is still lower than yours even during a recession.

As the economy recovers, I'm sure more Canadian doctors and
scientists will "head for the border" again!
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Finally, I decided to read up on Canadian health care because
http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/Canada.pdf
For example, in its 2001 annual survey involving more than 2,500
doctors in twelve different specialties, the Canadian
... neo-con, US sucking up to...
Translation: Any cited statistic that Andre doesn't like is false
by definition and a lie created by self-delusioned Americans.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
think tank,
the Fraser Institute, found that, for patients requiring surgery,
the total average waiting time from the initial visit to the family
doctor through to surgery was sixteen weeks, a significant increase
over the last year of the study. In every category, physicians felt
waiting times had exceeded "clinically reasonable" delays
(Gratzer, 2002, pg 20). Canadians wait an average of 5 months for
a cranial MRI scan; Americans just 3 days (Bell, et al, 1998).
Indeed, Canada has fewer MRIs per capita than Iceland, Hungary,
South Korea, and the Czech Republic (Gratzer, 2002, pg 53).
Unsurprisingly, many choose to fly south to the US for diagnosis
and treatment.
And, enough USians were coming to Ontario, and using our facilities,
under the table, that Ontario Health cards are now photo-ID ones.
Sure, because it's "free". :-)
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
A key factor behind these statistics is the
inability of the Canadian system to provide even equipment
deemed basic, let alone new technology. Dozens of diagnostic
and therapeutic products developed decades ago, in widespread
use in other countries, are relatively unavailable to Canadians.
I keep hearing this calumny, yet its not true. In a US election,
a couple of cycles back, before 2000, one US senatorial candidate
claimed that his cancer would have killed him, had he been under
Canadian Medicare.
The next day, the Globe & Mail published a letter from a top
Cdn. researcher, who was a developer of the treatment that
saved said US Senator, and in the letter, the doc pointed out
that a lot of the work in developing the Senator's life saving
treatment was done in Canada, by Canadians, funded by Canadian
Medicare.
Are you aware there's a difference between development and
deployment?
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
One example is the SynchroMed implantable drug infusion pump, a
therapeutic device that, when combined with an antispasmodic drug,
can be used in patients with severe spasticity resulting from
injury (spinal cord trauma, brain injury) or disease (multiple
sclerosis, cerebral palsy) to regain their mobility and
independence, and to control their pain. Patients use SynchroMed,
in Yugoslavia and Russia, saving their respective health care
systems upwards of $100,000 per year in treatment costs.
Canadian hospitals, however, refuse to provide patients
with the $8,000 device (Gratzer, 2002, pg 83)
Sure. I never said Medicare was prefect. I just prefer it to
the US mess of HMOs.
Ironically, this mess was created by the same people who want
to create national healthcare!!! Yet another good reason
for the US to NOT adopt national healthcare.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
By comparison, with my PPO, my wife had access to an emergency room
An X-ray, a CT scan, AND a sonogram that day!!! (This may explain
where a lot of the extra money in the US system goes).
Yeah; Making sure that there won't be a malpractice suit filed...
Agreed. Once again, the same guys who want to create a socialist
healthcare system are funded by trial lawyers.

For someone who claims to be so much more knowledgeable about the US
than I am of Canada (which I won't deny), you show an incredible
arrogance only matched by your ignorance at times when you try
to talk about how the US should emulate Canada.

All of this history above makes it unthinkable to try to successfully
impliment a Canadian style national healthcare system. If you
just simply said that you liked Canadian health care and it
was better than the US, maybe some of us could buy that but you
don't stop there. You try to make unfounded assertions about
how the US should run things.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
They wanted
to make sure it was safe to release her lest ambulance chasers such
as Edwards sue the hospital. She needs a minor surgery
this weekend (20 minutes) and it took about 2 weeks to get it all
scheduled.
<shrug> When my mom, then being in her late 70s, needed cataract
work done, two separate times, over a year apart, for both eyes
( One at a time; the docs didn't find that she needed both done,
the first time, and the second time, well, the first one was done ),
it was very brisk, and she wasn't in any imminent danger of going
blind, or anything, and it was done within a week, each time, from
initial consult, to going to hospital, and getting it done.
I don't recall her ever waiting as much as two weeks for anything
that she needed.
Yet, this is what's being published. I don't know anyone who
rotting in the US due to a lack of medical care either...
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
If this had all happened north of the border, she would have had to
wait 4 months and deal with the pain of her condition (trust me,
I don't enjoy listening to her complain). She wanted to get
surgery the NEXT DAY and I explained to her that normal surgery takes
time to schedule. She argued that, in Ukraine, you just pay up
front for private services and that's that. She has a point. :-)
One that suggests that the poor should deal with the pain...
Except that medical care is a lot cheaper because it's subject
to a free market.

If the HMO's are a mess, it's because they created a disincentive for
the doctors and patients to reduce costs.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
(NOTE: I didn't just assign you a reading list. I posted a brief
summary of my position. Wasn't that so much easier?)
Well, based on our relative different knowledge bases on our
two respective nations of nearby, I don't need the reading list.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
It's a classic example of Canadian inferiority complex.
Well, thats a thing that no one who has ever met me, has tried
to tag me with.
I'm a *proud* Canadian. Canada rocks.
I'm happy for you. It may amuse you to know that most Americans
are generally unsatisfied nowadays with their country.
Indeed: You may be becoming what we used to be called... <g>
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Either the left
complains endlessly about government not being big enough to
give them all the handouts they want (or too big and conquering the world)
OR the right wingers, such as I, complain that too many of these
chickens are coming home to roost and making the place into a cultureless
shithole. However, I remain optimistic due to recent events.
Well, them deficits will come to roost....
They've been roosting since that socialist FDR dragged out a depression
for 10 years...

Note that they'll be coming home to roost in Europe as well.
Are you aware of the size of the US social security liability?
Or the French, Italian, or German pensions liabilities?
Yet, you squawk about exchange rates and trade deficits. Grow up!
Post by Andre Lieven
Oh, we don't have any. <bg>
Post by Mark Sobolewski
All that said, it's unconvincing of you to argue that you're proud
to be a canadian yet display such a fervent interest in US affairs.
<laughs> " Fervent ", indeed. Mark, my S/O is from the US, and it's
at least basic politeness for me to be as engaged with what goes
on in her nation, as she does by being in mine.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
It's like a man saying he loves his nice, plain, practical wife but
constantly complaining that his neighbor's porn star mistress
should cook and clean for the guy more.
Naw. I have AbZero wish to live in the US. I'll happily visit,
even buy some goods, now that my dollar buys so much, in certain
categories of goods, while the rest stay better priced up here,
but thats it.
I honestly doubt it.

I've been up there and most goods cost more because they have
high sales taxes to pay for the "free" medical care.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
And, when the rest of the commerical wotld say that our economy
is doing better,
HAHAHAHAHA!
The same can be said of Poland.
The point remains: The rest of the commercial world isn't looking
that favourably at the US economy, in no small part because your
leaders are spending piles of loot that you don't want to pony up.
The US: DeadBeat Nation...
We'll talk again in a year or so when those unemployed Canadian professionals
cross the border again.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
and by doing so, driving up our currency's
*value* ( For more on this, see the stock market. <g> ),
As I pointed out above, the same can be said of most countries especially
in relation to the US dollar. Find something else to cluck about.
OK: No budget deficit here, no trade deficit here, a shrinking
national debt here...
Oh, wait, a _shrinking_ national debt? :-)

So you got debt, yes?
Post by Andre Lieven
Thats three more. Thats enough. <bg>
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
well,
thats a good vote as to which place is doing... better.
Indeed. But they (and you) don't vote for the US president. I did.
Deal with it.
I'm fine with that. Really. I was more interested in seeing if your
recent one would take as long to sort out, as it did make for an
interesting bit of political theatre, last time.
It was also well pointed out that a Kerry win would not have had
wholly positive reprecussions for Canada, in matters of trade, at
al. So, please don't assume that I had a major partisan stake in
your election.
The one in 2000 was great teevee... :-)
Agreed. It was great TV.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
I'm fine with that. :-)
As am I. I wish Canada (and for that matter, all countries) the best.
Indeed, and one reason we Canadians sometimes seem to be " coming down "
on the US, is that we appreciate that the US *is* often a force and
presence for good in the world, and a very good neighbour. So, when
it appears to us that that potential is being squandered, we feel
for you, and we would prefer that you get back to being what you
*can* be, in the best meaning of that.
So lessee: You argue that a national debt is the worst possible
thing so what do you suggest, why, create a HUGE socialist program
in the same spirit as social security which is the single
largest liability now facing the budget.

If you're going to give advice, Andre, give good advice.

Us Americans are usually the first the criticize our own nation
(whether left or right) and I think the US owes the world an
apology for exporting British born but American gestated feminism
to the rest of the world.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
Yet, any Canadian can go into a medical facility and get treatment,
and NOT be asked to pay.
If they can get *timely* treatment, and if they can get *competent*
treatment. You are aware, are you not, that many Canadians skip south
across the border to get better health care faster? Just out of
curiousity, how many Americans head north for their health care (Lasik
aside)?
Oooh! I am thinking about Lasik! Tell me, I have friends up there!
Is it really cheap or better somehow? Zap zap!
Dunno. I don't use a lot of medicine. But, the last stuff I had done,
was, by any examples of same that I've seen in the US ( And, lets
not forget that my ex was from NY, and I was with her, often down
there, for six years, then another g/f was from NJ, ditto her for
2.5 years, and the present- and last, cause she's that good- is
also from there, worked in the Superior Court in Philly, and so
on... ) was amazingly easy. No paperwork for me to deal with at all,
no " co pays ", or any such nonsense, driving up costs, and so on.
My co-pays weren't that outrageous. 50 bucks for the emergency room
and 20 bucks for her gynecologist. 300 bucks for her operation this
weekend. Yes, that's money but that's the end of it. And it all
got done in 2 weeks!
As I said, my mom's stuff was done fast, and no payouts at all.
When I had a small cyst removed from the back of my neck, in winter
2000, my regular doc checked it out, and set up the specialist, and
the only reason that went over two weeks, was my own schedule not having
a hole in it, that soon. But, once the procedure was set up, the
two visits were done within a week of set up. No paperwork for me,
none to submit to anyone for me to do, and not a sou to give to anyone.
Badda bing. <g>
More or less the same for me. Other than co-pays, everything was
very smooth. Just show my PPO card and that's that. When I was
unemployed, I went to the county hospital and they were slow,
but very competent.

As I said, I won't bash Canadian healthcare at this time too much
but would only say that the US is leading in some specific
political and economic issues that makes any thought of national
healthcare ludicrous. It's a "war" (a culture war) right now.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Canadian Medicare rocks, too.
But, I am amused at USians upset by other people being as proud
of their nations,
I don't think I, nor most people here, have been upset so much
as disputing the points you seem to be trying to make at the US's
expense. I would almost argue such behaviour is stereotypical
of the ugly american.
Maybe, if we had a history of doing that.
It comes across as some kind of insecurity on your part. "Look!
We've got great healthcare and our dollar is up! Yours sucks!"
It comes across as if you have something to prove.

Hey, I'll be the first to say that many Americans on both sides
of the political divide can be arrogant and ignorant bastards
from time to time. American movies often SUCK. Our music
is often uncreative, recycled pop crap. Our cities are often
little more than isolated strip malls selling the same
crap from city to city. Our women, especially, are confused,
spoiled, and often fat. I live here because this is where
the work is. If I could work there, I would be in Poland in a matter
of seconds.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
as the USians seem to hold that only they can
so be. More provincialism, from people who don't even have a
province. <laughs>
Andre
I think socialism can work for very small populations which live
in peaceful conditions AND don't have ethnic, cultural or immigration
issues.
BWAH HA HA ! Oh man, Mark, you are SO off on all three ! We've
got all of those involved, not to mention a matter of possible
Quebec secession, circa 1976-1995.
Yeah, except I've read some stuff about Quebec and they argue that
Quebec socialists don't want to give up tax revenue from the English
speakers.

And you're weaseling or being incredibly ignorant. What's the
distribution of ethnic minorities in Canada at this time? 4% black?
In the US, it's 17%. All other ethnic minorities are also more
greatly represented. Plus, it's all on a much greater scale:
Multiply everything by 9.

I'm a firm believer in reasonable population and having sustainable
families. My wife is shocked to see families in the US with 4 kids.
You are really being obtuse if you insist upon trying to say
that the Canada has cultural issues even in the same ballpark
as the US. While politically, you guys are just slightly right
of Michael Moore, your ethnic and cultural layout is similar to the midwest.
Post by Andre Lieven
Canadian internal politics are
far more complex, in all three of those areas, than you seem to
appreciate.
Oh, our proportional rate of immigration is *higher* than the
US'. So, we have more to do in that area, too.
Yeah, but you have a lot more land to put them on and the US has
has this sustained rate for DECADES.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Outside of that, a free market is best.
If it's regulated, perhaps. Regulated, as in, the rules apply
to all, not just the rich/women, et all...
Consider, which is more difficult: To regulate something, or to
have something regulate itself?

And I find your argument rather simplistic. The rules can never
truly apply to all. A rich person is fined 300 bucks for sleeping
under a bridge just like a poor man. The devil is in the details.
This is why I view all regulation with a degree of skepticism.
Post by Andre Lieven
And, thats the key to understanding my views on this, is that
they are consistant with my other views.
So, that I want women to be treated no better than men, and
men no better than women, aside from what differences each
*earns*, I have the same view of nations and economies. The
Rules apply to all, and any " waivers " are based on actual
performance.
Andre
I think "better" in this context is similar to the teasing you
gave me for talking about "nice" politicians. Women were
treated differently when they weren't "equal" to men and
they are treated differently today.

regards,
Mark Sobolewski
Ralph DuBose
2004-11-10 06:46:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Ben
(Snip)
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Ironically, the "deficit spending is evil" mantra does help in the
long run by making people worry about increased spending because
it can't be "paid" for. The fact is that there never will be enough
money in the American treasury for all the things the different
national daycare
national healthcare
national education
universities (also known as commie indoctrination camps)
new roads
druggie welfare senior citizens
You get the idea. There simply isn't enough money to "pay for" all of
that!
Well, we socialists here in Canada have most of that, a budget
surplus, a healthy and growing economy, with a higher proportional
job growth rate than the US, a positive balance of trade, and so
on.
Economic tides ebb and flow, Andre, you know that. It wasn't all that
long ago that the Asian economies were burning along while the U.S.
had stalled. Doom and gloom forecasts, pundits insisting the West was
fading into the, well, west. A relatively short time later, things
turned around.
Well, what was one of the major reasons for the east's meltdown ?
Bad debts, carried off of the books.
Kinda like the last four US budget years...
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Now, if you let your patricians loot the US Treasury, for the benefit
of the uberrich, then yes, there won't be " enough " money.
You probably also spend a lot less on national defense than the US
does. :-)
Sure: We don't need a nuclear deterrent.
Of course not--you have us. In a bad neighborhood, the businesses and
houses closest to the police station enjoy peace and quiet.
Yet, we do the peacekeeping ops, to the point that literally every
infantryman in the Cdn Forces has been overseas in the last ten
years.
Being able to do that is a luxury provided by the security provided
by the USA in this continent. The efforts that Canadas Armed forces
exert is appreciated. But it is the easy part.
Post by Andre Lieven
So, you're wrong. Try again, and *learn* what Canada does, before
you spout off ignorance..
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
And, we don't engage in empire building.
Neither do we.
ROTFLMAO ! Apparently, history is not your long suite..
For a nation of our multiple strengths, the USA has shown less
enthusiasm for Empire than anyone you can name.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Ben
Tell me, just how many countries have we occupied and
kept in the last century?
Hmm.... The Phillipines,
1898

Cuba,

Never occupied by the US. Helped gain independence from Spain.

Haiti ( Loads of times ) WTF do you mean by occupy? There is
nothing in Haiti worth occupying and never has been, although it
frequently melts down into chaos and oblivion and somebody has to at
least try to sort things out. The only roads in that country were
built by the USMC. Why we should feel bad about Haiti is way beyond
me.
Remember the last time we "occupied" Haiti?? Clinton was begged
for an intervention by the entire Congressional Black Caucus.

not to mention
Post by Andre Lieven
bases in former foe nations of WW2...
Are we now expected to apologize for NATO? And why exactly did the
US Army end up in Germany? The US was quite isolationist before Pearl
Harbor. But wait. That must mean that it all fault.

Oh, Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia,

As if we wanted to be involved in any of those places.
Post by Andre Lieven
also come to mind...
Lets not forget Panama... which, before the US stuck it's nose in,
so as to get a US controlled Canal, was a part of Columbia...
You are Goddam right. Sometimes the choice is to build a canal or
sail forever an extra 7,000 miles of treacherous ocean.
Only a modern sort of totally spoiled worldview would think to
criticise that.
Post by Andre Lieven
Amazing, how people don't know their own history...
It is silly to imagine what other people know or don't know based
on where they are from and a few fragmentary comments. That would be,
what is the word? bigoted.
Post by Andre Lieven
Oh, Iraq, *now*, comes to mind, too.
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
I have told you that I honestly don't know enough about Canada to feel
comfortable to make negative statements about it. What I think I do
know is that what works (or appears to work) in Canada wouldn't apply
to the US
for a variety of reasons including (and correct me if I'm wrong)
1) Lower immigration and ethnic tensions than exist in the states.
Wrong. Canada has a *higher rate* of immigration, on a proportional
basis. Our population is around 32,000,000 right now, and we have
about 250,000 immigrants, per year, coming in. Oh, US immigration
into Canada is on the upswing...
Ben made a serious point which you glibbly brushed off. The US has
a far less homogeneous population than Canda. A lot of immigration to
the US is illegal, non English speaking and tied economically to other
countries.

As for cross border immigration.. America is full of talented,
very successful Canadians who fled south in search of opportunity. US
citisens going to Canada are not doing that for a shot at Greatness of
some sort. Maybe they are tired and just need some rest.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Ben
And Montreal is a hotbed of terrorist cells.
<laughs> Yeah, just like there were WMDs in Iraq...
Try again., This time, offer evidence.
<laughs>
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
But, racial tensions here are lower, yes.
I'm sure the Inuu would agree. Or perhaps not.
<shrug> Where is Wounded Knee, again ?
Cheap moral posturing.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
2) I don't know about Canada in this case, but Europe supposedly just
outright
"steals" US pharmaceuticals patents by threatening to license them if
the companies don't fix prices.
Since the gov't buys in *bulk*, it negotiates bulk buying prices.
Thats called using multinational corp. standards back at 'em.
" Turn about is fair play ".
These new drugs are not developed in Canada and they are not made
in Canada. The only reason that they can be re-imported back to the US
is that companies still sell to Canada all that they ask for. Which
will of course soon end.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
3) The US has been in a recession. It's coming out of it. We'll see
how much longer Canada's "higher proportional job growth rate" lasts.
Its doing pretty well, over the last five years...
The largest employer in your country is the government in all its
forms. And 90% of your people live within 100 miles of the US border.
And you guys never got around to guaranteeing freedom of speech. The
Internet could be strangled if left in your hands.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
And our dollar, which was at 62.5 cents US, almost two years ago,
is now closing in on 84 cents. That speaks to the *confidence* of
the world *marketplace* in Canada, and a lower rate of same wrt
the US...
The U.S economy took a huge whack a few years ago. Ebbs and flows.
Yet, ours, not so much. Nice rebound, with the Cdn dollar closing
almost 2/3rds of the gap between it and the US $, as of 12/02.
Stock markets and currency markets go up and then they go down. If
anyone really understands why this happens they should be able to
predict what will happen next. In which case they could get very rich.
And never hang around here.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
So, Mark, the *marketplace* is speaking, and it's saying that not
everything going on within the US is *as good* as whats going on
in Canada.
" You're a liberated woman. Learn to *lose*. " Danny DeVito,
" Other People's Money ".
Post by Mark Sobolewski
When you talk about looting the treasury, that's a perfect argument to
be made
for NOT nationalizing health care in this country. The educational
and university
system is a mess. The healthcare system wouldn't control costs but
would instead
see them leap out of control as the doctor's union insisted upon new
bond measures
to pay their salaries whether Americans used their health care or not.
Well, do it our way, and that doesn't happen.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
In other words, Andre, I'm not taking this opportunity to bash Canada.
I'm merely
saying that what works for Canada simply wouldn't do the same here.
Fair enough?
Maybe: Have you ever *tried* ?
One fundamental fact about health care in Canada is that it is
comparatively "orderly" because very few new treatments originate up
there. You guys wait for us to work up new approaches then you hang
back like movie critics and decide what to embrace. And the reason
that works as well as it does is because Canadians are about 1000
times more comfortable being told what to do and to stand in line than
Americans.
I am convinced that it is largely genetic. People came to America
looking to live out some crazy dream that was impossible to fulfill
back in the old country. People ended up in Canada because they were
sent there by their employers. Or they were British loyalists. Which
was not really an evil thing but a major hint as to their
psychological make up.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Ben
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
But, not because there never was enough money...
Oh, I'll kind of agree with you there. The US has a LOT of money
(real or not :-)
The problem is that the same forces that currently allow it to be
wasted would
only waste it that much faster if the government became larger.
That, Mark, is an article of *faith*.
" Show me the money ! " Jerry McGuire.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
BTW, Mondale opposed NASA for about the same reasons you just
listed... Yet, Armstrong walked on the Moon, anyway. Turned
out there was " enough " money... :-)
Come now. You know that a mission with a clear, single objective is
far different than a managerial one.
Yet, management was involved, without which, it would have failed.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Once again, you kind of prove my point for me: After the moon landing,
NASA languished
because it didn't have any specific clear purpose. The space shuttle
was a boondoggle
and it's private companies that are now picking up the slack. Thank
you!
Um... Tell me that when they orbit something. As has been elequently
discussed on sci.space.history, the issues of ballistic sub-orbital
flight, and orbital flight are so different, that doing the smaller
one doesn't prove that you can do the larger one for under several
*billion* more...
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Oh, how many times has Canada landed on the moon?
Lets see: 12 guys got to the Moon, 32,000,000 Canadians have health
care...
If the US stopped selling you guys Viagra, your system would
collapse.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Ben
http://www.fcpp.org/pdf/10%20myths%20about%20medicare%20frontier%20backgrounder%2013%20.PDF
In case it doesn't make it, the link goes to the Frontier Center for
Public Policy, and speaks about the 10 myths of Canadian health care
(most of which you seem to be perpetuating). It's written by Bryan
Crowley.
Who is, who ?
Post by Ben
And for what it's worth, any American (hell, just about anyone) can go
into a medical facility and get treatment (how much they'll be asked
to pay will depend on their personal circumstances). It's more
accurate to say that those Americans don't have health insurance.
Yet, any Canadian can go into a medical facility and get treatment,
and NOT be asked to pay.
"Health care" in Canada is whatever the police say it is. There are
huge areas in Canada where Adequate anesthesia for women in labor is
not budgetted for and is therefore illegal to obtain.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Ben
Not that I really want to insert myself too much into this debate, but
you, Andre, are coming across as entirely too smug about the U.S.
comparing to Canada.
Yep: Thats because I've spent culmative years in... *both*.
Match my credentials, ace.
Post by Ben
Sorry, but there's too much available over the
'net to allow you to simply make assertions about Canada's perfection
while sniping at the U.S.
Non sequitur. Please quote where I referred to " perfection ".
That, rather is your gig, about the US. I'm just pointing out
that that Empress is also not well dressed...
Deal with it.
Post by Ben
Mark Steyn talks about the "soft power" of Canada, how it's ultimately
too vulnerable to outside hostile forces, and how
bureaucrats/politicians in those types of societies are really little
more than poseurs. He goes so far as to say that Australia "now
fills Canada's vacated slot as the doughty third warrior of the
Anglosphere."
Well, neocons spout their Pargbage all over.
And, that Canada didn't get into the muck and morass of Iraq, to
me, is a Good Thing.
At least we are not crippled by fear.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Ben
Now, none of this is to say "Canada bad, U.S. good". But it sounds
like you're saying the reverse, and it just ain't so.
I'm just pointing out that the True Believer view of " USA Great,
all others suck " ain't so.
Deal with it. We do.
Andre
Mark Sobolewski
2004-11-09 22:49:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Hello Andre,
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
For instance, the current Republicans want to *spend
without actually paying for it*.
Let's discuss this claim.
You have a point, but note that the Democrats aren't much different.
This isn't an issue of party uber alles. Its a matter of,
who was President, and who was in Congress, when the government
spent no more than they took in, say, in 1999-2001.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Every dollar they get to "pay" for something would only inspire
them to spend it (and possibly more) immediately.
" Coulda, woulda, shoulda. "
Mark, who was President and who was in Congress, when the budget
was in surplus ?
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Yes, it's
an awful situation, but deficit spending is still better than
blowing twice as much money that's "paid" for.
Tell that to Visa...
Post by Mark Sobolewski
(I'm reminded of a Married with Children
episode where Al got his retirement funds and his wife
insisted upon holding onto them to hide them from creditors
and she blew it all on the home shopping network.)
OK. Who was President when the US budget was in surplus,
again ?
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Society
Terrible that clinton can't honestly get credit
for "a balanced budget" (if Social Security
liabilities are omitted) or "a shrinking debt". ;-)
Well, Preseidents get the credit, and the debit.
It comes with the job, *either way*...
Indeed. Reagan won the cold war after all. :-)
Hey: When did you become Richie Soyack ?
Truman-Bush I, plus Churchill-Thatcher, plus a host
of others " won " the Cold War.
Who was in office when the cold war ended?
GW Bush. Does that mean that " Truman won WW2 " ? After all,
" who was in office when WW2 ended ? "
Of course, note that I never bought into the dichotomy of assigning
credit to presidents based simply upon what happened on their watch.
Using YOUR logic, GW Bush deserves credit for ending the cold war.
Post by Andre Lieven
The point remains, that these are more complex issues that
transcend any one man.
Gee, and economies are so simple. That's why they are so easily
predictable. :-)
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
We could just as easily argue that Chamberlain deserves as much
credit as Churchill for winning WWII (appeasement was part
of his strategy, you see :-)
So was rebuilding much of the UK's armed forces, with which his
successor then fought the war...
If he hadn't engaged in appeasement, it's possible the war
wouldn't have happened to begin with...
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Your positions sound very selective, pardon me for saying so.
Not really: I'm looking at big pictures.
Ah, it's simple when the conclusions suit you and complicated when
the conclusions suit you. :-)
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Even to fools who view taxation as theft, this is a
felonious higher level of theft.
As I said, that depends upon how you look at it. Do you really
want to have your pocket picked MORE but thank heavens
it's not being assigned to credit?
Well, I don't agree with a view that sees taxes as being
" picked ".
Stuff costs. In both the private and public sectors...
This sounds like an argument of obfuscation. Sure, stuff "costs"
but then why debate such issues as credit or efficiency in paying
for healthcare?
Because any service provider can be properly measured in those
terms, *among others*...
Indeed. In the states, the best and cheapest schools (after all
sources are funding are accounted) tend to be private.

Note too that HMO's are inefficient monopolies created by the democrats.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Stop waffling, Kerry! :-)
Non sequitur. I'm merely... being consistant. No waffles there.
You had argued that efficiency mattered and then when confronted
with a possibility that the government might become more wasteful
you dismissed it.

Your non-sequitur accusation is a non-sequitur.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Ironically, the "deficit spending is evil" mantra does help in the
long run by making people worry about increased spending because
it can't be "paid" for. The fact is that there never will be enough
money in the American treasury for all the things the different
national daycare
national healthcare
national education
universities (also known as commie indoctrination camps)
new roads
druggie welfare senior citizens
You get the idea. There simply isn't enough money to "pay for" all of that!
Well, we socialists here in Canada have most of that, a budget
surplus, a healthy and growing economy, with a higher proportional
job growth rate than the US, a positive balance of trade, and so
on.
Now, if you let your patricians loot the US Treasury, for the benefit
of the uberrich, then yes, there won't be " enough " money.
You probably also spend a lot less on national defense than the US
does. :-)
Sure: We don't need a nuclear deterrent. And, we don't engage in
empire building.
I'll be the first to agree that empires do cost more than they gain
in the modern era at least for the nation engaging in them.
But the side benefits are enjoyed by all. Europe lives in freedom
because the U.S. led NATO against the USSR (The French would have
long ago settled for a Soviet occupation force in replacement
of the Germans).
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
I have told you that I honestly don't know enough about Canada to feel
comfortable to make negative statements about it. What I think I do
know is that what works (or appears to work) in Canada wouldn't apply
to the US
for a variety of reasons including (and correct me if I'm wrong)
1) Lower immigration and ethnic tensions than exist in the states.
Wrong. Canada has a *higher rate* of immigration, on a proportional
basis. Our population is around 32,000,000 right now, and we have
about 250,000 immigrants, per year, coming in. Oh, US immigration
into Canada is on the upswing...
That suits me just fine. :-)

In answer to your claim I'm wrong: You can argue that I'm "wrong"
only if you look at one set of numbers and especially a set that
doesn't take into account illegal immigration.
Post by Andre Lieven
But, racial tensions here are lower, yes.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
2) I don't know about Canada in this case, but Europe supposedly just
outright
"steals" US pharmaceuticals patents by threatening to license them if
the companies don't fix prices.
Since the gov't buys in *bulk*, it negotiates bulk buying prices.
Thats called using multinational corp. standards back at 'em.
" Turn about is fair play ".
Yet, you want to whine about other countries (gasp!) selling products
are great prices that people can't resist buying!
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
3) The US has been in a recession. It's coming out of it. We'll see
how much longer Canada's "higher proportional job growth rate" lasts.
Its doing pretty well, over the last five years...
And our dollar, which was at 62.5 cents US, almost two years ago,
is now closing in on 84 cents. That speaks to the *confidence* of
the world *marketplace* in Canada, and a lower rate of same wrt
the US...
So, Mark, the *marketplace* is speaking, and it's saying that not
everything going on within the US is *as good* as whats going on
in Canada.
As you know, the US dollar is lower overall so don't start tooting
Canada's horn yet. But then again, it does say a lot that you
can only view Canada's success in comparison to it's neighbor
in the south. Get the point?
Post by Andre Lieven
" You're a liberated woman. Learn to *lose*. " Danny DeVito,
" Other People's Money ".
Post by Mark Sobolewski
When you talk about looting the treasury, that's a perfect argument to
be made
for NOT nationalizing health care in this country. The educational
and university
system is a mess. The healthcare system wouldn't control costs but
would instead
see them leap out of control as the doctor's union insisted upon new
bond measures
to pay their salaries whether Americans used their health care or not.
Well, do it our way, and that doesn't happen.
Great. Pick up a few hundred million people and immigrants from
here and we'll check it out.

You sound like some kid with a lemonaide stand trying to lecture
his parents on how they should run their business.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
In other words, Andre, I'm not taking this opportunity to bash Canada.
I'm merely
saying that what works for Canada simply wouldn't do the same here.
Fair enough?
Maybe: Have you ever *tried* ?
See above. Small economies :-) don't necessary scale to large ones.

Er, doesn't California have a large economy than Canada?
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
But, not because there never was enough money...
Oh, I'll kind of agree with you there. The US has a LOT of money
(real or not :-)
The problem is that the same forces that currently allow it to be
wasted would
only waste it that much faster if the government became larger.
That, Mark, is an article of *faith*.
It's an article of observation. Lessee: Social security: About to
go bankrupt. The educational system: On a downward spiral.
Even our empire building.
Post by Andre Lieven
" Show me the money ! " Jerry McGuire.
Indeed. America has been blowing all this money to no avail for some
time. Now you want to argue they should blow more?

Is that being consistent?
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
BTW, Mondale opposed NASA for about the same reasons you just
listed... Yet, Armstrong walked on the Moon, anyway. Turned
out there was " enough " money... :-)
Come now. You know that a mission with a clear, single objective is
far different than a managerial one.
Yet, management was involved, without which, it would have failed.
Don't be obtuse. You know what I'm talking about: There is a difference
between a very well funded and specific goal (get a man to the moon,
here's a few billion bucks) versus running a cost-efficient program
or one that provides services to millions of people.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Once again, you kind of prove my point for me: After the moon landing,
NASA languished
because it didn't have any specific clear purpose. The space shuttle
was a boondoggle
and it's private companies that are now picking up the slack. Thank
you!
Um... Tell me that when they orbit something. As has been elequently
discussed on sci.space.history, the issues of ballistic sub-orbital
flight, and orbital flight are so different, that doing the smaller
one doesn't prove that you can do the larger one for under several
*billion* more...
Isn't that where the public space program started?
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Oh, how many times has Canada landed on the moon?
Lets see: 12 guys got to the Moon, 32,000,000 Canadians have health
care...
GOOD POINT!

Indeed, YOU brought up the moon program and now you're sweeping it
under the rug using my point? Thief! :-)
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Certainly not enough if "some guy behind the tree" is supposed to get the bill.
Kerry said he was only going to tax people above 200K and I think
everyone knew he was BSing and would say on day 1 "Oh, I guess
that's not possible. OK, we now need an 80% tax rate."
Well, all those numbers sound like BS to me...
The first one was Kerry's. :-)
So ? One hardly wants to overtax the poor; they don't have money.
You must be pretty rich if you think people earning less than
200K are "poor". :-)
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Let's discuss that: What do you think of trying to "pay for" things
with someone else's money? How about a tax to pay for it all
for guys named Andre? (No name changes allowed! that's tax
evasion!)
Naw. Thats, like, ya know... discrimination.
Sure. "Positive" discrimination. :-) All the judges named Bruce will
agree that it's not "bad" discrimination.
Waffle.
Yet, that's precisely the thinking in many of the courts. Don't blame me.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Seriously, the left sold these tax increases as for "the rich" when
the reality is they create loopholes for themselves anyway (Therea
Heinz had an effective 12% tax rate.)
How is she a " leftist " ?
Interesting enough, at the time she married the ketchup heir, she
wasn't.
Somehow, she turned into a total wacko marxist.
In what way ? It's common to try, and succeed, in demonising
political opponents by slinging the word " liberal " at them.
Indeed. Probably because the label often fits so well AND the
US public at least doesn't buy into it.

How about this: When the left finds a way to fix social security
and education and make it perform effeciently, then they'll go
and cede off management of health care.
Post by Andre Lieven
I'm interested in what *substance* there is for such a claim.
I asked, and you offered... AbZero. I can make a reasonable
conclusion from that... That the claim is baseless.
If you like, I can google some stuff for you later. I've read
that she's used her former husband's ketchup money to fund
all kinds of leftist foundations including one that sympathizes
with Palestinians. The funniest was her funding a few widows
of victims of 9-11 who suprisingly showed their support
for Kerry and tried to generalize that they represented all
9-11 widows.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Society
Plus one can arguably claim that the costs of
coping with the injuries to the US economy
from the dot.com bust plus 9/11 and its
aftermath belong squarely on the clinton side
of the ledger -- just as honest business
accounting treats deferred maintenance
expenses.
Yet, they're hardly the worst factors in jobs
being shipped overseas ( See " Exporting
America ", by CNN host Lou Dobbs, who also has
a very good record with space advocacy ),
or in a fedeeal gov't spending what they refuse
to raise...
I don't buy this zero sum game. Would you really rather pay,
say, 10 bucks for Canadian made underwear than 1 dollar made
in China?
I often pay more, for a better product.
But what if it's not or it doesn't matter?
<shrug>
So you're just blowing off that point?

What if it doesn't matter? You keep saying: "it's poor quality
and slave labor" but if it's not, what then?
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
If consumers want cheap underwear why is that a bad thing?
If it means that one's economy goes down the crapper, then
that is a bad thing.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Are they going to pass them down to their children or something?
Well, they will, with their earned riches...
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Regardless, you've missed the point: outsourcing doesn't necessarily
result in inferior products which is precisely what makes it so
dangerous.
No, it just results in looted economies. Its quite reasonable for
a People to say, via their government ( When it's not in the
pockets of the uberrich, that is ), that " you wanna make money
here ? You're gonna spend some here, too. "
Ok, now I can address the lower dollar (hint: It's not confidence
in Canada that you're getting more US dollar for yours :-)

What do you think happens when someone sells a product in the states
in dollars? What do they do with them? They're printed by the
treasury like so much toilet paper after all.

They have to buy SOMETHING or wallpaper their home! I could even
argue that a trade deficit works in the US's favor.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
And, I don't need
the last drams of " price drops " at WalMart, due to the stuff
being made by 12 year old Vietnamese, or prisoners in China.
This is a legitimate moral argument, but it doesn't necessarily apply
to all
outsourcing. Sometimes, people in other countries are simply willing
to work for less because the cost of living is lower there.
Cite ? Uh huh...
Post by Mark Sobolewski
You're waffling.
<Projection> No proof offered ? Claim fails.
Many IT workers in Russia or India are perfectly happy and content
with their jobs in nice cities and earning a comparitively higher
paycheck. Do you dispute this?
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
My values sometimes do cost me something. But, if they never
did, would they be values, or mere rationalisations ?
Come now. Your primary concern (rightly so) is the impact of
joblessness on the local economy. Focus on that rather than going for
red-herrings when
I bring up the point that cheaper products do provide a benefit.
A one dollar " benefit " when you lose thousands is not a Good Thing...
HAHAHAHA!

Seriously, you are going into hysterics. One dollar benefit for
thousands? Where did you pull that out of?
Post by Andre Lieven
That was your waffle, BTW. As I said, I'm looking at the big picture,
in spite of attempts to drop into the peripheral and irrelevent.
Yes, all outsourcing and cheaper foreign made goods are made
crappy by slave labor resulting in a 1000:1 loss ratio for each
dollar saved.

Okay....
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
You can then use the 9 bucks you saved to buy other Canadian products,
well, such as bacon and beer. :-) You get the idea. Is it a good idea
to keep "jobs" home if those jobs are not being done well? Ultimately,
it all boils down to whether the product is worth it.
No, thats one data point. There are others, like, does a people
want to have some say over their nation's economy ?
So don't buy crappy, slave-labor made, products! Done!
So, label them as such. Done !
In the states, that is the case. People often prefer to buy
foreign made products.
Post by Andre Lieven
Is is informed public a bad idea ? Why ?
Never said it was.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
It's one data point, but it's a pretty big data point: cost is the
first thing
people look at in buying something especially if it's a generic
commodity.
Yet, not the *only* thing...
Never said it was.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
You pay for oil and probably don't think much about where it came
from.
Sure I do. It comes from Alberta.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
The greatest concern with outsourcing in recent years has been
precisely
with products made by well qualified software engineers who aren't
being slave driven but rather living quite well.
In very dis-similar economies. Thats where " free trade " fails.
Er, the WHOLE POINT of trade is for dis-similar economies to take
advantage of each other's differences. If prices for products
are the same across the board, then what's the point?
Post by Andre Lieven
Oh, on that point: Why is it that the US likes " free trade "
*until* someone else does a thng better ? See " softwood
lumber "...
:-) Hey, GW changed his mind the steel tariffs.
Post by Andre Lieven
So, even your own nation doesn't believe in what you're saying...
Hey, I'll be the first to say that government is not trustworthy
hence my libertarian stance.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Society
Oh and don't overlook the corporate crimes
that took place during clinton's party years
and were uncovered on Bush watch.
Yet, the crimes continue... so the current Bush
watch has done no better than Clinton's...
Agreed. Note a lot of this is due to the fact that America HAS
a decent economy for all this kind of stuff to happen in the private
sector. In most other commie/socialist nations, the government
doesn't even bother reporting it. That's how it's SUPPOSED to work.
Yet, we know that corporate looting in the fUSSR has far surpassed
anything that was done there, prior to.
Don't forget Western Europe (soon to be renamed New Algeria and
Turkey)
One word: Enron...
On whose watch did this company come to fruition? All that dot-com
nonsense was Clinton's doing and it was coming undone even
before GW came into office.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Well, the private sector seems to be best at dismantling nations...
Once again, come now. Without the private sector, there isn't anyone
to pay enough taxes to make all those fantasy free handouts work
effectively to begin with! :-)
Not when it isn't given... *limits*. We call those: laws.
Wanna revisit untrammeled capitalism ? We call that " The Great
Depression "...
And what made it all the more greater was FDR's socialistic
spending (into debt, remember debt being bad) that dragged it on
for 10 years afterwards.

Plus, speaking of LAWS, Hoover passwd all kinds of monetary laws
that helped to destabilize the economy.

Today, we're facing social security going bankrupt which is
a holdover from those days. That's untrammeled socialism for ya.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Society
Post by Andre Lieven
Clinton wasn't the Devil. Neither was either Bush. OK ?
OK.
Thats my point, really. Lets move away from demonising
either side, by either it's persons, or it's being an
opposition to the other, and consider that neither
party, or side of the ideological divide is wholly
correct.
This is moderate wussying. Hitler built bridges too and kept
the trains running on time. He did recover the economy
of his country (granted, until he ran it broke and had to start
his war of conquest early, thank heavens.)
OK: Godwin's Law. Argument over, you lose.
If you want to run for the exit, go right ahead. But you aren't
Just pointing out *your* having stepped over the line... While
I stuck to the issues.
Yeah, when it comes to staying in line you've got that down pat. :-)

I'll stand my ground on this one: There are larger issues of
individual rights and ideas still around from the time of the cold
war and yes, WWII that need to be dealt with.

There's outright race bashing in the states reminiscent of nazi
germany. Substitute the word "Jew" for "white male" in the rhetoric
of modern leftists. The left wants to attack heterosexual
two parent families in a bid to increase their political power.
Pardon me if I don't feel like rubber stamping all of that just
to maybe, maybe, get affordable healthcare.

Note that I do have healthcare. It's not as cheap as I would like
but it does get the job done.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Clinton and his ilk are dehumanizing socialists whose goal
is to destroy two parent families in order to create a single mother
welfare class dependant upon socialist voters. Fortunately,
he apparently was concerned more about his political survival
than his agenda. But that hardly makes him a nice guy.
Ah, but I never suggested that he, or anyone else in office,
was a " nice guy ".
I would rather break Godwin's law than being obtuse as you appear
to be. Really, Andre, if you make such wuss
arguments than I say America ought to invade Canada again.
<shrug> " There you go again "...
MS-ing my point... Or, avoiding it. <shrug>
Try stating one clearly and I'll have a harder time avoiding it.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
This time, we'd beat the pants off of you for sure! :-)
Well, you're 0 for 3, so far. I'm good with that record. <g>
Yeah, but back then you guys weren't afraid to use guns.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
(But we really ought to wait until we get done with other business
first :-)
That means, we're safe, forever ! Yay !
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Paying more for healthcare isn't that much a big deal compared to the
possibility of further empowering a marxist, anti-western, anti-male
state. Address that point please.
Proof that Canada is " marxist " ? None offered ? Claim fails.
I was talking about the states. :-)
Post by Andre Lieven
Done.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Consider: Using percentages, we can say that there are 100
( Well, 101, from 0 to 100 ) levels of " nice/not nice ", and
" effective/not ".
One can be on the " effective " side of that measure, and
still, as a person, be over to the " not nice " side of
that measure.
But, who cares ? I don't care if my leaders are " nice ",
I prefer them to be " effective ", in doing things like not
getting the next two generations in hock for what they did.
I don't want to break Godwin's law again, but do you just realize
the ticket you gave politicians? Do you want leaders who
are simply effective? Effectively anti-male? Effectively
out to disempower the individual?
Sigh. I would have thought that you understood that, my record
on issues of men's rights being reasonably clear, I was speaking
of doing reasonable and good things.
BTW, which of our two nations has " The Patriot Act " again ?
Remember when you compared the moon landing to health care
based upon services? (wonder where you got that idea? :-)

I don't spend a lot of time worrying about the Patriot act so much
as the other apparently smaller but more meaningful impacts federal
law has upon my life. The Patriot Act didn't make it a crime
for a man to tell a woman she looks pretty in the workplace, for example.
Post by Andre Lieven
We name our laws a bit less... jingoistically... It lets people
oppose them without being deemed " anti-Canadian ".
VAWA, Affirmative action, positive discrimination, it's all good (or bad.)
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
It's interesting you should make that argument because I think the
current success of the American system is that it's not effective
for both sides. Do you think a left winger that gets elected on
slushing
money to it's constituencies wants the problems that drive their
voters to the polls to be solved? On the contrary: The worse the
problems
get, the more they can count on the slobs to run for their carrot.
Again, thats rather simplistic, and jingoistic. Because it denies
that anyone can want to do Good, in the process, yet you ASSume
that the private sector will do Good, in it's process.
I ASSume that the private sector does good when it's in their best
interests to do good lest they lose business.

A bureaucrat who gets paid whether they do a good job or not (and may
even get paid more) is far more dangerous.
Post by Andre Lieven
That, Mark, is being a True Believer. The truth of the *facts*
behind the belief become irrelevent to such people.
Hey, I don't trust corporations either. I'm all for reasonable
oversight. I could just as easily turn around and argue that
if you think a government can't perform oversight on a corporation,
what makes you think they can do it for themselves?!?!?!
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Or to put it this way: National healthcare in the states would work as
well as national education.
And, thats an article of... faith.
It's also known as logic. If someone does a bad job with
nearly every large scale social program they're given, what
makes you think another one would be any different?
Post by Andre Lieven
Is public military force raising
working better than private such ?
As you and I both know, a military is part of a core function
of government similar to police and courts. By definition
(outside of some "extreme" libertarian positions), it needs to
be centralized by government.
Post by Andre Lieven
So much for claims, then, that
the public sector cannot do anything right...
As YOU, repeat, YOU noted in a distinction above: Landing someone
on the moon is a far different task than providing healthcare to
millions of people. Blowing stuff up is a lot different than
patching roads or running a schoolhouse
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
And that's a good thing. The US will provide leadership to end this
marxist anti-male plague just as it ended the cold war.
<shrug> Faith, again. Others do disagree. Canada, for one.
<sarcasm>
I'm crushed
</sarcasm laughter=medium>
Post by Andre Lieven
We'll
do it our way, thank you very much, and too bad if you don't like
what that means.
Er, you are aware that you don't have a vote in the US elections?
That you don't have a say in how the US carries out military policy?
Post by Andre Lieven
Including on seeing how you do things... more
poorly, due to that Faith.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Our debt's dropping. Hows yours ?
Honestly, I see it dropping in about 2 years and then it will kick in
again as social security goes bankrupt (thanks to a previous "efficient"
politician, FDR)
Well, you're alone in that faith based belief. The economic trend
lines are all going the other way. Thats *one reason* the Cdn $ is
climbing so dramatically.
I think about 50 million other voters happened to agree with me.
And you can look up the numbers on CNN yourself (I'll find a link
if you need it). 300K more jobs added just last MONTH for a start!
The stock market soaring. Sorry about the "bad" news.

As I said above, the exchange rate isn't really that big a deal except
for people wanting to buy other stuff. :-)
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
And Bush will get all that credit for the next 4 years. Already, the
stock market is rallying and job growth is through the roof.
Not according to the papers I'm reading...
Oh no! Then it must not be true! :-)
Post by Andre Lieven
BTW, is Iraq " pacified " yet ? Snarf.
Lessee: Free elections are scheduled this December.

Really, Andre, I sense a bit of anti-americanism coming from you
and it's not out of line with the talking points Kerry tried
to sell the voters. "Hey! Vote for me! I HATE America!
I went to North Vietnam and told them to kill my fellow veterans!
I'll get the job done in Iraq just like I did for Vietnam."
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
So, speaking for myself, for instance, I can support,
here in Canada, public medicine, which to my view,
works for us very well, indeed. Yet, at the same
time, I oppose gay " marriage ", and, as I'd tried to
point out on another newsgroup, when it was claimed that
such opponents had to be religiously based in their
opposition, that my opposition is wholly secular.
I think at one point in time, national education in the states worked
as well. Then, as the teachers unions kicked in and were protected
by the government (and could set prices the taxpayers HAD to pay),
it degenerated into a big mess. Now, trying to eliminate government
control of education is impossible.
Well, the schools here do rather well. So, maybe your public
system is " nice ", but " not effective ".
It's neither for the reasons I mentioned at the beginning of this
post.
Yet, you admit that you don't know much about Canada, so you make
such a claim ? Cites, please.
I was talking about the US system.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
BTW, " free enterprise " sucked from Oct 1929, for a decade.
Did you just junk it ?
You forgot about socialism kicking in two years later. FDR got out of
it by going to war. Who says that war is a bad thing?
Well, that " socialism " bought ships that won the Battle of Midway...
Yep, but going into DEBT!!!

So lessee: Socialism didn't fix the great depression (and even made it
worse) and then FDR went into war and sunk the country further into
debt and started a US empire.

Gee, makes GW seem kind of moderate... :-)
Post by Andre Lieven
See how the Yorktown and Enterprise got ordered, funded, and built...
The same way that we're paying for star wars today. :-)
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Sure, the government CAN do a job effectively, but does that mean
you want to put your trust in it?
Far more so, than Ken Lay/Enron or HMOs..
Ok then. Whose asking you to?
Youse all.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Seriously Andre. You notice how I respectfully declined to criticize
Canadian politics.
Sure, because you admit that you don't know much about it. That isn't
a situation I share, wrt US politics. Our news media cover, well,
more than lifestyle pieces...
INDEED!

Countries and their citizens who pride themselves on "staying in line"
don't get much newspaper coverage. What I have heard about Canadian
healthcare hasn't been pleasant but unlike you, I don't believe
in jumping to conclusions to suit my ideology.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Not just out of ignorance, but simply out of recognition that the
countries have different issues to address.
OK.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
If you don't like Enron or HMO's or our foreign policy, then don't
live here.
Then, don't tell us what to do, either.
And I'm doing this, how?
Post by Andre Lieven
But, given the number of times that the US has *violated* NAFTA
with Canada, that suggests that the word of the US is also in
deficit...
When you can negotiate "bunk" prices... :-)
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
We're talking about all these things about the US because the US is a
leader.
Size isn't competance...
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Not just in Enron and HMO's and starting wars in Iraq, but the Internet,
standing up to the USSR, and the pharmaceuticals industry (off the top
of my head.) That makes us a target for criticism. Guess why!
See above.
Feel free then to tell me how many more drugs (or proportional based
upon population) the Canadian pharmaceutical industry is producing.
Or how the Canadians are leaders in high speed internet. Or
space technology.

Sometimes, people who say size doesn't matter are just small.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
How about this: Let's have
the government control all media including music and films.
After all, they do such a great job with healthcare surely
they can manage that too?
Naw. Whats the up side ? I can see the up side for our
health care, over yours. Everyone covered, and with less
cost to the nation ( 10% GDP in Canada, V/ 15% GDP for
HMO-Land... ).
Even if what you were saying was true, Andre, there is a fundamental
reason I oppose it: It's too much power in the hands of a government
that doesn't yet recognize individual rights (specifically mine) as I
think it should.
But, you would rather place such powers into *private* hands.
Eeek! INDIVIDUAL Freedom! Eeek!

:-)

At least with the health care system as it is now, I can refuse to pay
for it. Granted, I put my health at risk but I still have that option.
If I don't like a particular HMO, I can choose another. I can
decide that if a t-shirt is made by a sweatshop in China, I needn't
buy it. I can also decide to pay for a less expensive, but well
made product from India if I desire.

Social security is going down the toilet and there's nothing
anyone can do about it. Fortunately, it's taking down any
hopes or dreams of funding national healthcare (or daycare) with it.
Post by Andre Lieven
Yes, as I said: Thats an article of Faith.
I never said that I would trust any corporation with absolute power
over my life. That's why I think it's great people should have
options to choose others or even opt out altogether.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
You are willing to hand over your freedom to people who aren't
"nice" but, for the present, are "efficient". I wouldn't.
Wrong. You wnat precisely that, by vesting all that in " the
private sector ".
You make the mistake of assuming that the "private sector" is one
big, evil corporation. Even if they're a bunch of seperate evil
corporations, there is still greater choice than voting.

I've been getting a big laugh at the whining from the left recently
over (gasp!) that (gasp!) they're getting stuck with the results
of a democratic process. THEIR precious tax dollars might (gasp!)
go to pay for someone else's agenda (rather than vice versa).
Gasp! Gasp!

You're welcome to them.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
On the contrary,
the last thing I want is a non-nice, efficient person to have power
over me.
<laughs> Thats *exactly* what you do have, Mark. The power of
untrammeled, and un-demanded-to-be-responsible corporations.
Lions and tigers and bears... OH MY!

Here's my standard (and so far, undisputed answer) to this hysterical
claim: If that's the case, then such corrupt powers-that-be would
only be further empowered by larger government programs. Aren't
the military contractors who make billions doing so under a federal
military procurement system?

If there is a lack of government oversight, that surely wouldn't
be enhanced by giving those same corrupt officials more power.
Eeeek! That policeman is so crooked! Quick, hire more just
like him! That'll fix the problem!
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
You come across as a whore.
Only to one who won't/can't see that there are legitimate opposing
points of view...
You failed to see my point. For someone whose making an ad-hominem
attack against me as some kind of closed minded demagogue, your
own knee jerk accusation only demonstrated your own closed-mindedness.

I'm saying that national healthcare, even if it did work as you claimed,
(and the jury is out on that), wouldn't be sufficient reason for me
to throw power to government with wild abandon. I can get by
with the system as it is now. I am not that insecure.
You sound like you would sell freedom for a bandaid.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Oh, and we do have some gov't oversight over what qualifies
as Canadian content. It created a Canadian recording industry,
and much of what came/comes from that, is heard the world
over now. Their voices just needed... some room.
Yeah, room to move here and make their careers. :-)
Hey, I love John Candy and Mike Meyers!
Sure, they'll take your money.
Oh, I forgot to make this quip:

Yeah, when people think of western media influence in the world,
they think of Canada. :-)
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Then again, our private entertainment industry is so marxist that the
government
could hardly do a worse job. But that is thankfully changing.
I have no idea what you speak of. Shows that fail to get audiences
disappear, and ones that do, stay. Thats hardly " marxist ".
I meant they're ideologically marxist (even if they're a bunch of
ruthless capitalists in the worst sense of the word.)

And yes, the entertainment industry in the states is finding itself
in competition with local film industries in other nations and
blockbuster special effects can't sell films as easily as it used
to anymore.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Seems theres more than one way to get more good product.
The point, Mark, is that there is more than one way to
get things done, and what works, to some degree, for some,
though not all, in the US, is not necessarily the best
way for other lands, and peoples.
Agreed. But the reverse applies as well: What works in Canada (or
appears to) wouldn't necessarily work here.
Well, we're back to Faith, again.
Consider: Kerry was beloved in Canada but didn't get elected here.
That's number 1. If Leftists want to make the US more like Canada,
they need to win elections.
Post by Andre Lieven
Where is it written that the US *cannot learn from anyone else* ?
Probably in the same place where it's written that you don't
want Canada to do things as the US does them either.

And I don't think you should. You needn't have a huge military
budget for instance.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
If you can find a copy of it, read Peter Gzowski's " The
Private Voice ". The essay dated from Canadian Thanksgiving
speaks well, and better than I've ever been able to say it,
to this point, and to the difference in how we, up here, see
these things. Its not that either is wrong, rather, its that
there is more than one way to get to whats right.
John Ralston Saul's " Reflections On A Siamese Twin ", is
also good about this.
I find it condescending and cowardly when someone refers to a reading
list in leau of completing their argument.
<shrug> You admitted that you know little about Canada. I offered
those so that you could close the gap, some.
<shrug> Still doesn't disprove what I wrote. And thank you for your
offer. I would suggest maybe that Canadians should focus on
making their country better rather than just being jealous of
the US. See! I can be helpful too!
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Tell you what: When you have read
these works well enough to make the points they raise on your own,
then you'll have an intellectual right to cite them.
Theres, frankly, NO way to summarise them in under 100 words. Thats
a BS " standard ".
Well, that's your admission of your own inability, isn't it?
Why, if I can't lift this barbell then NOBODY can do it! :-)
It's impossible!
Post by Andre Lieven
One might as well demand that a doctor summarise their education
in a five minute speech...
That's strange, I have had doctors do just that (more or less)
with such things as diagnoses and people do this with their
resume all the time.

It's not all that tough. It's not the same as reading a whole book
but that's what "summary" means: Not the whole thing.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
At the risk of violating Godwin's law (noting that the law referred to
using references to Hitler as an emotional ploy rather than in context
such as a discussion of WWII), I suggest you read Mein Kampf. It's
not all that long and it's incredible how his philosophy of government
really isn't that far out of step with many modern socialists.
Its also a matter of learning that he didn't keep to any of those
ideas, when he was in power.
Au contrare! He really did create major civil works and made
government efficient...
Post by Andre Lieven
When one starts to claim that a well known liar was speaking truths,
well, I don't know how to address that, other than to point out the
massive fallaciousness thats involved.
Yes, and FDR got dragged into WWII and Stalin was an honest guy
and Kerry really was in Cambodia for Christmas while Nixon was president. :-)

Hitler was a liar but what made him monstrous was his position
of ethnic cleansing and starting a world war of destruction.
Stalin was saved by history only in that he **cked up with
his own plans.
Post by Andre Lieven
Oh, and I have read that book, thank you. In context, of course.
Because, I really want to learn things, and not just buy into
them on Faith. On *any* issue.
Yeah yeah yeah, keep telling yourself that.

Or do you really want to learn things in order to rationalize
and better defend views and opinions you enjoying believing?
Hey, I am honest about the beliefs I prefer and also willing
to accept I may be mistaken.

Seriously, the biggest mistake a lot of eggheads make is in their
belief that if only they read just one more book or study, then,
by golly, they'll have the wisdom necessary to change any mind!

The problem with that is that any position you can't summarize in
5 minutes isn't going to change most people's minds anyway.
Not because they're stupid, but because they have a simple fundamental
reason for a particular position and if you don't address it,
you're sunk. And the more complex your position is, even if you
have a ton of cites (and perhaps BECAUSE you have a ton of cites),
the more questionable it becomes that you haven't just stuffed
your position with a ton of crap.
Post by Andre Lieven
So, show me an empiracally measurable better way, and I'll listen.
Yeah yeah yeah. I think it's clear in several instances above
that you didn't listen to the points I made. That's cool.
This is a debate. Only I'm honest enough to admit that. That's
several points in my favor.
Post by Andre Lieven
But, empty claims, ones at *variance* with the economic facts of
today, well, thats not that.
Andre
As I said, the jobs reports and stock market are going great.
Show me a cite that shows jobs are being lost and the stock market
is going down since the election.

regards,
Mark Sobolewski
Rich Soyack
2004-11-09 02:22:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Hello Andre,
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
For instance, the current Republicans want to *spend
without actually paying for it*.
Let's discuss this claim.
You have a point, but note that the Democrats aren't much different.
This isn't an issue of party uber alles. Its a matter of,
who was President, and who was in Congress, when the government
spent no more than they took in, say, in 1999-2001.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Every dollar they get to "pay" for something would only inspire
them to spend it (and possibly more) immediately.
" Coulda, woulda, shoulda. "
Mark, who was President and who was in Congress, when the budget
was in surplus ?
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Yes, it's
an awful situation, but deficit spending is still better than
blowing twice as much money that's "paid" for.
Tell that to Visa...
Post by Mark Sobolewski
(I'm reminded of a Married with Children
episode where Al got his retirement funds and his wife
insisted upon holding onto them to hide them from creditors
and she blew it all on the home shopping network.)
OK. Who was President when the US budget was in surplus,
again ?
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Society
Terrible that clinton can't honestly get credit
for "a balanced budget" (if Social Security
liabilities are omitted) or "a shrinking debt". ;-)
Well, Preseidents get the credit, and the debit.
It comes with the job, *either way*...
Indeed. Reagan won the cold war after all. :-)
Hey: When did you become Richie Soyack ?
Truman-Bush I, plus Churchill-Thatcher, plus a host
of others " won " the Cold War.
Who was in office when the cold war ended?
Not only that but Andre offered a book to prove that President Reagan
didn't win the Cold War but guess what, the author of the book credited
President Reagan with winning the Cold War, and then wrote an article
titled, " World Naval Developments: Ronald Reagan Set the Tone to Win
the Cold War." That article appeared in the July 2004 Issue of the Naval
Institutes Proceedings. This is one of the magazines that Andre said anyone
who wanted to discuss military history MUST subscribe to, although he later
admitted that he, Andre, no longer subcribed to that magazine. By the way,
the author's name is Norman Friedman and the book Andre recommended,
and then ran away from, was "The Fifty-Year War: Conflict and Strategy
in the Cold War.

Rich Soyack
Rich Soyack
2004-11-09 02:00:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
For instance, the current Republicans want to *spend
without actually paying for it*.
Let's discuss this claim.
You have a point, but note that the Democrats aren't much different.
This isn't an issue of party uber alles. Its a matter of,
who was President, and who was in Congress, when the government
spent no more than they took in, say, in 1999-2001.
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Every dollar they get to "pay" for something would only inspire
them to spend it (and possibly more) immediately.
" Coulda, woulda, shoulda. "
Mark, who was President and who was in Congress, when the budget
was in surplus ?
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Yes, it's
an awful situation, but deficit spending is still better than
blowing twice as much money that's "paid" for.
Tell that to Visa...
Post by Mark Sobolewski
(I'm reminded of a Married with Children
episode where Al got his retirement funds and his wife
insisted upon holding onto them to hide them from creditors
and she blew it all on the home shopping network.)
OK. Who was President when the US budget was in surplus,
again ?
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Post by Andre Lieven
Even to fools who view taxation as theft, this is a
felonious higher level of theft.
As I said, that depends upon how you look at it. Do you really
want to have your pocket picked MORE but thank heavens
it's not being assigned to credit?
Well, I don't agree with a view that sees taxes as being
" picked ".
Stuff costs. In both the private and public sectors...
Post by Mark Sobolewski
Ironically, the "deficit spending is evil" mantra does help in the
long run by making people worry about increased spending because
it can't be "paid" for. The fact is that there never will be enough
money in the American treasury for all the things the different
national daycare
national healthcare
national education
universities (also known as commie indoctrination camps)
new roads
druggie welfare senior citizens
You get the idea. There simply isn't enough money to "pay for" all of that!
Well, we socialists here in Canada have most of that, a budget
surplus, a healthy and growing economy, with a higher proportional
job growth rate than the US, a positive balance of trade, and so
on.
The Canadian Unemployment rate is 7.1%, the unemployment rate in the
United States is 5.4%. The Canadian real GDP growth rate in 2004 was 0.5%,
in the USA it has been between 3% and 4%. The Canadian Federal debt is
501,493,000.000, I assume Canadian dollars although the site doesn't say.

http://www.canadianeconomy.gc.ca/english/economy/

Rich Soyack
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...