Gawain 0 #26 October 27, 2005 QuoteQuotethe US plays the pre-eminent role in global affairs, political, social and economic. No, the US just makes the most noise. I think many people outside the US think Americans are ignorant, because statements like this keep surfacing. If you want to take my comments in that context, that's your perogative. It still doesn't diminish what is, for now, fact. QuoteChina could cripple your economy almost instantly...and what are you going to do....invade them? That could be interesting.... China's economy is not as solid as the world thinks. Their economy, according to official ROC statements is growing, but they do not operate on a free market. If they deregulated their currency, they'd see their primary export partner (the US, about 25% of their economy) evaporate as they would lose their "discount" advantage. Additionally, ROC's unemployment is still hovering around 20% overall. The communist bureaucracy hinders their desire for a hybrid-society, free market with strict tight social political control. It won't succeed. India could reach parity with China in terms of GDP inside of 20 years if they continue on the course they are on. It has been proven time and again, that the US economy is able to adjust and adapt and grow in the face of severe adversity. To my knowledge, there isn't another country that can do that.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #27 October 27, 2005 QuoteQuoteDo not confuse my bravado with hate. Main Entry: bra·va·do Pronunciation: br&-'vä-(")dO Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural -does or -dos Etymology: Middle French bravade & Old Spanish bravata, from Old Italian bravata, from bravare to challenge, show off, from bravo 1 a : blustering swaggering conduct b : a pretense of bravery 2 : the quality or state of being foolhardy From Merriam-Webster OnLine And in the context of my original post, that's exactly what I intended. Jeesh people. I want everyone here to report to the "Are We Too Sensative" thread immediately. Seriously, it's no secret I will stand with pride on behalf of what I believe is the best place on earth...in the solar system...in the galaxy. Most of the time, I try to offer thoughtful, intelligent debate on many-a-topic here. Sometimes though...when I hear little obsurd ramblings from Canada...suing US manufacturers on a matter where the US's own laws don't allow it. Sh*t, are they only going to try to sue the US manufacturers? What about SIGARMS, and other non-US entities? It always something... So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #28 October 27, 2005 Skydekkar, Your post makes me embarrased to share a country with you. QuoteQuotethe US plays the pre-eminent role in global affairs, political, social and economic. No, the US just makes the most noise. I think many people outside the US think Americans are ignorant, because statements like this keep surfacing. No, the US does play the pre-eminent role in global affairs. Your denial of this is just dumb. it is typical of te knee-jerk anti-Americanism which is becoming endemic in our society. QuoteChina could cripple your economy almost instantly...and what are you going to do....invade them? That could be interesting.... The sourse of China's power over the US is the McDonalds principle (no countrys with Mcdonalds have ever gone to war); it is economic. The problem with this is that it is essentially MAD; economic allies cannot assail each other without doing themselves greivous harm (back to Bill's analogy about the apartment). Your jingoistic anti-Americanism is as dumb as jingoistic the pro-Americanism you are arguing against. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #29 October 27, 2005 (no countrys with Mcdonalds have ever gone to war)*** umWTF??? Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #30 October 27, 2005 QuoteYour jingoistic anti-Americanism is as dumb as jingoistic the pro-Americanism you are arguing against. Are you really surprised at the jingoistic postures here? It's the rule, not the exception. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #31 October 27, 2005 QuoteNo, the US does play the pre-eminent role in global affairs. Your denial of this is just dumb. it is typical of te knee-jerk anti-Americanism which is becoming endemic in our society. Really? What would happen if OPEC for instance starts another oil embargo? How about China invades Taiwan? The thought that the US can do what ever they want and other countries should just bow to them...is dumb. I agree that the US plays the loudest role....you seem to forget that the real power players are usually very silent. QuoteThe sourse of China's power over the US is the McDonalds principle (no countrys with Mcdonalds have ever gone to war); it is economic. The problem with this is that it is essentially MAD; economic allies cannot assail each other without doing themselves greivous harm (back to Bill's analogy about the apartment). True...normally...the difference here is that China is a communist country. They could care less about the people that live there....There is a small rich majority, that will remain rich if China decieds to implement economic sanctions....the rest of the country will remain poor... Gawain...your talk about the currency is a little one sided. What do you think might happen to all those cheap products at Target and WalMart when that currency isn't linked anymore? What do you think the effect on your economy would be..... Quoteit is typical of te knee-jerk anti-Americanism which is becoming endemic in our society. I would call it more pandemic than endemic, since it is certainly not contained to just Canada...... QuoteSkydekkar, Your post makes me embarrased to share a country with you. That sentence alone makes me happy I didn't go to school here and sad my children will have to..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SudsyFist 0 #32 October 27, 2005 QuoteJeesh people. I want everyone here to report to the "Are We Too Sensative" thread immediately. Um, exactly. QuoteSeriously, it's no secret I will stand with pride on behalf of what I believe is the best place on earth... British Columbia, Canada??? And here I thought you were one of those die-hard yuppie-turned-patriot Yanks! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #33 October 27, 2005 Quote QuoteReally? What would happen if OPEC for instance starts another oil embargo? Oh I don't know, maybe the King of Saudi Arabia will be assassinated like he was the last time they had an embargo. Quote How about China invades Taiwan? The power structure in China are the ones getting rich off capitalism. They are unlikely to endanger their wealth and power in such a move (back to the McDonalds principle). QuoteThe thought that the US can do what ever they want and other countries should just bow to them...is dumb. I didn't say they were God, I said they were the preeminent players on the world stage. QuoteI agree that the US plays the loudest role....you seem to forget that the real power players are usually very silent. Are you talking about the international banker/communist/homosexual/freemason/Council for Foreign Relations conspiracy? QuoteTrue...normally...the difference here is that China is a communist country. They could care less about the people that live there....There is a small rich majority, that will remain rich if China decides to implement economic sanctions....the rest of the country will remain poor... The McDonald's principle doesn't work to protect the interests of the working shmucks. It exists to protect the powerful who enhance their power from commerce. This is as true in China as anywhere else. Quote***Skydekkar, Your post makes me embarrassed to share a country with you. That sentence alone makes me happy I didn't go to school here and sad my children will have to..... One of the greatest things about Canada is that the first article of the Constitution Act of 1982 guarantees everyone the right to leave without asking permission. If you feel you can do better for your children by leaving,...see ya. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dmcoco84 5 #34 October 27, 2005 Thats retarded. Thats like sueing McDonalds becuase you eat there and you are a fat ass. The fat ass needs to stop eating bad food and canada needs to look at thier own methods for making customs more effective. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #35 October 27, 2005 Quotewhat is your stance on illegal drugs? People want them, anyone who wants them gets them. So, do you think there should be laws prohibiting them? I agree with your stance regarding guns, but I feel the same way about drugs as well as other issues. Do you apply your logic equally to all topics, or just those that affect you directly? My stance is the same with illegal drugs. If passing laws could stop the usage of illegal drugs, it would have happened decades ago. That is just another example of the futility of trying to stop smuggling and black markets with laws. As for the laws themselves, they are useful only for the prosecution of people that break those laws. They don't stop the behavior, they simply give you the legal basis by which to arrest people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #36 October 27, 2005 Quoteyour statement about smuggling laws is just plain laughable... Show me a law which proscribes a ban on something, which has actually succeeded in the elimination of that something. Give me just one example. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #37 October 27, 2005 QuoteWhat no talk of the 3.5 billion dollars the US owes Canada for the Softwood Lumber dispute... If you want to talk about that, start your own thread. This one here is about gun crime in Canada. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SudsyFist 0 #38 October 27, 2005 QuoteAs for the laws themselves, they are useful only for the prosecution of people that break those laws. They don't stop the behavior, they simply give you the legal basis by which to arrest people. Agreed. But it's worthy to note that the presence of the law and the consequences of violating it *may* reduce (not eliminate) the committing of the act in question, depending on a variety of factors, of course. If we determined the success of a law in a black-or-white fashion based upon whether it completely eliminated a specific behavior, then by and large law would be declared a complete failure. But that just doesn't make sense, now, does it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #39 October 27, 2005 QuoteQuoteNo, the US does play the pre-eminent role in global affairs. Your denial of this is just dumb. it is typical of te knee-jerk anti-Americanism which is becoming endemic in our society. Really? What would happen if OPEC for instance starts another oil embargo? How about China invades Taiwan? I think you would see the US join Taiwan in repelling the invasion. There is a strategic interest to the US in keeping Taiwan separate. If we ever formally acknowledge and provide an official diplomatic relationship with Taiwan, the "game is on." QuoteThe thought that the US can do what ever they want and other countries should just bow to them...is dumb. Yet this happens a lot. Spain is an exception, instead of getting mad after 3/11 and strengthening their ties with their allies in the war, they essentially decided to sit the game out. They are nothing more than at the whim of al-Qaeda. QuoteI agree that the US plays the loudest role....you seem to forget that the real power players are usually very silent. Who's being silent? Not the UK, France or Germany. Certainly not Russia or China. No, everyone has a stake in this. The big picture is indisputable in this reality. QuoteGawain...your talk about the currency is a little one sided. What do you think might happen to all those cheap products at Target and WalMart when that currency isn't linked anymore? What do you think the effect on your economy would be.... Prices on about 80% of WalMart's products would go up about 30%. However, that would allow US and Mexican labor and companies to compete and provide a better product at a better price. The US has the infrastructure to start a whole lot of factories up in a very short period of time. It would also spur additional domestic competition and there would be a whole slew of jobs available too. Prices wouldn't go back to what they were, perhaps only discount down 10-20%, but they would be "real" not artificial like China's current policies on its currency. They know this, or else they wouldn't be doing it.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #40 October 28, 2005 QuoteI think you would see the US join Taiwan in repelling the invasion. There is a strategic interest to the US in keeping Taiwan separate. If we ever formally acknowledge and provide an official diplomatic relationship with Taiwan, the "game is on." I don't see us stopping that one. 8000 miles away against a country 4 times our size? But I don't know in what scenario China would see the gain being worth to risk of what could happen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #41 October 28, 2005 QuoteQuoteI think you would see the US join Taiwan in repelling the invasion. There is a strategic interest to the US in keeping Taiwan separate. If we ever formally acknowledge and provide an official diplomatic relationship with Taiwan, the "game is on." I don't see us stopping that one. 8000 miles away against a country 4 times our size? But I don't know in what scenario China would see the gain being worth to risk of what could happen. I don't have any direct knowledge of this, but I am 100% certain that we have assets in place that could handle the initial wave and the doctrine isn't all that different from a NATO response to a Warsaw Pact invasion of western Europe. So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #42 October 28, 2005 Quoteand the doctrine isn't all that different from a NATO response to a Warsaw Pact invasion of western Europe. which was what? Nuke Russia? I don't think we like the Taiwanese enough to put our necks too far out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #43 October 28, 2005 QuoteQuoteand the doctrine isn't all that different from a NATO response to a Warsaw Pact invasion of western Europe. which was what? Nuke Russia? I don't think we like the Taiwanese enough to put our necks too far out. Really, it's just a guess from my end. I am still very certain that the US can not afford a non-response to any hostile ROC attempt to reunify. The NATO doctrine was to use tactical nukes on the advancing forces. Obviously, the USSR would respond with a full ICBM strike against the US, and NATO. We would then do the same. M.A.D. is what they called it. It was also what provided a sort of stabalizing factor to the Cold War. While I'm glad it's gone, there was a certain clarity in our perspective which we do not enjoy today.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #44 October 28, 2005 QuoteShow me a law which proscribes a ban on something, which has actually succeeded in the elimination of that something. Give me just one example. Such an assinine statement..... First one would have to wonder if total elimination is the only measure of success... Second, no law is 100% effective, hence do you propose there should be no laws? No laws against drunk driving? No laws against drug use? No laws against gay marriage? No laws against abortion? No laws against running a red light? No laws against raping 12 year old girl? the list goes on and on.... That side of your argument makes absolutely no sense.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #45 October 28, 2005 Quoteit's worthy to note that the presence of the law and the consequences of violating it *may* reduce (not eliminate) the committing of the act in question I think that people willing to commit felony crimes with guns, like aggravated assault, robbery and murder, don't give a second thought to some minor inconvenience like a gun ban. Why should they worry about a slap on the wrist for illegal possession of a gun, when they're committing crimes worth a decade or more of hard prison time? What you say would only prove true if the penalty for illegal possession were something like a mandatory 10 years in prison. But such things aren't likely to happen, because the public doesn't want people being put in prison for a long time, when they haven't even done anything to harm anyone. The simple possession of an object does not warrant that kind of punishment. Only the actual use of that object in a crime rises to that level. So I don't think there is much of the effect you mention in laws which ban guns or gun carry. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #46 October 28, 2005 QuoteQuoteShow me a law which proscribes a ban on something, which has actually succeeded in the elimination of that something. Give me just one example. Such an assinine statement..... Address the question, don't belittle the idea. I may not agree with you, but I'm not denigrating your position. And since you can't name one, I'll have to assume that is because you can't. QuoteFirst one would have to wonder if total elimination is the only measure of success... Has the war on drugs been effective in reducing illegal drug usage? Name a law which bans something that has even been significantly effective. Give me your best example, with whatever degree of success you can muster. QuoteSecond, no law is 100% effective, hence do you propose there should be no laws? No laws against drunk driving? No laws against drug use? No laws against gay marriage?... That side of your argument makes absolutely no sense.... Go back and read my message #35. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #47 October 28, 2005 Quote What you say would only prove true if the penalty for illegal possession were something like a mandatory 10 years in prison. But such things aren't likely to happen, because the public doesn't want people being put in prison for a long time, when they haven't even done anything to harm anyone. The simple possession of an object does not warrant that kind of punishment. Only the actual use of that object in a crime rises to that level. What about simple possesion of anthrax or plutonium? Do they warrant lengthy prison terms? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #48 October 28, 2005 QuoteWhat about simple possesion of anthrax or plutonium? Do they warrant lengthy prison terms? I'll bet you can figure out the difference between a gun, and a weapon of mass destruction. We're talking about guns here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #49 October 28, 2005 In my country we draw the line at a different place than you. We think guns are weapons of mass destruction, and we have the crime statistics to prove it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #50 October 28, 2005 Quoteno law is 100% effective. Gun bans aren't even 1% effective. Witness this news story from Canada:...police acknowledged handguns are widely available on the streets of Alberta's capital. "It's readily known to the police service that it is not hard to obtain firearms involving criminal activity..." The handgun used in the crime was an unregistered, restricted weapon... Data shows handguns are an increasing problem for Canadian law enforcement. Statistics Canada figures suggest the use of such guns is growing both in terms of their popularity with criminals and in their toll on human lives. Fewer than half - 46 per cent - of homicides were committed with handguns in 1994. Last year, that rate stood at 65 per cent.Source: 940News All those Canadian gun laws, including gun registration, haven't stopped Canadians from getting illegal guns and committing gun crimes. Ah, but here's a hint from the story of the real problem:"Years ago, these guns were used for intimidation purposes. Now, they're actually being used." Gun crime is not a problem caused by the mere presence of guns. It's a problem created by culture. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
