"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1152157288.757060.210630@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1152137801.666757.93760@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1152129065.762926.18380@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
If you have been paying attention it is only ingrates such as
yourself
who
seem to want to upset President Bush's term in office.
It is not ingratitude, since Bush has not done anything to earn any
gratitude.
From you?
From anyone that values freedom, liberty, and equality.
Where are the terrorists now?
In the Middle East.
There is nothing that we should be thankful to Bush for.
Why is that?
Because he has not done anything to earn it.
What did you do?
I voted for Kerry. And why should I do anything?
Where is your room to complain then if you have done nothing?
He has done much to degrade and dissolve our freedoms and liberties,
Can you name any of those liberties and freedoms specifically?
Privacy and speech are near the top of the list. The Patriot Act did a
number of a several of our rights and freedoms.
Do you mean the freedom to train Arab terrorists in flight school in
Florida?
No. For starters, the flight school could not have known that the
prospective pilots were terrorists for the most part, and it is
unlikely that they would have caught all of them if they had.
Wrong. There was ample information of terrorist attacks by Muslims before
9/11 against US interests.
All that
would have happened would be that the students would have communicated
how they slipped up, and the rest would have gotten wiser about their
words.
Coulda averted the WTC disaster is what could have happened.
What I mean are things like this:
http://action.aclu.org/reformthepatriotact/safe.html
and these:
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/relatedinformation_fact_sheets.html
Where is the ACLU to defend persons who are being lied to by law enforcement
in the USA?
and he has squandered out international goodwill,
You still more concerned for the rest of the world to the detriment of
the
USA?
No. I am concerned about the rest of the world to the betterment of
the USA. Having international goodwill is a good thing.
Yes. Goodwill is a good thing.
Is that why you are trying to reduce it even more?
Not trying to reduce goodwill.
What part of U.S. MILITARY *FORCE* in foreign lands for more than fifty
years is a sign of goodwill?
That is why it must be demonstrated to people who you think we are not
supposed to demonstrate it to.
And that is why it must be demonstrated to people like you that think
that we are not supposed to demonstrate it.
What part of U.S. MILITARY *FORCE* in foreign lands for more than fifty
years is a sign of goodwill?
and he has roughly
quadrupled our national debt when compared to what it was when he
took
office.
Who do we owe the most money to?
The World Bank. That is where the nation borrows money from.
We sell treasury bonds at auction.
Treasure Bonds must still be repaid, and with more money than they were
bought with.
Wrong. Treasury bonds are paid at a predetermined price at maturity.
Sometimes it is less than what they were sold for and sometimes it is more.
And, at maturity the amount of money they repay is much less than the amount
they received for them in real dollar terms.
You are only delaying the repayment. And people actually
have to buy those bonds in large enough quantities to be useful.
I can buy TBills, TNotes, TBonds, direct from the Treasury.
What is useless about that?
All those bonds that you sell will also come due at about the same time.
They have many auctions during the year.
There are many different maturity dates in the bond market.
We will be paying for President's Bush's reign of offices for
decades
to come.
I'm not so worried about that.
You should be. It will one day affect the economy in a negative way.
Why should I be worried about it?
We don't need another Great Depression.
I do not think it will harm the USA if such occurs.
Such a depression of our economy will have negative effects to all the
economies of the world,
This is where you again show us your respect of the rest of the world above
the interests of the people of the USA.
which in turn will cause more people to become hungry, and thus more
desperate.
But, you have guns to help them with, remember?
LOL!
Desperate people do desperate things.
But, you have guns to help them with, remember?
LOL!
The world situation will become more and more unstable, and more and more
likely that
another widespread war. And this one may well be fought in the USA,
and we might not win.
Pessismism after aborting so many people from birth in the USA?
Personally, I would rather not take that chance.
You seem to be worried a lot because of your already unstable platform and
the effects it has had on the USA and what you say, the rest of the world.
Maybe one day they will realize that we do not need so many foreign
debt
obligations.
We still have to repay those debts, however.
Like Brazil repaid us?
Just because someone else does not honor their debts does not mean that
we should not honor our debts.
I guess you do not know about reality well enough.
People of the USA have been defaulted upon so many times already by big
shots here both now and in the past.
Why are you SO WORRIED about foreigners?
This is a positive for the USA, imo.
How is another war a "positive"?
While you think war in this, I think peace.
I think that war is a negative, which is why I support us honoring our
treaties.
If those treaties result in war how are they maintaining peace?
Those treaties are not resulting in war.
NK is showing you the result of one of those fifty year old treaties now.
They are the result of war,
So, why is it that fifty years after a war it is still needed?
and they generally help insure the peace.
Seems to me they only raise the tensions after too long.
One way that they do this is
by providing alternative avenues besides force to deal with conflict.
But, you have guns to back up all this *peace*, remember?
What you call peace is what will result in war.
So, irritating NK is to our benefit?
A better question would be, is N. Korea irritating us to their benefit?
Why do you care what NK does?
It isn't in the USA.
We irritate N. Korea just by existing.
That is because we are in KOREA!
Understand now the difference between KOREA and the USA?
Your opinion has repeatedly been
shown to not be based on reality or the facts, so it can safely be
discarded.
By people who choose war above peace such as you, huh?
No, since I do not choose war above peace.
Why do you think you must have an allegiance to a foreign nation in the
face
of such great opposition?
Simple. Because an ally is less likely to attack than an enemy, and an
ally is more likely to help if we are attacked.
*****. How many South Koreans do you think will come to our aid if we are
attacked?
And if a lot of nations, especially powerful nations, decided to attack
together and we
are without allies, we would be over run. This is especially true if
China and/or India decided to attack. China has 10 times our
population, and India 3 - 4 times. They have enough people to overrun
us if they put their minds to it.
Is that why US Corporations and Universities so routinely and nonchalatantly
give $$ and jobs to persons from those nations?
The population advantage can
overcome a technology disadvantage.
Is that why US Corporations and Universities so routinely and nonchalatantly
give $$ and jobs and scholarships to persons from those nations?
I leave that to you, who is
so ignorant of the international situation that you cannot understand
the reprecussions of the actions that you propose.
It seems to me that support of the status quo is what is contributing to
the
instability.
Walking away from the status quo, and reneging on our agreements that
are enforceable by our laws would make the situation far more unstable
far more quickly. It would do little to appease those that already do
not like us, and we would lose allies and forward positions by our
actions as well.
Forward positions?
Spoken like a real world-domination mogul.
That North Korea launched those missiles seems like an opportunity
to
get
out of SKorea and start working in the USA.
First, we are obligated to be in S. Korea by the treaty that ended
the
Korean War over 50 years ago.
Not really.
Yes, we are.
How so?
US Constitution.
I am not into such rule of the past in the present. A treaty in the 1950s
has very little bearing on today.
What treaty was signed then that obligated us to be in SK for more than
fifty years?
Because the treaty is still in effect.
How so?
If it is an indefinite treaty then we have no obligation to remain there
any
longer than we feel is necessary.
Our government still feels it is necessary.
Wanna put it to a vote?
I do not feel it is necessary.
What's more, we are obligated to remain until the treaty is dissolved by
mutual consent, or
broken by one or the other party. And breaking a treaty is a just
cause for a country to go to war.
In your gay affiliated, Pro-Choice mind, huh?
Is it because you are so bitchy and are so dictatorial in nature that you
would become angered by such an action and would want to fight?
Why are you so spoiled as to think you can go to foreign lands and dictate
to them what must be done?
Why do you take offense to people who do NOT like you telling them what to
do?
Why do you NOW know the saying about wearing out your welcome?
We are NOT obligated to stay anywhere that would jeopardize our own
nation's
security.
We ARE obligated, however, to maintain a protective military presence
where we are required by treaty to do so.
You do not understand 'ensure the domestic tranquility".
Yes, I do.
Obviously, you don't.
Why do you think the USA is obligated to create strife for the USA
itself?
I don't.
You seem to think that is part of the USA's role in other parts of the
world.
You are blinded by your selfish ambition.
That is why I want to get the current administration and
Congress out of office, since they are creating strife for the USA by
their actions and policies.
You must wait until 2008 for your chance to get them out of office.
How many more times do you want to ask US Citizens to go lay down their
lives for a foreign nation?
I don't.
You seem to want our soldiers in Korea.
Our government does.
Really?
However, helping others creates
obligations for them to help you in the future.
You have no idea what people will do when you need help after you have
helped them it seems.
You have no idea how quick people are to turn their backs on people who have
helped them already.
Second, N. Korea's actions over the last
couple days are more likely to result in a troop build up in the
DMZ.
Your idea?
No. Just a knowledge of the general reactions of the government and
military to actions such as N. Korea has been taking.
So, you think par for the course, increase the resistance is prudent in
this
case?
If the military does not attack or violate the DMZ, then N. Korea has
no cause to complain.
It is odd that you think the USA has some sort of sovereignity in Korea.
Do you think aggravating the tensions is wise?
No. But N. Korea is the one that is aggravating the tensions.
Denial and shifting the blame noted.
MORE troops will be sent overseas.
You mean they or you prefer to aggravate the tensions rather than to
ease
them?
No. Their presence is required there by treaty, and thus by law.
What treaty?
The Armistice of Panmujon is 1953 and the Mutual Defense Treaty of
1954.
Too old. You are living in the fifites, and Roe V Wade started in the
seventies.
You are trying to apply something that is not even status quo according to
today or according to the fifties.
You are exalting a pre-RVW treaty in the RVW era.
It isn't practical.
SK isn't the USA.
No, but we signed a treaty to protect them from N. Korea.
Communists, right?
technically,
North and South Korea are still at war.
Communism vs capitalism all over again, right?
Is it a cold war there now?
After fifty years there is much less of a divide in spirit there from what I
read even though we see a divide in what each nation has produced through
the years.
At least the USA doesn't have a huge trade deficit with NK.
Now think about who is better for the USA since we are not losing money to
NK.
The buildup is a "preventative" measure in case our government decides
to
invade N. Korea,
Invade?
Yes.
Why you want to invade NK, and who do you think will suit up to do that?
The American people are sick of fighting.
When you going to trade in your military garb for a suit and stop wanting to
fight so much?
Don't you know how foreigners perceive the USA now?
All they see of us is men and women carrying guns and warships off their
coastlines.
They hate our guts.
Don't forget about the Bukkake Brigades either.
Hmm. How can that be a peace act?
It isn't. That is why I am not in favor of it unless they invade or
attack first.
Why even risk it?
Your resistance is what aggravates the situation.
or it N. Korea takes overtly hostile actions against
US interests or S. Korea.
US interests in SK?
Yes.
Sorry. The USA runs trade deficits with SK which benefit a VERY SMALL number
of US citizens.
LOL!
Why didn't they invest in the USA?
They are.
*****.
Why do you think the population at large of the USA is supposed to be used
for the benefit and enrichment of so few in the world?
A troop buildup is a standard procedure in this kind of situation.
Standard to you warmongers.
I am not a warmonger.
*****. Whether you recognize it or not, your militarily brainwashed brain
isn't showing me peace ideas.
And such actions are standard for the military
as a precaution.
You live in fear, huh?
Pessisimistic, imo.
Wanna take a vote on how many people are against your ideas that you call
standard actions?
A vote is neither asked for nor needed nor required.
You mean all that is needed is Military Dictatorial commands in your way of
thinking?
And they are not
my ideas in the first place.
Does this mean you take the stance of, if yo can't beat 'em join 'em?
Are you a defeatist in this?
Why do you think you have the ability to tell people here to go across
the
pacific ocean and fight for non-US property?
I don't. I am not in power in the government.
But, you act like what you think is standard procedure will be adhered to by
every person in the USA for some reason.
Just because I know the hows and why and likely responses of the
government and military to specific actions does not mean that I am in
favor of those actions. It means that I have educated myself on the
subject, so that I can view responses in an intelligent and informed
manner. If you actually read through what I have written, you will
find that I am very much against war unless we are attacked first.
What's more, I also understand something about why we have troops where
we do.
You, on the other hand, have taken knowledge about why certain actions
may be taken as being in favor of those actions, and knowledge about
why things are the way they are as being a contributor that makes
things that way. You show your ignorance of the world and the subject
matter very consistently.
I choose not to live in the past.
And since Korea is a penninsula,
that means that the Pacific and Indian Fleets of Navy are likely to
be
moved into position in that area as well.
Which means the USA is more concerned with the security of overseas
interests than here at home, or not?
The security of overseas interests means more security at home.
*****. It means more aggravated foreigners who want to attack the US.
It also means more allies to help protect us.
Wrong. Foreigners will not come to our aid as you think they will.
They won't.
The only reason they are letting us in is because we are paying through the
nose to them.
They are smarter than us.
They have been around much longer.
They are playing us for fools.
The USA is playing its own people for fools, and the foreigners are very
happy to take our money.
And we are required by US law to fulfill our treaty obligations.
What treaty?
In Korea, it is the Armistice of Panmujon and the Mutual Defense
Treaty.
Those are 1950s treaties.
They expired long ago.
We have no obligation to remain there.
Notice how NK wants us out.
They do not like us there for so long.
And, you can bet that there are people in SK that want us out, too, who
communicate with NK.
I would not be surprised to learn that SK funnels money to NK for their
military buldup to run out the USA.
It is their property, and they do not want the USA keeping it.
Why does the USA need such a monstrous military presence upon the
globe?
Because of the military paradigm developed by the government and
military staff officers over the last 50+ years,
Sorry. That isn't civilian rule.
Civilians made much of the rules. We have a civilian government, and
ultimately civilians control the military.
Whatever, but the government, allied with the defense sectors is what has
maintained such a heavy military contingent and spending since WWII and the
Korean Conflict and Vietnam for more than fifty years.
You just told me it is because of military leaders.
And civilian leaders. That is whom the government is.
Yeah. So, like I just said above, this situation has been going on for more
than fifty years in the Asian region.
Wanna get off that lack of peace agenda?
I am already off your lack of peace agenda. I have always supported
peace.
For the past fifty years?
LOL!
Those Bukkake films are more important than being a behaved US Citizen
within the USA, huh?
as well as the treaty
obligations that we have taken on since WWII.
Going back to the 1940s?
When you going to wake up and realize it is 2006?
6 months ago, on 01 Jan 2006. Those treaties are still in force, and
we are still obligated by law to honor them.
Old school, militarstic, tax leech *****.
So, where is the opportunity that you see to leave S. Korea?
It's been here for decades.
And? That does not mean that there is any opportunity.
Is that because you always want to fight?
I am not the one that always wants to fight.
Neither is NK or SK, imo.
However, the price of
peace and freedom is often blood.
I learned this many, many years ago
when learning about American History.
There has been no opportunity to leave because North and South Korea
never signed a peace treaty. They are technically still at war. The
DMZ is simply a buffer zone between the two countries, and we stare at
N. Korea across it. We promised that we would help protect S. Korea
against N. Korea, and by law and by treaty we are obligated to do so.
If we left, N. Korea would likely invade S. Korea, and we would
technically be at fault since we broke the treaties that we signed with
S. Korea to protect them.
We can back out any time we want to.
All we have to do is tell them we are tired of holding their hands. It has
been fifty years already.
Are they cowards in SK that their own men will not suit up?
Why do you think US soldiers are supposed to suit up for SKs?
Multinational corporate enslavement of foreigners to produce goods for
the
US consumer when we could be making them ourselves isn't the only
thing
we can do as a nation.
The government does not control corporations, especially corporation
that are not based in the USA. What's more, corporations look to
maximize profits while minimizing costs.
Corporations are subject to the US Constitution whether you want to
ackowledge that fact or not.
Not corporations that are based outside the USA.
Which means the USA has no legal obligation to them.
Thought that excuse would give you an escape?
And corporations are NOT subject to the Constitution is any case.
Wrong.
Corporations are NOT exempt from the USA Constitution.
Only the government is
subject to the Constitution.
Wrong.
Corporations that operate in the USA are
subject to the laws at the federal level and the state level for the
states that have operations in. For operations outside the USA
boundaries, our laws do not apply.
Foreign corporations have no legal right to protections by the Constitution
of the USA.
I do not acknowledge false statements as being true.
You sure do present enough of them though.
That means that they will
weigh the various options for manufacturing and shipping goods, and go
with the lowest cost approach. That means that they will manufacture
as much as they can where the total labor cost is the cheapest,
While sacrificing US jobs..........
You cannot force corporations to give American citizens jobs.
Why couldn't I?
Especially multinationals.
Why couldn't I?
The USA has been giving jobs to foreigners for so long already why isn't it
time for the people of the USA to get some jobs?
Fair is fair.
I do not know why you act as if the people of the USA are supposed to be
dupes for the rest of the world and the minority interests within the USA.
especially when they can import the finished goods for cheaper than
they can manufacture them locally.
Which does little to aid in domestic employment.
From their standpoint, they have no obligation to give Americans any
jobs.
DING DING. You got that one right.
Why don't you think that way for the people of the USA then?
And "domestic employment" means employment where the company is
actually based. If the company is based in Japan, then "domestic
employment" from their standpoint means hiring Japanese workers.
Spoken like a real abortion freak on the prowl for foreign women to ***** in
pornos or just for fun.
This allows them to sell the goods
at a lower price to the customer while mantaining the lowest reasonable
cost for manufacture and shipping the goods. This is Economics 101.
Debt. Trade imbalance. Foreign debt obligations.
TINSTAAFL.
Again, your point from the corporation's standpoint? The foreign debt
obligations are the government's fault. And a "trade imbalance" for a
corporation means that they are losing money, i.e. not showing a
profit. They care nothing about any country's trade imbalance, so long
as they can turn a profit.
Which shows them to be leeches on the people of nations.
What's more, the military has nothing to do with any multinational
corporations.
*****.
Not at all. You have NEVER shown any connection between the two.
Halliburton? Raytheon?
There are many of them.
Warheads. Not much peace in that, huh?
You have a job. Why do you think no one else in the USA is entitled to
one?
I do not think that.
It seems that way,
Only to one as ignorant as you. You seem to think that just because I
have knowledge of a subject that I favor the actions based on that
knowledge, or have influence over them.
as you adovocate taxing the US citizenry to fund more
militaristic acts overseas in foreign nations
Where have I done that?
which further expatriates US
income and puts people out of work here for the benefit of foreign
corporations and domestic corporations who prefer to employ foreigners.
And where have I done that? I have related to you the harsh realities
of the world that we live in. I have not given you my opinion on most
of the things that you have said that I have specific opinions of. And
when I have told you my opinion, you have claimed that I have the
opposite opinion of what I have said.
However, you cannot force corporations to make
jobs available to people.
You gotta be kidding.
No, I am not.
You are entitled to any job that you are
qualified for and that you can convince a company to hire you for.
Without jobs there are no jobs to perform.
That is your problem, not theirs.
However, the company cannot be forced to hire you, nor can they be
forced to retain you if you are not doing the job that you were hired
for or if you break company rules or if the company decides to lay off
a number of people.
Your support of corporations, which are NOT persons per the Constitution,
They are persons per the law.
the unconstitutional law, you mean.
The Constitution does not define who are
and are not persons under the law.
It doesn't need to, idiot.
Only idiots do NOT know what persons means.
Only criminals and idiots do not know what persons means already.
That means that the definition is
left to the federal or the state level.
Wrong. There is nothing that says that scribes are lexicographers.
There is nothing that gives any person authority to change the definition of
words in the Constitution from their meaning when it was drafted and became
law.
which does NOT rely upon Indiana Code,
Indiana law is in line with the Constitution,
*****.
and with federal law.
Pro-Choice *****.
What's more, the definition of a person, which does include
organizations of all types,
Too false in the current arrange
