# Election Disaster Strikes U.S.A. - A, No!

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Poor Player, Nov 3, 2004.

1. ### Poor PlayerI looked and saw a new EarthRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
90
Oh Ok, so they drew the map! Nice try. You are getting seriously pummeled here my friend. Their Arab neighbors immediately attacked them after they declared independence so it's quite obvious they were very unhappy with the UN's little map. I suspect the Anglo-American Committee on Palestine put the whole map thing together long before the UN anyway. So why don't you just concede and save the last little shred of dignity you possess.

3. ### UndecidedBannedBanned

Messages:
4,731
Oh Ok, so they drew the map! Nice try.

So they drew the map? Oh so that means that they by definition created Israel. Hello comprehend? Merely recognizing Israel does not mean you created Israel all it means is that you recognize that the state exists. You are getting RAPED…if I am getting pummelled. Let’s look at the definition of create:

cre•ate (kr - t )
tr.v. cre•at•ed, cre•at•ing, cre•ates
1. To cause to exist; bring into being.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=create

By definition a state exists only when its borders exist, not when it is recognized to exist because in order to be recognized as a state you need borders…remedial politics class 0001.

So why don't you just concede and save the last little shred of dignity you possess.

Oh no I want you to continue your little slide to the inevitable; I’ve been on sci and debated long enough to see how shit buckets like yourself end up. Its only a matter of time.

5. ### zanketHumanValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,777
We’re talking about averages here, so unevenness is irrelevant. So is credit quality. Suppose the average home value doubled overnight. The average net worth could double overnight as a result, but everybody would be worse off due to higher property taxes. A study that tallies net worth increase should be fair about discounting for home gains.

Agreed.

The ability to free up money or leverage it is irrelevant per se. What matters is whether the $9,000 net worth gain touted by the study means that one has the ability to buy$9,000 of new goods & services that they didn’t have in 1989. If the net worth gain touted by the study is mostly home value gain, then the answer is no says this liberal. I might swap my house for a condo and pocket $30,000 cash in the deal, but the condo is worth$30,000 less than the house, so I gained nothing since 1989. Let me instead take out a home equity loan and pocket the money or buy something. Do I have more than I had in 1989? No, because now I have a new liability that offsets the money in my pocket or the value of the thing I bought. The average person cannot buy more goods & services as a result of an average home value gain. Instead they get higher property taxes.

I can’t sidestep the issue by moving to Mexico, at least not before I have considered what changed in Mexico from 1989 to 2001, and how Mexico compares to the US today. All things considered like crime and cleanliness and air quality, living in a house in Mexico that is comparable to my house in the US may be the equivalent of downsizing to a mobile home in the US. I may end up worse off in Mexico in a comparable house, or I may have been better off moving to Mexico in 1989.

7. ### Repo ManValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,955

You fail the reading comprehension test. I said that Wilson had no way to know that the Soviets wouldn't come up with a system that worked, and that he, and the other policy makers then in office, probably feared a stunning success more than any other possible outcome.

After Stalin came to power, all that was left of any implementation of Marx's theories was basically a form of religious dogma. Lifelong socialist Bertrand Russell was horrified by Stalin when he visited the Soviet Union. He even stated that, since he felt a conflict between America and the USSR was inevitable, it would be best that it happen soon (not long after WW-2) to minimize the casualties.
Unlike most members of the left, Russell had never been taken in by the Soviet regime. He had always rejected Marxism completely. The book in which he described his 1920 visit to Russia, The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism (1920), was highly critical of Lenin and what he was doing. He regarded Stalin as a monster and accepted as true the fragmentary accounts of the forced collectivization, the great famine, the purges and the camps which reached the West. In all these ways he was quite untypical of the progressive intelligentsia. Nor did he share the complacency with which, in 1944-45, they accepted the extension of Soviet rule to most of Eastern Europe. To Russell this was a catastrophe for Western civilization. 'I hate the Soviet government too much for sanity,' he wrote on 15 January 1945. He believed that Soviet expansion would continue unless halted by the threat or use of force. In a letter dated 1 September 1945 he asserted: 'I think Stalin has inherited Hitler's ambition to world dictatorship.' Hence, when the first nuclear weapons were exploded by the US over Japan, he immediately resurrected his view that America should impose peace and disarmament on the world, using the new weapons to coerce a recalcitrant Russia.
http://www.questionsquestions.net/docs04/russell.html

That site states that he actually advocated a first strike. Not all Russell scholars agree that was what he meant.

Barkhorn: Stalinism and Maoism have very little to do with Marxist theory. And (once again read carefully) I said there was no way to know (in 1918) that revolution in Russia might not have resulted in a successful society. That it did not is historical record.

Some form of regulated capitalism might be the best we miserable humans can come up with, but considering how poorly it has worked in so many places, that isn't saying much. As George Carlin said, "That invisible hand of Adam Smiths' is sure giving a lot of people the finger."

You've stated that Chomsky is easily refuted. Well, lets have it.

8. ### Poor PlayerI looked and saw a new EarthRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
90

It's only a matter of time before what? I decide to find a better home, upgrade my standard of living, and move to a better electronic neighborhood? Yeah, you're a big help to sciforum. I'm sure they appreciate your friendly participation. They will draw a huge audience to hear your bitter and slanderous rubbish. Like Osama, you have simply destroyed yourself in this debate. The UN neither created Israel NOR established their borders. Furthermore, I already said the USA was within an eyelash of stopping the whole affair if George Marshall had his way. Truman was the man who made it happen by simply doing the right thing and ignoring his cabinet.

Once more, just to apply the coup de grace; the borders that the UN recommended were completely rejected, by the Palestinians even more than the Jews, and the Israeli settlements were immediately attacked by the Arab forces from five countries. The severe battles that wracked the region and the military battle lines that were created were eventually what finalized the borders in 1949. They were held by force. There was some further jockeying in the second war in 1967 with further negotiations, and more UN recommendations. Here is a little unbiased blurb I pulled off of wikipedia:

In 1949, Israel signed separate cease-fire agreements with Egypt on February 24, Lebanon on March 23, Transjordan on April 3, and Syria on July 20. Israel was able to draw its own borders, occupying 70% of Mandatory Palestine, fifty percent more than the UN partition proposal allotted them. These borders have been known afterwards as the "Green Line". The Gaza Strip and West Bank were occupied by Egypt and Transjordan respectively.

The debate is over. You lose kid. Have a nice day!

9. ### Poor PlayerI looked and saw a new EarthRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
90
Actually uneveness has everything to do with averages if you are looking for the median (or average of two points) versus mean values. In these types of net worth calculations the mean and the median are usually very different. You said you wanted a "fair" adjustment. Good luck with that one.

[/QUOTE]The ability to free up money or leverage it is irrelevant per se. What matters is whether the $9,000 net worth gain touted by the study means that one has the ability to buy$9,000 of new goods & services that they didn’t have in 1989. If the net worth gain touted by the study is mostly home value gain, then the answer is no says this liberal. I might swap my house for a condo and pocket $30,000 cash in the deal, but the condo is worth$30,000 less than the house, so I gained nothing since 1989. Let me instead take out a home equity loan and pocket the money or buy something. Do I have more than I had in 1989? No, because now I have a new liability that offsets the money in my pocket or the value of the thing I bought. The average person cannot buy more goods & services as a result of an average home value gain. Instead they get higher property taxes.[/QUOTE]

The net worth gains decrease a a percentage of total gains as you move up the net worth percentiles. Even so, real estate valuations and taxes depends highly on where people live. They both vary widely. If I swap my house for a condo after the kids move out, I am no longer paying any property taxes on the profit. This happens all of the time. Your argument only makes sense if there is a catastrophic crash in real estate values across the nation. It won't happen. Maybe in a few overpriced cities at worst.

[/QUOTE]I can’t sidestep the issue by moving to Mexico, at least not before I have considered what changed in Mexico from 1989 to 2001, and how Mexico compares to the US today. All things considered like crime and cleanliness and air quality, living in a house in Mexico that is comparable to my house in the US may be the equivalent of downsizing to a mobile home in the US. I may end up worse off in Mexico in a comparable house, or I may have been better off moving to Mexico in 1989.[/QUOTE]

This was merely another example of the kind of financial flexibility consumers have today. A better one is buying a second home and renting it out. Now you have a business.

You completely ignored my comments about the more relevant percentiles between 51-90%. Your arguments fall rapidly apart here because real estate becomes a much smaller percentage of the total portfolio as you move up the ladder. Americans in those percentiles are doing very well indeed. Leverage, liquidity, and credit quality have everything to do with financial health in the real world, which is what we were talking about here, I think.

10. ### Poor PlayerI looked and saw a new EarthRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
90
More on how to define a democracy and its progress by Dr. Larry Diamond at Stanford: (Israel is, in fact, a liberal, consolidated democracy).

"However, if we begin by accepting the Freedom House classifications, then how well is democracy doing globally?

Answering this question requires close attention to the distinction between electoral democracy and liberal democracy. The latter encompasses not only electoral competition for power but also:

- Freedom of belief, expression, organization, and demonstration
- Protection from political terror and unjustified imprisonment
- A rule of law under which all citizens are treated equally and due process is secure
- Political independence and neutrality of the judiciary and of other institutions of "horizontal accountability" that check the abuse of power
- An open, pluralistic civil society
- Civilian control over the militaryThese various dimensions of democratic quality constitute a continuum, and it is hard to say exactly when a regime has sufficient freedom, pluralism, lawfulness, accountability, and institutional strength to be considered a liberal democracy.

We also need to consider how stable and firmly rooted democracies are. For political scientists, democracies are "consolidated" when all significant political elites, parties, and organizations—as well as an overwhelming majority of the mass public—are firmly committed to the democratic constitutional system and regularly comply with its rules and constraints. What is striking about the third wave of democratization has been the slow progress toward consolidation. Outside of the new democracies of Southern Europe (Spain, Portugal, Greece) and a few scattered others, the third-wave democracies have not taken such firm root, although they are progressing more rapidly in Central and Eastern Europe.

Global assessments of the state of democracy and freedom in the world mask big differences among groups of countries. This is clearly true with respect to the level of development. The 30 "core" countries of Western Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and Israel are all liberal, consolidated democracies. In fact, these core states account for the clear majority of all the liberal democracies in the world with populations over one million. (Report Card On Democracy, June 2000, Dr. Larry Diamond, Stanford)

11. ### Barkhorn1xRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
158
You would have to provide a quote/selection from the great master first. Something recent please. Never mind, I just posted a new topic on the subject of Noam.

Barkhorn.

Last edited: Nov 10, 2004
12. ### zanketHumanValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,777
A mean and an average are the same thing, the average of all values (points). A median is the middle value in a distribution, above and below which lie an equal number of values. The median is irrelevant to this discussion.

What counts is the average. The average person cannot buy more goods & services as a result of an average home value gain. Half are better off, half are worse off, and on average everyone is no better or worse off.

You could have done that anytime between 1989 and 2001, so it’s irrelevant.

My argument makes sense regardless of what happened or will happen beyond 2001 in any city. Of the part of the net worth gain between 1989 and 2001 that was home equity gain, the average person cannot buy more goods & services as a result of that gain.

To buy the second home I had to take out a loan. The business has an offsetting liability, so initially I am no better off than before. My profit on the rental is in return for work as a landlord and for the risk I took. All my home equity bought me was the opportunity to make a profit. It’s not a good or service, but it is indeed something significant that I gained from 1989 to 2001.

Does the study show that? People tend to have the best home they can afford.

As with the bottom 50%, that depends on how much of their net worth gain is home equity. That’s why I say that the study is misleading. Of those who gained $100,000 in net worth gain, how much new goods & services they can buy depends on how much of their net worth gain is a nationwide average home equity gain. If all of it is, then they have gained only opportunities. I would much rather have$100,000 in new goods & services than $100,000 of credit. There’s a big difference between those two. The study is suspect because it doesn’t break down the net worth gain into those two categories. 13. ### Poor PlayerI looked and saw a new EarthRegistered Senior Member Messages: 90 Yes, the study showed that as you move up in percentile ranking of wealth, real estate becomes a smaller portion of your portfolio. When you look at the numbers for the 51-90 percentiles you cannot seriously deny that the conumer is much better off. Here are the original numbers I posted from the study with the real estate assets included from tables 6 and 10: U.S. Consumer Net Worth (all in 2001 dollars) http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/...4/200324pap.pdf 1989 Total Net Worth -$24.2 Trillion
lowest 0-50% of households - $.642 Trillion - 2.7% share of total - 46.5M Families - real estate assets$.860 Trillion
upper 51-90% households - $7.2 Trillion - 29.9% share of total - 37.2M Families - real estate assets$4.8 Trillion

2001

Total Net Worth - $42.4 Trillion lowest 0-50% of households -$1.2 Trillion - 2.8% share of total - 53.2M Families - real estate assets $1.6 Trillion upper 51-90% of households -$11.6 Trillion - 27.4% share of total - 42.6M Families - real estate assets $6.6 Trillion 14. ### Poor PlayerI looked and saw a new EarthRegistered Senior Member Messages: 90 I just ran a few quick calculations on the numbers in my last post. After adjusting for the population increase the average net worth of an American household in 2001 in the 51-90 percentile range was$266K. That's an increase of 38% over the 1989 average net worth of $193K. Real estate asset value in the same period for that group, after also adjusting for the population increase, was up only 17.6%. So 57% of the gain in net worth is other assets. If you take 57% of the$73K increase in net worth then you get $42K in net worth increase not related to real estate. So even if I agreed with your claim that housing price appreciation doesn't really increase my financial health, which I don't, the consumer still did very well in this period don't you agree? Since inflation has been factored in and since all debt is factored in, I just don't see how anyone can argue against that given it's only a twelve year period. Last edited: Nov 11, 2004 15. ### Poor PlayerI looked and saw a new EarthRegistered Senior Member Messages: 90 After defending our free and fair election and easily disposing of some absurd revisionist history on the USA involvement in Central America and the Middle East (Israel), and some biased economic analysis on the American consumer financial strength by my extremely liberal and/or communist opponents, it occured to me that many of them don't actually believe that America is really a free democracy anymore or that its people are prospering greatly. One dolt even said democracy and capitalism are not compatible......seriously. How perfect is it then to see Mr. Alberto Gonzales, the son of migrant farm workers, with eight siblings, be named to the highest law enforcement office in the land. How perfect that his road to a better life started with his service in the US Air Force and then a steady climb up a career ladder filled with prestige and awards. I think it's appropriate to ask yourselves, in what other democratic nation is there a cabinet level leader of this stature who was raised in poverty by a minority father with a second grade education? I'll answer it for you OK, NONE. I don't even have to check because it's so ridiculously unlikely. So much for the American citizen losing his freedom and his ability tomove up very quickly in the world based on merit. He became the first Hispanic Attorney General nominee ever based on hard work, education, optimism, and integrity, not on which family he was born into. It's classic Americana! Here is his bio: Al Gonzales 1955 - Born August 4, in San Antonio, Texas. He was raised in Houston with 7 brothers and sisters. 1973-1975 - Served in the US Air Force. 1975-1977 - Attended the United States Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, Colorado 1979 - Recieved his B.A from Rice University in Houston, Texas 1982 - Juris doctor (law degree) from Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Massachusetts 1982-1995 - Joined the Houston law firm of Vinson & Elkins L.L.P. as an associate -- eventually became partner. 1985-1991 - Director, Big Brothers and Sisters 1989-1993 - Director, Catholic Charities, Houston, Texas 1990-1991 - President, Houston Hispanic Bar Association 1990-1991 - President, Houston Hispanic Forum 1990 - Special Legal Counsel, Houston Host Committee, Summit of Industrialized Nations 1992 - Assistant Legal Counsel, Houston Host Committee, 1992 Republican National Convention 1991-1994 - Director, State Bar of Texas 1992-1993 - Chairman, Republican National Hispanic Assembly of Houston 1993-1994 - Director, United Way of the Texas Gulf Coast 1993-1994 - President, Leadership Houston 1994 - Chair, Commission for District Decentralization of the Houston Independent School District 1995-1997 - General Counsel to Governor George W. Bush 1997-1999 - Secretary of State, State of Texas 1999-2000 - Justice, The Supreme Court of Texas 2000- - White House Counsel for George W. Bush 2004- - Nominated for Attorney General Awards 1999 - Texas Leader, Leadership Houston 1999 - Latino Lawyer of the Year, Hispanic National Bar Association 1999 - 100 Most Influential Hispanics, Hispanic Business Magazine 1997 - Presidential Citation, State Bar of Texas - for addressing the basic legal needs of the indigent 1994 - One of Five Outstanding Young Texans, Texas Junior Chamber of Commerce 1994 - One of Five Outstanding Young Houstonians, Houston Junior Chamber of Commerce 1993 - Commitment to Leadership Award, United Way of the Texas Gulf Coast 1992 - Outstanding Young Lawyer of Texas, Texas Young Lawyers Association 1992 - Woodrow Seals Outstanding Young Lawyer, Houston Young Lawyers Association 1989 - Hispanic Salute, Houston Metro Ford Dealers and Ford Division, Ford Motor Company 1989 - President's Award, Houston Bar Association 16. ### NormanAtta BoyRegistered Senior Member Messages: 697 WMD??? Atta Boy Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 17. ### Poor PlayerI looked and saw a new EarthRegistered Senior Member Messages: 90 What's your point? Are you trying to blame him for a CIA failure? 18. ### ElectricFetusSanity going, going, goneValued Senior Member Messages: 18,523 I'll blame him for not taking the time to notice the evidence was bad. 19. ### NormanAtta BoyRegistered Senior Member Messages: 697 Bush just 'Flat-Out' lied to the american people, congress, UN and to the rest of the world about Iraq having WMD! Flat-out lied! Atta Boy Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 20. ### Poor PlayerI looked and saw a new EarthRegistered Senior Member Messages: 90 I seriously doubt it. Even as I was watching Powell present his case to the UN I was thinking "this is pretty weak". It was obvious to anyone paying attention that they were speculating. There is a huge difference between speculation based on uncertain evidence and "flat out lying". That's like saying my stockbroker flat out lied when he told me that my stock was going up, and then it went down. Sure it's easy for you to accuse him after he was proven wrong but you didn't really KNOW either now did you? Lay off the WMD thing. SH COULD have had them, nobody really knew, and that was enough once he started obstructing the inspections. The Brits and the Russians both thought he had them and it's documented, so enough already. Last edited by a moderator: Nov 13, 2004 21. ### NormanAtta BoyRegistered Senior Member Messages: 697 I think history will show that Iraq will be Bush's biggest mistake! And history will also show that his motives for invading Iraq for the so-called WMD will be his legacy. He will not be remembered for not much of anything else.........Especially by the rest of world! Atta Boy Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 22. ### Poor PlayerI looked and saw a new EarthRegistered Senior Member Messages: 90 Maybe it will maybe it won't. W has made a lot of mistakes in Iraq. But if they have an election in January that is anywhere near as successful as the Afghans, and the new government survives, then he could come out smelling like a rose in the end. Don't laugh! Remember Reagan during Iran Contra or the Clinton impeachment trial? You are just engaging in wishful thinking really. The irony of the whole situation is that this is the best chance Iraqis have ever had to have a legitimate government, and the Americans, who are making it happen, are being savaged around the world for it. All it did was hurt W in the election. It didn't help him at all. The Osama tape did bigtime. It's quite illogical actually. I can see Americans being angry, since they are footing the entire bill to the tune of$200+ billion, but I can make a very strong argument that the rest of the people in the world who are crying foul are just as dumb and ignorant as anyone who voted for W. Think about it; a brutal dictator is deposed, his two psychopath sons and heirs are killed, thousands of Arab terrorists in training are drawn to Iraq and killed along with the brutal Sunni thugs loyal to SH, 600,000 lbs. of munitions are captured and destroyed, the richest country in the world pays for it all and takes 90% of the casualties, and all the bleeding heart liberals around the world can say is "oh, isn't awful what the Americans are doing to Iraq".

Wake up people!! Are you out of your minds? Be more patient. This could be the greatest thing to ever happen to the Iraqi people in the long run and maybe the entire Middle East. It totally sucks for Americans but hey, we're used to it. Or have you forgotten so quickly that over 15,000 Americans and Brits died in the American Revolution way back in 1776-1783. That little conflict took seven years. Another 500,000 died in our own civil war. Democracy often grows only out of the barrel of a gun. You are seeing it happen right now before your very eyes, again. And it won't be the last time either. Read a little of Niall Ferguson's "Colossus" if you really want to learn.

I would like to see some other country take the leadership role in the world and start cleaning up other people's messes for once, but they won't. They'll just sit there on their arses and moan and groan and say "isn't it horrible how they throw their weight around". They should take a good long look in the mirror. One day they might see their self in the eyes of an Arab who has never known the taste of freedom. They should all be rooting for us!

Last edited by a moderator: Nov 13, 2004
23. ### NormanAtta BoyRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
697
As long as there is insurgents and terrorists in Iraq and other muslim countries who are willing to be killed for the sake of Allah or Mohammed, then there will never be peace there. The constant influx of insurgents will not stop. It may fluxuate up and down, but Iraq will always be Iraq and whether Iraq has successful elections or not, Iraq will 'always' and I say again, Iraq will 'always' have unrest until the new government is either overthrown and/or the U.S. gets out of there just like it did in Vietnam! Whether you like it or not, this is Bush's war and Bush is going to have to be held accountable someday for his big mistake! Wait & see!

Atta Boy