Raising the US debt ceiling

[GWiz]

So you get that now.

Always did... Remember what I said about yanking chains, especially "American" ones, did you feel the jerk?

Nor the United States either, eh? Because of course no one ever refers to us in either way. Everyone always refers to the full name; the United States of America. Including you. (Oops, eh?)

You United Statesians really do think you "own" the the Americas, north, central, and south, don't you?

I'm finding your sig line more ironic and amusing with each response you make.

Yank! (feel the tug)

[Guest American Woman]

Always did... Remember what I said about yanking chains, especially "American" ones, did you feel the jerk?

I see. "Yanking chains" equals making dishonest replies/posts for the fun of it. Got 'cha.

[Guest American Woman]

To my yankee friends I say suck it up as yours is an empire in decline.

Honestly, Pinko, with all due respect, Americans just live their daily lives going about their personal business same as everyone else. Canada has had financial issues to deal with same as the U.S. has in the past and is now. You dealt with it, we deal with it. We're no more "in decline" as a nation than Canada has ever been. That's what Americans care about, same as Canadians, same as anyone else -- our nation. It's non-Americans that always refer to the U.S. as an "empire." We generally don't go around thinking about it that way, so we have nothing to "suck up." Wanting to be an empire just isn't in our minds/desires, and it sure isn't something we spend our time thinking about/fretting over.

[GWiz]

I see. "Yanking chains" equals making dishonest replies/posts for the fun of it. Got 'cha.

NEVER dishonest... Always the TRUTH (some form of it at least)... Ergo, yup, yanking yankee chains is fun, much more fun in fact than yanking them Domestically... But be cool, it's my American side that makes me do it...

[GWiz]

Honestly, Pinko, with all due respect, Americans just live their daily lives going about their personal business same as everyone else. Canada has had financial issues to deal with same as the U.S. has in the past and is now. You dealt with it, we deal with it. We're no more "in decline" as a nation than Canada has ever been. That's what Americans care about, same as Canadians, same as anyone else -- our nation. It's non-Americans that always refer to the U.S. as an "empire." We generally don't go around thinking about it that way, so we have nothing to "suck up." Wanting to be an empire just isn't in our minds/desires, and it sure isn't something we spend our time thinking about/fretting over.

Well said...

[pinko]

Honestly, Pinko, with all due respect, Americans just live their daily lives going about their personal business same as everyone else. Canada has had financial issues to deal with same as the U.S. has in the past and is now. You dealt with it, we deal with it. We're no more "in decline" as a nation than Canada has ever been. That's what Americans care about, same as Canadians, same as anyone else -- our nation. It's non-Americans that always refer to the U.S. as an "empire." We generally don't go around thinking about it that way, so we have nothing to "suck up." Wanting to be an empire just isn't in our minds/desires, and it sure isn't something we spend our time thinking about/fretting over.

Americans also support a government with a huge military and generate a substantial income on producing and selling arms to despotic regimes like that of Egypt and many others. Americans also seem to support the likes of the Patriot Act and the abrogation of the Geneva Conventions. Perhaps you would like to explain the concept of The New American Century before pretending the USA isn't seen as an empire.

[Guest American Woman]

Americans also support a government with a huge military and generate a substantial income on producing and selling arms to despotic regimes like that of Egypt and many others. Americans also seem to support the likes of the Patriot Act and the abrogation of the Geneva Conventions. Perhaps you would like to explain the concept of The New American Century before pretending the USA isn't seen as an empire.

Seems to me you're painting "Americans" with the same brush in your claims. But that aside, I never said the USA isn't seen as an empire. I said that's generally not how Americans see it. I explained that we have nothing to "suck up" in that regard; that mindset involves others' perceptions of us.

As I said, we are in no more of a decline as a nation than Canada has ever been. Life is pretty much going on, and will continue to do so.

[pinko]

Seems to me you're painting "Americans" with the same brush in your claims. But that aside, I never said the USA isn't seen as an empire. I said that's generally not how Americans see it. I explained that we have nothing to "suck up" in that regard; that mindset involves others' perceptions of us.

As I said, we are in no more of a decline as a nation than Canada has ever been. Life is pretty much going on, and will continue to do so.

Fair enough. I am not painting all Americans with the same brush but am merely pointing out the obvious. Canada is a bit player in the current scheme of things although it should be noted Harper and the Canadian military have sucked Canada into these endless wars. This is especially the case in Afghanistan.

I don't hold you personally responsible for the shortcomings and excesses of your government and military.

Edited January 30, 2011 by pinko

[GWiz]

Fair enough. I am not painting all Americans with the same brush but am merely pointing out the obvious. Canada is a bit player in the current scheme of things although it should be noted Harper and the Canadian military have sucked Canada into these endless wars. This is especially the case in Afghanistan.

I don't hold you personally responsible for the shortcomings and excesses of your government and military.

Owch, this is gonna Hurt...

To be honest here Canada getting "sucked in" to the Afghan war can't be lain at the feet of Harper alone, ALL our political parties and a majority of Canadians supported it in the beginning...

Canada's JTFII went in with the second set of US Rangers to hit the ground in Afghanistan to hunt down Bin Laden, that's how long Canada has been in the fight...

Then came the move to Kandahar and Canadian deaths in Afghanistan started rising way more than anyone thought.... That move Harper has to take a little more credit for...

But all this is really isn't pertinent to this thread today...

Bush is the main culprit, and those that supported him of course, for the US debt load and the near collapse of the US economy, pulling the rest of the world, including Canada, down with it...

I predict it won't be long now before the second shoe drops on the world economies... Much worse than round one I may add... Wait for it...

[bush_cheney2004]

Fair enough. I am not painting all Americans with the same brush but am merely pointing out the obvious. Canada is a bit player in the current scheme of things although it should be noted Harper and the Canadian military have sucked Canada into these endless wars. This is especially the case in Afghanistan.

This is not the case at all...Canada is a charter member of NATO by choice, and clearly was able to [defiantly] say "No!" to Iraq. Nobody tricked Canada into anything. More significantly, Canada has profited handsomely from all "these wars", including Cold War cash from the US and UK for uranium to make thousands of nuclear weapons. Guess where depleted uranium comes from?

I don't hold you personally responsible for the shortcomings and excesses of your government and military.

...and I don't hold you personally responsible for yours.

[bush_cheney2004]

Then came the move to Kandahar and Canadian deaths in Afghanistan started rising way more than anyone thought.... That move Harper has to take a little more credit for...

Nope...Harper was not PM when Canada cheaped out on defense spending, sending your troops to certain death in Iltis jeeps for convoy transport instead of keeping the CH-47's that were sold to another nation, only to desperately want them back. But at least you got more "free" health care, eh?

But all this is really isn't pertinent to this thread today...

Bush is the main culprit, and those that supported him of course, for the US debt load and the near collapse of the US economy, pulling the rest of the world, including Canada, down with it...

The US did not "go down" when Canada was on its fiscal ass back in the 90's. The US economy doesn't owe you a goddamn thing.

I predict it won't be long now before the second shoe drops on the world economies... Much worse than round one I may add... Wait for it...

Okay...wouldn't want to speed that up...I prefer a long, agonizing decline into a lower but quite acceptable standard of living, like most of the world lives today.

[pinko]

Owch, this is gonna Hurt...

To be honest here Canada getting "sucked in" to the Afghan war can't be lain at the feet of Harper alone, ALL our political parties and a majority of Canadians supported it in the beginning...

Canada's JTFII went in with the second set of US Rangers to hit the ground in Afghanistan to hunt down Bin Laden, that's how long Canada has been in the fight...

Then came the move to Kandahar and Canadian deaths in Afghanistan started rising way more than anyone thought.... That move Harper has to take a little more credit for...

But all this is really isn't pertinent to this thread today...

Bush is the main culprit, and those that supported him of course, for the US debt load and the near collapse of the US economy, pulling the rest of the world, including Canada, down with it...

I predict it won't be long now before the second shoe drops on the world economies... Much worse than round one I may add... Wait for it...

You have a point. Paul Martin, with the advice of that buffoon General Hillier, entered the war in Afghanistan. Likely Chretien made a backroom deal before he left to mitigate some of the bad feelings about not joining the so called coalition of the willing. I don't recall either the NDP or the Bloc ever supporting the invasion of Afghanistan.

Edited January 30, 2011 by pinko

[pinko]

"Okay...wouldn't want to speed that up...I prefer a long, agonizing decline into a lower but quite acceptable standard of living, like most of the world lives today."

I have an acceptable standard of living now and fully expect that to be the case until I die. Less consumption is a good thing in my view at least as it relates to western societies.

[pinko]

http://riskreport.weforum.org/

[bush_cheney2004]

http://riskreport.weforum.org/

Posting links without comment is a violation of forum rules.

[GWiz]

Nope...Harper was not PM when Canada cheaped out on defense spending, sending your troops to certain death in Iltis jeeps for convoy transport instead of keeping the CH-47's that were sold to another nation, only to desperately want them back. But at least you got more "free" health care, eh?

Lies, lies, lies... Under Bush that was the way it was... You can however "blame Canada" for listening to Bush... Our Government should have known better that to listen to anything the Bush administration said... God bless our Canadian Troops...

"NATO infighting aided the insurgency, specifically in 2005 and 2006, as a host of member countries felt blindsided, alleging that the U.S. sold a role confined to reconstruction and peace-keeping. They did not expect to take over counter-insurgency operations of large swaths of territory.

Many of these nations – chief among them the French - were also appalled when they realized the U.S. was simply using NATO troops to fill the gap left by shifting troops to Iraq – a war most of the NATO countries strongly opposed. Alliance members were especially upset upon learning the insurgency had been growing in spring 2006 after being told by U.S. officials that an intensification of such a nature was highly unlikely.

American military leaders understood full well the resilient militants had been turning the tide and that the Taliban would see ISAF's expansion and U.S. contraction as an opportune moment to rekindle the war - yet, despite this knowledge, Eikenberry characterized the insurgency as “weakening” during a press conference on December 8, 2005.

http://www.examiner.com/afghanistan-headlines-in-national/nato-is-a-decompsing-corpse-afghanistan#ixzz1CY8KCNdt

The US did not "go down" when Canada was on its fiscal ass back in the 90's. The US economy doesn't owe you a goddamn thing.

You OWE quite a bit to Canada actually... Read it and weep...

Moody’s Downgrades U.S. Debt Rating; Canada Offers Bailout Loan

With the U.S. government devastated by this news, and financial collapse looming, America is now scrambling to see if it can restructure its debt. Canada, the U.S.’s neighbor to the north, has offered a bailout loan. The loan, in the amount of $500 billion, will be used to help the U.S. meet its obligations to China, since that is the approximate amount of U.S. assets that Chinese officials plan to liquidate. China has around $1 trillion in U.S. bonds, and plans to cash in about half of that in order to fund its plans for asset diversification.

http://financialhighway.com/moodys-downgrades-u-s-debt-rating-canada-offers-bailout-loan/

Okay...wouldn't want to speed that up...I prefer a long, agonizing decline into a lower but quite acceptable standard of living, like most of the world lives today.

Ain't gonna be slow, but it will be agonizing... You may want to watch some movies about the Dirty 30s in anticipation of your future "standard of living", or you could just move to India to experience it now...

[bush_cheney2004]

Lies, lies, lies... Under Bush that was the way it was... You can however "blame Canada" for listening to Bush... Our Government should have known better that to listen to anything the Bush administration said... God bless our Canadian Troops...

Since when is George Bush the Prime Minister of Canada. Hell, PM Chretien didn't even allow for a vote or debate (Kosovo or Afghanistan). What kind of Micky Mouse circus are you guys running in Ottawa anyway? At least the U.S.ians got to vote in Congress.

"NATO infighting aided the insurgency, specifically in 2005 and 2006, as a host of member countries felt blindsided, alleging that the U.S. sold a role confined to reconstruction and peace-keeping. They did not expect to take over counter-insurgency operations of large swaths of territory.

Read the NATO Charter....DUH!

Ain't gonna be slow, but it will be agonizing... You may want to watch some movies about the Dirty 30s in anticipation of your future "standard of living", or you could just move to India to experience it now...

OK...you can watch them too, just like all the other U.S. media you have been gulping down since you were in diapers.

[pinko]

Posting links without comment is a violation of forum rules.

So what? Anyway those links add to the gloom and doom suggested by you.

[Pliny]

Wrong again Pliny...

Just because one was once an extreme leftist regime does'nt mean it cannot change into an extreme right wing one...

You simply cannot admit this because of some ideoogical insecurity in admitting the political right has as many skeletons in its' closet as the political left...

I said pretty much the same thing as you did. Fascism, communism and socialism are totalitarian/authoritarian regimes. Of coursse the poltical right has skeletons in in their closet.

All I've ever claimed is totalitarian /authoritarian regimes are fairly close, as in your political horseshoe spectrum. But I would not call them opposites. I would just call them politically competitive totalitarian regimes that fight for the monopolization of the power of the State.

Since they are all about total government the opposite of that would be anarchy so an understandable spectrum, especially from a public point of view, would be from an anarchic no government to total government.

Is that difficult to understand? I know looking at things straight forward is an unusual political concept but you should give it a try.

[Jack Weber]

I said pretty much the same thing as you did. Fascism, communism and socialism are totalitarian/authoritarian regimes. Of coursse the poltical right has skeletons in in their closet.

All I've ever claimed is totalitarian /authoritarian regimes are fairly close, as in your political horseshoe spectrum. But I would not call them opposites. I would just call them politically competitive totalitarian regimes that fight for the monopolization of the power of the State.

Since they are all about total government the opposite of that would be anarchy so an understandable spectrum, especially from a public point of view, would be from an anarchic no government to total government.

Is that difficult to understand? I know looking at things straight forward is an unusual political concept but you should give it a try.

No you have'nt...

You have consistently claimed that ALL Totalitarian movements come from the Left...Specifically,out of Socialism!!!

That is patently incorrect!

Or am I now to understand that the above is a tacit admission that your original assessment was incorrect?

[Pliny]

Do you live in the United States or in North America?

I live in Canada which is in North America, a continent, just like the United States is in North America, a continent... I call myself a Canadian but I am also a North American... You calling yourself a United Statesian, which would be correct, sounds kind of silly, being what United Statesians are you drop the North and call yourself an "American" after the continent the United States sits on... Any good reason a Canadian can't do the same?

Words

You will have to define all your words since they have no meaning.

[bush_cheney2004]

Words

You will have to define all your words since they have no meaning.

True...since one of the United States has nothing to do with North America....nor do Guam, American Samoa, etc.

[dre]

Agreed on Herr Schickelgruber...To a point...I would agree with you as it related the The Anschluss,but not the Sudatenland...That was forced subjugation,where in Austria,there were a great many NAZI sympathizers.It is true that Adolph Hitler was an anti-Communist...He was also an anti-Socialist and and anti-democrat.To gain power,he sided with conservative elements within the Weimar Republic.The reason was that many conservatives agreed with his economic policies and could be placated that way.Remember,to gain absolute power he staged the Reichstag Fire and blamed it on the Dutch Communist,Marius Vander Lubbe.Once that power was gained,he and his SA thugs went to murdering and imprisoning everything Centre Left they could find.The situation in Poland was really about dividing Eastern Europe with Stalin until Hitler could invade the Soviet Union...Strategic,but not really about getting along with Stalin at all...

1.Agreed,but pure Capitalism and Fascism can be symbiotic.Some form of wealth can be creat5ed to assist in the "betterment of the state" ie.General Augusto Pinochet's Chile.

2.Disagree...There was private property ownership in NAZI Germany,Franco's Spain,Oliviera Salazar's Portugal...Albeit,for the elites that assisted in perpetuating the Fascist government in those countries,but private property ownership nonetheless.Specific to Mussolini,I ahve to give him some grudging repect.His public works projects were necessary and worked.What really ruined his "Fascist Roman Empire" was the strident attacks on Libya,Somalia,and,Ethiopia.This was done as a smokescreen to divert public attention from the simple fact he broke the bank on internal public works.In fact,those foreign incursions were completely unnecessary!

3.Disagree again...Strident Naionalism is the final resting place of misguided patriotism....And it definately morphs...It usually starts out as:

1.We are proud to be (insert name here)

and then morphs into...

2.We are not only proud,but we are stronger than (usually everyone else)

and then morphs into...

3.We are not only stronger,but we are superior to(a specific group or everyone else)

Now,it can stop there (see the French)or..It goes into scary territory and morphs into...

4.We are superior,we have to attack the weak and inferior outside of our borders to protect ourselves from being "infected" by their weakness and inferiority.

and simultaneously...

5.We must get rid of (see exterminate) those in our midst who are weak and inferior lest they infect us and bring us down.(see NAZI Germany)

I agree that there can be a form of Nationalism within a Communist state,however,because Communism is about the collective it's an inherently more nebular construct.Therefore that strident Nationalism is harder to attain and takes a much longer period of time.In a Fascist state the "punch" of that Nationalism is always more strident,focused,and,violent.

I do agree that Fascism and Communism are very similar but come to that similarity from completely different angles.

3.Completely agree....

I do agree that Fascism and Communism are very similar but come to that similarity from completely different angles.

No theyre actually almost exact opposites in virtually every defining characteristic.

Communism envisions a classless society based on common ownership of the means of production, no wage labor, no private property, and free access to articles of consumption. In a pure theoretically application its also stateless.

Facism on the other hand is statist, it isnt classless, theres no common ownership of the means of production, theres wage labor, theres private property, and no free access to articles of consumption.

The bogus assertion by folks like Pliny that words like fascism and communism and socialism has absolutely no basis in reality and has everything to do with him just trying to create an association between things he things are bad.

This is actually a well known phenomenon.

Fascism is a form of government that was popular between 1919 and 1945, but became taboo after the Holocaust and the defeat of the Axis powers in 1945. Since 1945, few groups have applied the term to themselves. The term "fascism" has become a universal epithet for anything bad. In 2005, scholar Richard Griffiths stated that the term fascism is the most "misused, and over-used term of our times."

This phenomenon explains very nicely why folks like Pliny tries to create associations between things like communism or socialism and fascism. Its simply because he thinks theyre bad.

Edited January 30, 2011 by dre

[Pliny]

No you have'nt...

You have consistently claimed that ALL Totalitarian movements come from the Left...Specifically,out of Socialism!!!

That is patently incorrect!

Or am I now to understand that the above is a tacit admission that your original assessment was incorrect?

It sounds like you haven't read any of the history I have posted.

Let's make it simple. Totalitarian/authoritarian regimes are ideological and monopolistic in nature and for that reason they just do not get along. Whether they are totalitarian socialist, communist, marxist-leninist, Stalinist, Maoist, Hitlerian or fascist they will not allow any other form of government to exist within their boundaries.

Although you seem to see in your horseshoe analogy that there are similarities you keep spewing out that same left/right polar opposite pablum you have been spoon fed over the ages. You seem to recognize that they are fairly close but can't get over that final little gap or recognize the origin of socialist ideology as being leftist.

Remember the whole idea of the left right spectrum comes from France before the French Revolution where the Conservatives supported the monarchy and the existing structure of government wishing no change. All others sat on the left side of the chamber - Liberals, socialists, revolutionaries, all forms of oppositon. A Monarchy, could be veiwed as similar to a type of evolutionary dictatorship and on the anarchy-total government political spectrum would sit fairly close together depending upon how much the State was involved in the engineering of the society.

As a staunch union member you have a few other little mountains to climb before you can actually begin to make sense out of things. I know you must have little question marks dancing in your head about incomprehensibilities and inconsistencies in what your sources tell you but you ignore them. They ignore them too.

I don't support any political party in their entirety. I liked some of the things that the Liberals did like balance the budget. It doesn't matter it was done at the expense of the provinces but it does matter that they take the credit and none of the repsonsiblity for the shortfalls the provinces were faced with.

So don't try and paint me as an ideological right winger. I am not and if I thought there were any move by the liberals to limit the scope of government in Canada I would be voting for them. They would be retreating to their more classic position and abandoning the socialists who have swallowed them up. In the thirties most classical liberals in the classic sense moved to the right of centre to disassociate with all the socialist/fascist centralized forms of government.

[Pliny]

No theyre actually almost exact opposites in virtually every defining characteristic.

Economically, they differ. Politically the State is supreme.

Communism envisions a classless society based on common ownership of the means of production, no wage labor, no private property, and free access to articles of consumption. In a pure theoretically application its also stateless.

Agreed, but there are a few missing points. It is an international revolutionary movement seizing the means of production to establish the classless society. It is, according to theorists such as Bakunin, supposed to evolve into a stateless society. It never has and never will. Someone, it seems, must always ensure it will remain classless which defeats the definition of classless and makes it an impossible state to achieve. It is usually the State that becomes God.

Facism on the other hand is statist, it isnt classless, theres no common ownership of the means of production, theres wage labor, theres private property, and no free access to articles of consumption.

Correct. The aggrandizement of the State is the prime objective, however. Here you are pointing only to the economic diffrences. Politically, if you quoted from the NSDAP Manifesto you would see quite a few similarities to socialism. I do not claim the economic structure to be similar

The bogus assertion by folks like Pliny that words like fascism and communism and socialism has absolutely no basis in reality and has everything to do with him just trying to create an association between things he things are bad.

This is actually a well known phenomenon.

This phenomenon explains very nicely why folks like Pliny tries to create associations between things like communism or socialism and fascism. Its simply because he thinks theyre bad.

I have stated that the concepts could perhaps be made to work on a small scale with like minded people with a strong common bond., such as the communes of the Amish, the Hutterites and Mennonites or Jewish kibbutzes.

On a large scale they fail because of the diversity of a population and the different priorities mores principles, customs, food etc.

What isn't to dislike about proven failures of political oppresion.

And you still haven't been able to explain why Sweden is deemed socialist when, by your definition, it fits all criteria you mention above to being the "fascist" state of Sweden!!!!

Edited January 31, 2011 by Pliny