As the fight over President Obama's economic recovery package heats up, the two sides are beginning to define themselves with admirable clarity.
The president says we have a crisis that is heading toward a catastrophe.
The Republicans, on the other hand, have honed their economic message: Denial, Delay, Do Nothing.
Person | About | Day |
---|---|---|
نسرین ستوده: زندانی روز | Dec 04 | |
Saeed Malekpour: Prisoner of the day | Lawyer says death sentence suspended | Dec 03 |
Majid Tavakoli: Prisoner of the day | Iterview with mother | Dec 02 |
احسان نراقی: جامعه شناس و نویسنده ۱۳۰۵-۱۳۹۱ | Dec 02 | |
Nasrin Sotoudeh: Prisoner of the day | 46 days on hunger strike | Dec 01 |
Nasrin Sotoudeh: Graffiti | In Barcelona | Nov 30 |
گوهر عشقی: مادر ستار بهشتی | Nov 30 | |
Abdollah Momeni: Prisoner of the day | Activist denied leave and family visits for 1.5 years | Nov 30 |
محمد کلالی: یکی از حمله کنندگان به سفارت ایران در برلین | Nov 29 | |
Habibollah Golparipour: Prisoner of the day | Kurdish Activist on Death Row | Nov 28 |
Fishie, my dear
by Kaveh Nouraee on Thu Feb 19, 2009 11:54 AM PSTIn a nutshell, the Captain says the skinny little straight Jewish guy with glasses (Greenspan) did it, while I say the fat, gay Jewish guy with glasses did it (Barney Frank).
Captain says it was a herd of elephants, I say it was a herd of jackasses.
We both agree that it's one big freakin' circus, and people like you, me and the Captain are just a bunch of chumps in their eyes. We're the ones who are left to clean up all their poop, most of which landed on us.
As far as when you're gonna get you're money back, I just ask that you don't hold your breath, because you'll only get dizzy and black out.
fishie ;-)
by capt_ayhab on Thu Feb 19, 2009 11:06 AM PSTI thought you might say that, so in order to help! I have created a new blog that will answer some of your questions. Have fun
//iranian.com/main/blog/capt-ayhab/new-wall-s...
capt_ayhab [-YT]
well, now that y'all are done
by anonymous fish on Thu Feb 19, 2009 10:12 AM PSTi still don't have the slightest idea what the hell y'all were talking about... :-)
all i wanna know is... when am i going to get my money back!!!!
lol
by capt_ayhab on Thu Feb 19, 2009 04:03 AM PSTbe happy to,
capt_ayhab [-YT]
P/S thanks for the excellent dialogue, although we are in total disagreement, I enjoyed it.
Start over?
by Kaveh Nouraee on Wed Feb 18, 2009 02:43 PM PSTOK, give me the keys to your S55, I'll give you the keys to my S500.
Kaveh Kaveh Kaveh
by capt_ayhab on Wed Feb 18, 2009 02:25 PM PSTDadash you are way out of ball park on CSR. The concept came to life in 1970's so lets start over.
LOL it is AMG-built 5.5L supercharged 24-valve V-8 engine. In black of course.
capt_ayhab [-YT]
I said...
by Kaveh Nouraee on Wed Feb 18, 2009 11:44 AM PSTCSR has been applied selectively because by implementing policies such as the Community Reinvestment Act, and other policies that contributed to this mess by essentially forcing lenders to bypass standard and universally recognized measures for determining credit risk in their normal lending practices, social responsibilty ended up being completely ignored.
As a matter of fact, it can be honestly said that in the matter of credit, vis-a-vis the housing market, corporate responsibility was the first thing to go, and it was the Democrats that got rid of it, through their policies that went without oversight.
In the 1930s, credit was a fraction of what it is now, even when converted to today's dollars. That's why there were multiple runs on banks. People relied primarily on whatever cash reserves they had on hand. The bank holidays were an effective way to keep currency in circulation until the the initial panic cooled. The answer of making extensions of credit easier back then was not effective because it wasn't common as it is now.
While the Great Depression may have started with banks, this economic crisis we're in the midst of began with subprime and nonprime mortgage foreclosures. Very few banks were active participants in subprime, and of those that were, the majority merely acted as a conduit, using the recognition of their bank's "brand name" to market the loan products, while the underwriting, funding, and servicing of the loans was handled by another company (or companies) altogether.
You continue to mention the economic policies of the past eight years as it were a Republican policy. Look it up. It was the Democratic Party down to the bone.
I'm not separating the broader business model. The universally recognized elements of business is what fits into that broader model, is it not? What I was pointing out was the fact that those vital elements had been not only ignored but thrown away.
As for the auto industry:
I stand by my assertion that U.S. automakers have made advances and improvements. I also believe that they are still lagging behind the Japanese and European companies, almost all of which have major manufacturing presences here in the U.S.
I remember the Arab oil embargo well. Gas was 25 cents a gallon before that happened. The family car was a 1969 Pontiac LeMans with a 350 V8. It got 10MPG (if you were going downhill with a tailwind and the engine was off). I remember the "Odds and Evens" days where you could only get gas every other day based upon the last digit on your license plate. I used to think people with vanity tags were getting screwed out of gas completely.
While the Arab oil embargo brought greater consumer recognition to the car companies you mentioned, VW already had an established U.S. dealership network in place (known as Volkswagen of America or VWoA) since 1955. Toyota began U.S. sales in 1957, Nissan (known back then as Datsun) in 1960, and Honda's first U.S.-spec model was the 1973 Civic.
The Big Three's biggest problem wasn't as much gas guzzlers, as it was quality. New emissions standards required automakers to fit various untested and umproven devices in order to reduce emissions, and ended up not only robbing engine power, but causing mechanical problems that rendered the cars as junk. GMs small cars (the Vega, Chevette, Citation) were good on gas, but spent more time in the mechanics' garage than in the owner's. Ford had the Pinto and the Mustang II, while Chrysler imported and rebranded a couple of Mitsubishi products.
The disparity you raise in the number of Japanese cars seen here in the U.S. and the number of American cars overseas is distorted by a few things you may or may not know.
Toyota builds Camrys, Corollas, Avalons, Siennas, Highlanders, Tacomas and Tundras at factories in Kentucky, Northern California and Ontario. Honda Civics, CR-Vs Accords are built in Ohio, along with some Acuras. Nissan builds Sentras, Altimas, Maximas Frontiers, Titans and Armadas in Tennessee and Mississippi. For all intents and purposes these are American cars, built with parts and components from U.S. suppliers.
General Motors and Ford also build cars overseas. GM has Vauxhall in the UK, Opel in Germany, and Holden in Australia. Ford has plants in those three countries as well.
Japanese laws are such that not only will you find few American cars there, but many of the Japanese cars commonly found here won't be found in Japan either. This is the result of the disparity in U.S./Japanese trade agreements, as well as the heavy taxes Japan imposes on cars bigger than, say, a current Mini Cooper.
Yes, the Big Three went back to building V8s, because that's what buyers wanted. Funny thing is, today's V8s get the same gas mileage as a 4 cylinder did 20 years ago.
Detroit has improved build quality, fuel efficiency and reliability tremendously, but they do have a long way to go.
I'm not playing a "blame game", just pointing out to where the blame properly belongs. We just see it differently.
**By the way, I could have sworn that I read a post of yours where you mention having an S55. Is that the normally aspirated 5.5 liter V8 with 369HP or the supercharged V8 with 493HP? My S500 gets about 20 MPG if I baby the throttle, so you must be on a first name basis with the guy at your local gas station :-)
say what?
by capt_ayhab on Tue Feb 17, 2009 04:17 PM PSTwhat gives you the idea that concept of CSR is applied selectively. I like to know too.
seems to me that you need to study a bit more about the great depression. When you say it is different from today's disaster and cite [credit cease] as the culprit, seems to me that you are not aware that on the day of CRASH, all the banks wet belly up. That caused a panic in the other sectors, beginning with back then the stock market.
As you see, the great depression DID in fact start with BANKS as well. as a matter of fact, FDR, in order to avert total claps of banking system, ordered what was called [Banking Holiday], in which bank stayed closed for the panic to subside.[FYI window jumping on the onset of great depression... does it ring any bells?]
My good man, corporate responsibility applies to every corporation, and not only Auto makers. You might be way too young to remember the Arab Oil Embargo of 70's.
As a result of that embargo, fuel prices skyrocketed, and auto makers SCRAMBLED to build more fuel efficient cars. That was era, when VW, Toyota, Honda and etc first ware introduced to American market[Unless you wanna dispute this one as well].
However as the Oil embargo eased up, US auto makers went right back to the OLD fashion way of gas guzzling V8 motors. How do you claim US auto makers have come a long way? what is your point of reference? 70's or 80's?
Here how behind US Auto maker are. Next time you are out in the streets, count the number of Honda's, Toyota's and VW's. Then call a friend or associate in Europe and Japan and have them give you an idea about number of American made cars they see in their streets.Then you can claim that US auto makers have come a long way. FYI,,,, Failure of US auto makers in meeting the demands of MARKET has been a case study for every and all student of Economics and Business. Just call any Business professor or Econ Professor in US and they will tell you.
US Auto makers have been in trouble of one kind or the other for decades dude, don't tell me they have come a long way. In comparison to Japanese and European car makers, US auto industry is still in EARLY 20th century to say the least.
you say[In order for businesses to succeed, the corporate social responsibility
you speak of needs to be applied as a part of the broader business
model, in balance with other universally recognized elements of
business, not the core principle by which the business operates.
Otherwise, the business won't be operating for long....]
How and why are you separating broader business model with universally recognized elements of business. Actually what is it you are trying to say.
I regret to say, that you have not grasped the concept of CSR, otherwise you would not be reciting elementary business jargon such as[you have to spend money to make money] or[ private capital in business, i.e 401K].
When we say CORPORATION, definition is within the terminology itself. What does it have to do with failure of economic policies of past 8 years. I guess I am not getting your point.Then again, just look at the title of the blog... Republican Strategy....Deny, delay and do nothing[WINK] Not to mention BLAME GAME.
capt_ayhab [-YT]
Nakheir, Nyet, Nein, Non, Nope,
by Kaveh Nouraee on Tue Feb 17, 2009 02:29 PM PSTand I don't think so.
This time, faced with the failure of credit, lending has pretty much ceased. The current failure of credit is the result of the policies and practices enacted by people who felt that the "social responsibility" of lending to money to practically anyone with a pulse carried greater weight and was of greater social importance. Greater than not only profit, but greater than the importance of adhering to tried and true measures of risk management.
It's strange that the idea of corporate social responsibility that you speak of is being applied selectively. It's being applied to serve the argument against SUVs, while in the case of credit, it's being used to justify loose credit guidelines forced upon the financial industry by the liberals, pretty much being throwing all proper business practices out the window.
Automobile manufacturers in the US have gone a long way in the area of social responsibilty. By updating manufacturing technology, not only were production costs were reduced, but energy costs and environmental waste were reduced significantly. Unfortunately, they still lagged behind their Japanese and European counterparts who began going "green" long before the term was coined as part of common household language.
Just as it costs money in order to make money, it costs money in order to invest in new manufacturing technologies that are designed in the long-term to save money.
Whether we are talking about automobile manufacturing, or any other manufacturing or service industry, the bulk of these businesses rely upon investments made by others, whether we're talking about venture capitalists, or the average person and his/her 401(k). In order for businesses to succeed, the corporate social responsibility you speak of needs to be applied as a part of the broader business model, in balance with other universally recognized elements of business, not the core principle by which the business operates. Otherwise, the business won't be operating for long.
Again, your closing paragraph is showing me that you continue to latch on to the notion that one or two people (Bush/Greenspan) are the orchestrators of this. You still fail to acknowledge that the abject failure of the Democratic Party-controlled Congress to heed numerous GOP warnings about the lack of regulations and the need to enact them created this environment to begin with.
Kaveh
by capt_ayhab on Tue Feb 17, 2009 01:29 PM PSTThe only difference between present crises and 29's great depression is the magnitude. Principles are still the same.
take a look at what FDR said about then money lenders[today's wall street and financial institutions] and notice the striking resemblance.
[...Primarily this is because rulers of the exchange of mankind's goods have failed through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failure, and have abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men. True they have tried, but their efforts have been cast in the pattern of an outworn tradition. Faced by failure of credit they have proposed only the lending of more money. Stripped of the lure of profit by which to induce our people to follow their false leadership, they have resorted to exhortations, pleading tearfully for restored confidence....The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our
civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit....]
this is what he said about [wealth and opportunity]:
[....Throughout the nation men and women, forgotten in the political philosophy of the Government, look to us here for guidance and for more equitable opportunity to share in the distribution of national wealth... I pledge you, I pledge myself to a new deal for the American people... This is more than a political campaign. It is a call to arms....]
As to the SUV and gas guzzlers: There is a principle in Economics called [Corporate Social Responsibility].
Corporate social responsibility (CSR, also called corporate responsibility, corporate citizenship, responsible business and corporate social opportunity is a concept whereby organizations consider the interests of society by taking responsibility for the impact of their activities on customers, suppliers, employees, shareholders, communities and other stakeholders, as well as the environment. This obligation is seen to extend beyond the statutory obligation to comply with legislation and sees organizations voluntarily taking further steps to improve the
quality of life for employees and their families as well as for the local community and society at large.
Can you tell me, IF corporations, under relaxed regulations of Bush administration have adhered to this principle? Financial as well as manufacturing???
I should say not....Under Republicans GREED took over everything and economic policies of Bush and kinds of Greenspan paved the way to this disaster.
capt_ayhab [-YT]
Mon Capitain
by Kaveh Nouraee on Tue Feb 17, 2009 11:30 AM PSTI believe that going in as a creditor is better than as an equity holder. While equity holders are afforded a level of protection in the event of a bankruptcy, if the U.S. were to be "merely" a creditor, I have no doubts that there would be measures in place to prevent that from happening.
In the case of SUVs, US automakers were filling a consumer demand. Just as they did with minivans starting in the 1980s. While they've indeed been very lax about fuel efficiency, and alternative propulsion technology, their main problem has been the per unit cost of vehicle productiion. A significant portion of that per unit cost ends up in the pockets of the United Auto Workers.
The U.S. economy under Hoover and subsequently FDR differs vastly than today. The only thing that today's crisis can be said to have in common with the Depression is the lack of consumer confidence. Hoover presided during a time where regulation practically didn't exist. As the economy grew, so did the need for regulation in order to prevent the abuses that led to the "bubble effect" similar to what we have been encounteing of late. It just wasn't there.
You must also remember that FDR presided over a world war that actually helped bring the economy back, first by the increased demand for the manufacture of war-related goods, then with the postwar economic boom when soldiers returned from battle. Housing and infrastructure, two segments of the economy that were for all intents and purposes put to the side during the war, provided plenty of jobs after the war. Infrastructure spending was inevitable. Consumer confidence was reinvigorated, fueled partly by a sense of pride from defeating both the Germans and the Japanese.
As to Bush's tax cut policy, again, blame cannot be placed squarely upon one person. The Democratic majority Congress went out of its way to undermine and sabotage anything and everything Republicans brought up for consideration, primarily out of partisan spite, driven by their hatred of Bush. And it continues now under the new administration with this stimulus package.
(I prefer calling it a "scamming us" package).
Kaveh
by capt_ayhab on Tue Feb 17, 2009 08:07 AM PSTThanks for the compliment.
Chrysler situation in 80's was totally different. Firstly it was a $200 million in loan, and secondly tax payers went into the deal as [creditor] rather than [equity holders]
There are pros and cons to this, namely [equity holders] have bit more legal protection in case of bankruptcy.
Problem that US auto makers are facing is an long term problem. While all the auto makers around the globe have moved to fuel efficient, hybrid, and even electric cars, US auto makers have been stuck in monster SUV's and large cars. It is of critical importance for US auto makers to restructure their production and get back in the market with more fuel efficient models.
Today's meeting shall reveal if they have been able to come up with a sound game plan to stay competitive or not.
Back to what you differences in economic philosophy in dealing with this crises, Allow me to take you back to great depression and implication of policies that Herbert Hoover put in place as op[posed to his successor Franklin D. Rosevelt.
Herbert Clark Hoover (1929–1933) stance on the economy was based largely on volunteerism. From before his entry to the presidency, he was a proponent of the
concept that public-private cooperation was the way to achieve high long-term growth. Hoover feared that too much intervention or coercion by the government would destroy individuality and self-reliance, which
he considered to be important American values.
Those ideals, as well as the economy were put to the test with the onset of The Great Depression. At the outset of the Depression, Hoover claims in his memoirs that he rejected Treasury Secretary Mellon's suggested "leave-it-alone" approach. Critics, such as liberal economist Paul Krugman,on the other hand, accuse Hoover of sharing Mellon's laissez-faire
viewpoint. It is often inaccurately stated that Herbert Hoover did nothing while the world economy eroded. President Hoover made attempts to stop "the downward spiral" of the Great Depression. His policies, however, had little or no effect. As the economy quickly deteriorated in the early years of the Great Depression, Hoover
declined to pursue legislative relief, believing that it would make people dependent on the federal government. Instead, he organized a number of voluntary measures with businesses, encouraged state and local government responses, and accelerated federal building projects. Only toward the end of his term did he support a series of legislative solutions.
Franklin D Roosevelt (1933 - to his death) four term president. He proposed what is known as [New Deal] he proposed and enacted programs such as:
Federal Emergency Relief Administration.
Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), which hired 250,000 unemployed young men to work on rural local projects.
Federal Trade Commission
broad new regulatory powers and provided mortgage relief to millions of
farmers and homeowners. Reconstruction Finance Corporation, making it a major source of financing to railroads and industry.
Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA).
Recovery was pursued through "pump-priming" (that is, federal spending). The NIRA included $3.3 billion of spending through the Public Works Administration to stimulate the economy,
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), which built dams and power stations, controlled floods, and modernized agriculture and home conditions in the poverty-stricken Tennessee Valley.
In a nutshell, where a Republican[Hoover] failed to do anything to avert depression, a Democrat[Roosvelt] reversed the great depression by Infra-Structure Spending.
Asides from that, Bush policy of Tax cut did not work in past 8 years either.
capt_ayhab [-YT]
Captain
by Kaveh Nouraee on Mon Feb 16, 2009 04:50 PM PSTI'm hardly belligerent about the issue.
However, I admit that I'm somewhat perplexed that I'm able to see this clearly for what it is while others cannot, despite the fact that it couldn't be any more obvious if it was sitting on top of them. You call it a "FOXation", (clever coinage of words, by the way....my compliments) yet in the meantime everything being broadcast by the CNNs and the MSNBCs is being taken and accepted as indisputable fact.
When the government takes an equity stake in what has been a private or public company, inevitably what happens is that the government is going to ensure that their interests are served first and foremost, over and above those of anyone else, including the average citizen investor.
Had this been structured in a manner similar to Chrysler's loan guarantees in the early 1980s, I think everyone would be happier with the immediate outcome, as well as the mid range and long term. Now there's word that there won't be a "car czar" to oversee the way this $17.5 billion is being used. Maybe because a car czar would find problems with the government as a partner. I, for one, find it peculiar that one of the conditions outlined before Chrysler and GM could deposit the check has now gone "poof".
In a situation like this, the best thing would be to have someone like Lee Iacocca, for example, act, if not as a car czar, as a liaison between Detroit and Capitol Hill. In the case of Iacocca, he's a "car guy" to the bone, plus he has the respect of Congress, having paid off Chrysler's loans several years early. His resume would also have a positive effect on Wall Street's view of the Big 3, which would also rub off on the balance sheets of parts suppliers and other companies that do business with Detroit.
If government having an equity stake in GM or Chrysler doesn't constitute a form of socialism, I guess we will disagree on this fundamental issue as well.
Kaveh
by capt_ayhab on Mon Feb 16, 2009 03:53 PM PSTSeems to me that you are getting belligerent about this issue.
I defined the socialism and capitalism. I also defined to you what[Equity] means when it comes to bailout and TAXPAYERS right in getting what they are paying for and proposed a question to you.
Show me the proof in the plan that tells you democrats are socialist.
Don't take me wrong, I am certain that you as a tax payer, are clear as to giving money to wall street[Tarp] and getting NOTHING in return. However I am still awaiting for you, with out any rhetoric and FOXation to tell me what part of democrats plan tells you that we are socialist?
Indulge me my friend and don't go Sean Hanitty on me please.
capt_ayhab [-YT]
Captain
by Kaveh Nouraee on Mon Feb 16, 2009 01:35 PM PSTI am crystal clear in my position. When I am speaking of regulations, I am referring to adhering to a system of policies, checks and balances that are designed to ensure that applicable laws are being followed.
There's a tremendous difference between government regulation and government participation. Unfortunately the terms have lost their real meaning over the years.
I'm afraid the only thing that you will be able to prove is that I am indeed correct in my statements. As much as some people do not wish to admit it, Greenspan and/or Bush can only be held liable for not being more forceful (within the limits of their positions) in seeking regulation of Fannie and Freddie, so that they would not buy up every piece of packaged trash. All credit involves a measure of risk, but with competent oversight, the risk could have been better managed, making a negative impact less severe.
For the next "who knows how many" years, economists of all disciplines, and universities worldwide will be dissecting this in every possible way. The conclusions will be the same: The lack of oversight, the lack of proper regulation (not to be confused with socialist-like active government participation) of the housing and financial markets created the envirionment for uncontrolled speculative hyper-growth that had nothing to fall back upon once reality struck. We saw the same thing with the dot-coms, and we just saw the same thing with gas prices.
How many times must people be hit over the head in order for some sense to be knocked into them?
These same criminals who created this mess were standing there for photo-ops when they announced with pride that they have just screwed this country and its people out of $800 million dollars that it doesn't have.
The financial markets could be reinvigorated, the housing and credit sectors can thaw out, and jobs can be created for less than half the tab we've just been fu-, I mean, stuck with.
FYI
by capt_ayhab on Mon Feb 16, 2009 01:06 PM PSTSocialism: refers to a broad set of economic theories of social
organization advocating public or state ownership and administration of
the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equal opportunities for all individuals, with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation.
Capitalism is an economic system in which wealth, and the means of producing wealth, are privately owned and controlled rather than commonly, publicly, or state-owned and controlled.Through capitalism, the land, labor, and capital are owned, operated, and traded by private individuals or corporations.
Mean of Production[aka Resources] = Land, Capital, Labor.
Equity in a company = Stoch holder. Power to vote to the extent of ownership.
Stockholders are granted special privileges depending on the class of stock. These rights may include:
can any one you gentlemen tell me which segment of democrats economic policies resemble the definition of Socialism??????
capt_ayhab [-YT]
Kaveh ;-)
by capt_ayhab on Mon Feb 16, 2009 12:49 PM PSTAllow me to bring to your attention few of YOUR comments if I may:
[....But I don't think that either Greenspan nor Bush should be apologizing for anything, except for perhaps not being more assertive, dare I say forceful, in trying to rein in the loose, carefree practices that are the cause of this mess.....]
[...Greenspan reiterated the urgency of taking action and warned Congress about the need for regulation in 2003!!...]
[...3) Both officials in the Bush administration as well as Congressional Republicans expressed concern over the lack of regulation and how, if allowed to continue unregulated, it would be detrimental to the market. These concerns were ignored. ...]
[...Bottom line, I firmly believe that had the subprime segment of the mortgage industry been properly managed with competent oversight, it would be seen today in a positive light, as a useful tool to be used as a bridge that would help carry more people on the path to financial independence and security, as it was originally designed. There would be no more foreclosures than usual, and that would have prevented this freefall. ....]
Kaveh, I would like for you to make your position clear. You keep contradicting yourself my friend. Which is Which????
Once you and I have distinct and clear position from you then I shall prove that how wrong you are.
Regards
capt_ayhab [-YT]
Democrats economic policies
by Kaveh Nouraee on Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:10 AM PSTDemocrats economic policies are socialistic because by design they allow government to permeate every aspect of that policy. We're not talking about government regulations, we are talking about government participation.
For example, the $17.5 billion slated to go to GM and Chrysler comes with the provision that the government will receive equity in these two companies. That, is socialism.
Democrats are constantly beating the drums proclaiming that they are looking out for the average American. The fact remains that the policies of the Democrats have only created a wider chasm between the socio-economic classes in this country. Those at the lower end of the scale end up becomimg more dependent on government for their basic survival.
I'm not looking for anyone to agree with me on this. I know there are way too many liberals out there who live in denial.
Iran Y
by capt_ayhab on Mon Feb 16, 2009 10:52 AM PSTMy good man
You can babble and rant and rave as much as you want. As a matter of fact, more you talk , more you demonstrate that you know jack sh!t, except name calling and smear tactics.
Once more I am going to ask my question, Either answer or stop labeling people with having the slightest idea about them.
My question again: you compared Democrats economic plan to Socialism. I asked a very simple question. What is socialism.
So, cut the BS and innuendos, just tell me why do you think Democrats economic policies are socialistic?
Spell out the answer dude................. once you tell me what do you think definition of socialism is them I will be more than happy to get into a logical and philosophical dialogue of different economic theories.
capt_ayhab [-YT]
P/S people like you do not
intimidate me, I have caught you in a BS, so you have resorted to name
calling.
BTW I am Liberal and proud of it, deal with it.
Capt Ayhab
by Iran Y Beman on Sun Feb 15, 2009 10:45 PM PSTWhy do Liberals are so angry people, why they always attack others by their intelactualism, they always brag about knowing more and they always try to discourage other side of any issues?
Oh wait a second, didn't I just discribe a Mullah who like to take you to nowhere when answering you by asking questions, think about, perhaps I would sat you might be a very smart person and who knows exactly what socialism is all about, why if you what that means you ask your debator about the question all over again and when I answer you by example you get angry and start name calling?
Now, my question to you again is, if your friends from the left side of the isle trying to take this country to socialism like Europe, like France, like Germnany....
Answer that, meanwhle try to keep it civil, you soon see the light if you are honest with your self.
Iran Y Beman
Capt. We Both Agree on One Thing.
by Artificial Intelligence on Sat Feb 14, 2009 04:13 PM PSTThank you as well for being civil!
......
by capt_ayhab on Sat Feb 14, 2009 02:16 PM PSTI will agree to one thing and one thing only and that is: You and I are in total disagreement.
Thank you ever so kindly for your civil dialogue.
capt_ayhab [-YT]
Dear Capt Lets not go there. Please!
by Artificial Intelligence on Sat Feb 14, 2009 01:57 PM PSTI clearly stated below that Israel was at fault with its policies. I clearly stated Israel had a hand in creation of Hamas and I clearly stated that the 2nd intifadah is the reason behind what you describe with respect to shortages of food, medical supplies & basic human nencessities because the level and method of violence chosen by the Palestinians was different.
Was there a separation wall in 1994 when Hamas was conducting suicide missions? Was Gaza the hell hole that it is now in 1994 when 50,000 Gazans were coming to work in Israel every day? How about 2000 before the 2nd Intifadah? What happened? Why Gaza became like this? Please lets not go there if you can't see that the Palestinians chose a different level of violence. Fatah was copying Hamas tactics just because it was losing the popularity game in the territories and not because it was making sense. The separation wall, the check points, the humiliation and the shortages of daily necessities is what violence got them.
Also, the video on who broke the cease fire is meaningless, silly and absurd. There were many other violations prior to the point of the CNN report and after the point of the CNN report (violations by both sides). This CNN clip is one of the dumbest clips since the incident they were talking about had to do with Hamas building a tunnel to kidnap more Israeli soldiers. It was not a tunnel for food or weapons. If you are digging a tunnel to kidnap soldeirs, isn't that a violation of the truce/ceasefire itself?
When the 6 month cease time ran out, Hamas clearly declared that it was not going to abide by the cease fire anymore and started with the heavy firing of stupid rockets. Please don't show the videos to me as they had nothing to do with what I stated below. I though I was very clear that the Israelis were at fault as well.
I know all these arguments and points that you gave me from these videos. But I was very clear about 1st intifadah/2nd intifadah.Please argue my point and please do not show me one sided videos that I have seen already. Its not going to get us anywhere. Lets not even go to videos. I can pick and choose videos as well. I did not because they are typically not objective.
You asked me what I would do? I would do what the South Africans did. I would not make victims on the other side. I would not shoot rockets into civilian areas. I would not draft a charter that views the Protocols of Zion as a basis for my struggle. Violence only invites more violence. The Israelis did no just decide out of the blue one day that they were going to close off Gaza to the world and turn it into what it has become today. Violence has gotten us here. Idiotic and stupid senseless violence. Violence of the first intifada was true resistance. Children throwing rocks at soldires (David v Goliath) was legitimate and understandable. It showed that there is a Palestinian nation.
I don't care what you show me and who you find to make Israelis look bad. Israelis could care less that they look bad in front of people like you under these circumstances. You can not sell peace to Israelis this way. Post Oslo/2nd Intifadah violence is not going to get my sympathy. More importantly, it is not going to get the Israeli nations sympathy. Hamas, with its current tactics, will never get my sympathy. I feel sorry for the Palestinians and what they have to go through. I feel the pain and sadness and the hardships that they must indure because of bad Israeli and Palestinian politicians. But I do not feel sorry for these Hamas thughs. They deserve what they got because they asked for it.
Peace.
one thing though
by capt_ayhab on Sat Feb 14, 2009 12:27 PM PSTWhat would YOU do, if your family was forced to stay in your house, and that you were denied of basic human necessities/ such as food, water, medical supplies? Would you just lay there and starve to death? I wouldn't.
One BIG man once said:
"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the
homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of
totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?" [Ganhdi]
I by no means am justifying killing of civilian, being a Jewish school children, or a Palestinian School children. But please tell me, what would YOU do?
capt_ayhab [-YT]
Arti Arti Arti,,,,,,,,,
by capt_ayhab on Sat Feb 14, 2009 12:14 PM PSTShall I get into the facts who created Hamas and what nots?
Ok then, Lets see who created Hamas, Then we shall examine who broke the cease fire, then we shall look into reasons why Israel invaded Gaza in past January, and lastly we will look into political fall out/gains that major parties in Israel had.
1. Who created Hamas: a 2 minute video of Dr Ron Paul[R-TX] on USA house floor
2. Would a video from CNN, which FACT CHECKS the claims from both sides on who broke the cease fire suffice? Lets see:
3. Why does Hamas fires fireCRAKERS at Israel? How about Mr. Jimmy Carter?
and one from CBS 60 minutes:
Arti jan, I'll be more than happy to start a dialogue with you regarding Israeli policies in occupied territories.
capt_ayhab [-YT]
Dear Capt
by Artificial Intelligence on Sat Feb 14, 2009 10:56 AM PSTI understand your anger at Israeli policies. I have stated many times that I am against these settlements that Israel is continuing to build in bad faith after they signed Oslo. There should be no reason for building anymore new settlements post Oslo and it is a big factor in prolonging the conflict and killing the chances for peace between the parties.
But I also see the failure and stupidity of Palestinian violence post Oslo. I do non't have any sympathy for a movement like Hamas that promoted suicide bombings of innocent civilians because it did not agree with Oslo (regardless of Israel's hands in creation of Hamas in the 80's). I also do not have any sympaty for second Intifada. I perfectly understood the First intifada and saw it as legitimate resistance. The Israelis were no longer occupying Palestinian population centers prior to 2nd Intifadah. The fight was about the contures of the resulting Palestinian State which was not satisfactory to the Palestinians- and I understand Palestinian complaints as well. However, The Israelis were the ones who armed the Palestinian security forces post Oslo. To Have started the 2nd Intifadah (the methods of resistance), with money and arms which was supplied by the Israelis, was a very foolish thing as it only strengthened the Zionists who have no intentions of giving up this land for peace and silenced the ones who were willing to negotiate (. Again, I understand that Israel was to blame for the failure of Oslo as well and I am not trying to make excuses for them.
I am talking about the methods used by the Palestinians to gain this extra 3-5% of land under Arafats leadership prior to 2nd intifadah. Whoever gave them advice to conduct themselves as they did during the 2nd intifada should be hanged. Just think about this: How many suicide bombings were there in apartheid south Africa? How many innocent white woman, men and children were killed by the blacks as a result of white racism in South Africa and in the Black's resistance to the Apartheid regim? How many rockets did the blacks fire into white neigborhoods to get rid of aparthied? Where there any separation fences prior to the 2nd intifadah in the West Bank?
The methods used by Palestinians in 2nd intifadah killed and silenced the Israeli peace camp and it also reduced the international pressure that was on Israel prior to Oslo.
Since we are both minorities wherever we go, we understand the pain and suffering that comes when you are powerless and discriminated against. I perfectly understand that you do not like Zionist policies and are not anti Jewish. Some Zionists have forgotten where they came from and are blind to what is going on. I just don't think Palestinian violence by both sides will lead to Palestinian independence any time soon. This is the tragedy.
damet garm
by anonymous fish on Fri Feb 13, 2009 12:33 PM PST"...that I do not want you to think just because I oppose Zionist policies and philosophies that I am an anti Jew."
a hugely important distinction and one that i greatly appreciate your saying in such a way as to (hopefully) not cause any further confusion. it seems like the two get mixed up alot...:-)
Artificial Intel
by capt_ayhab on Fri Feb 13, 2009 11:50 AM PSTGotta admit that Although a registered Democrat, I myself am rather in the center than to the left.
I could not agree more with you in regards to what Clinton and Carter did to Iran, rather their foreign policy. Although I hold great deal of respect for Mr. Carter for his accomplishment in achieving the peace between at least some of the war thorn countries in ME.
I, as you are, am a minority in Iran. actually double minority, because I am Iranian/Turk/NOT Shi'ite. Even though I have not been discriminated against as much as your faith, but discrimination is there and can't be denied.
Arti, I must make a clarification, while back in Iran, one of my best friends in the college, with whom I am in contact, which was my roommate in early years of my migrations to US was[and still is] a Jew. I have many colleagues in academia here in US that are either Iranian Jews or American Jews whom I hold great deal of respect, both as human beings and as great academicians. My partner of 15 year is an Iranian Jew, who I trust and love like my own brother[feeling is mutual].
The reason I am telling you this is that I do not want you to think just because I oppose Zionist policies and philosophies that I am an anti Jew.
As to the tax cut, I believe that original bill included weekly tax cut of close to $14. in each pay check[joy joy] and it was cut to $9 by Republicans[I am not trying to score a point].
I do appreciate your logical and insightful comments.
capt_ayhab [-YT]
Dear Capt
by Artificial Intelligence on Fri Feb 13, 2009 09:49 AM PSTI don't know if you can classify me as a Republican. I voted for Gore, I voted for Bush, I am pro choice and I think the religious right are a bunch of retards.....
I definetly do not like democratic foriegne policy, I hate the radical left more than I hate the radical religious right because at the end I will trust god fearing people more than the people who brought us communisim ...Part of it is because of Carter and Clinton and part of it is because I'm an Iranian Jew maybe. Clinton was a big dissapointment to me but he played his cards right when he governed from the middle and I was also hoping that Oslo was going to be a success (I know who you blame and we don 't need to discuss this here:))))))))))
Regardless of how Republicans or Democrats apply economic principles, depending on the situation (this is my personal view), one principle will work better than the other. Both principles can be correct but I think it depends on the economic situation more than the actual principles- I hope I make sense here.
I just don't think adding $9 per pay check to the average American's paycheck will stimulate the economy. I think more is needed and I think that the government has not attacked the mortgage/foreclosure issue at all; this makes me believe that its to late for the $9 per week to have any positive effect. I think Obama will wake up in 16-24 months and realize that we will need another stimulus package because this one is to little with respect to "stimulus" which is required and it will not fix the housing problems which is the root of the problem for the average American in economic distress.....
I just purchased a condo in Florida in September and I wish I had waited until now. I would have gotten it for 10% lower probably.... that is how bad it is out there in some markets
Kaveh
by capt_ayhab on Fri Feb 13, 2009 07:42 AM PSTI second that motion refigh.
economy need jobs.......... that is the bottom line
Thanks for all the educated, insightful and civil comments that you have made, I appreciate it.
Respectfully
capt_ayhab [-YT]