|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/08/2004 06:12:19 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Edit: Why would the lens in an NVD burn out, it's just a piece of glass, right? |
I own a couple pairs of nigh vision goggles, actualy one is a scope and one is a dual eye piece into one viewer... If I was to pull my nigh vision out and look outside into the daylight with them, I would toast them in about 1/2 a second... Also, both my goggles have pin holes so they can be used during the day, both of them are semi-high magniifcation and military type issue (forign).
HOWEVER: As much as I like to support Bush, the binoculers in the picture above are not night vision and he did attempt to look through them. Of course this means jack shit, as someone handed to him like that, ON TOP of the fact that even if he did do it himself, big freaking deal. I tried to lok through my new camera tonight with the lens cap on at least 5 or 6 times. Maybe that makes me stupid, who knows...
|
|
|
|
03/08/2004 06:22:01 PM · #77 |
I agree with you, Russell, it does mean Jack S___t. People are just trying to make fun of the man.
Thanks for the answer on the binoculars, I was just trying to find out why the lens would burn out. They are an interesting piece of equipment as they have a phosphor coated glass on which the image is projected, somewhat like a computer monitor.
Originally posted by Russell2566:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Edit: Why would the lens in an NVD burn out, it's just a piece of glass, right? |
I own a couple pairs of nigh vision goggles, actualy one is a scope and one is a dual eye piece into one viewer... If I was to pull my nigh vision out and look outside into the daylight with them, I would toast them in about 1/2 a second... Also, both my goggles have pin holes so they can be used during the day, both of them are semi-high magniifcation and military type issue (forign).
HOWEVER: As much as I like to support Bush, the binoculers in the picture above are not night vision and he did attempt to look through them. Of course this means jack shit, as someone handed to him like that, ON TOP of the fact that even if he did do it himself, big freaking deal. I tried to lok through my new camera tonight with the lens cap on at least 5 or 6 times. Maybe that makes me stupid, who knows... |
|
|
|
|
03/08/2004 08:29:24 PM · #78 |
LOL, that's a funny pic, with Bush looking throught the binoculars with the lens caps on... Reminds me of my picture taking last weekend. :)
But what is even funnier is how George W. has opened our borders to illegal immagrents from Mexico (some of which are terrorists from the Middle-East) and how our middle class jobs are being shipped overseas and H1-B Visas from China and India are allowed to flood our country to take over high tech jobs and other jobs, because they will work for 1/2 the wage. Basically Bush is selling out to corporations in both of these situations, and also for votes.
The question is, is John Kerry any better? Probably not. I'm sooo pissed off at Bush I probably won't vote in the Pres election. A protest non-vote so to speak. Why vote for a Republican (Bush) when he's not much better then a Democrat (no offense intended :)
And how about Clear-Channel's control of the talk-show radio in the US? They own 70% of the talk show stations in the US, and all of a sudden censor Howard Stern in key States after he speaks out against Bush. And almost at the same, time Michael Savage (also on Clear Channel) begins to back off his critical rethoric against Bush's stand on illegal immigrants. This smells as fishy to me as tuna boat comming in from a boom-day of fishing. The FCC is controlled by the current administration and is leveraging the Clear Chanel (70% of the market) to control their otherwise conservative talk show hosts who speak out against Bush in any way in this election year, under the threat that otherwise they will make things hard for them, in expansion of the company, penalties, etc. It's clear as day as to what is going on.
Would John Kerry be any better? I doubt it. Pick the worst of two evils I guess. :)
|
|
|
|
03/09/2004 01:56:02 AM · #79 |
I understand your feelings about President Bush, Chris - just keep in mind that sometimes you have to use your vote to vote AGAINST something rather than voting FOR something. This may be one of those times. You just have to determine which would be worst for the country in your estimation and let your conscience be your guide. Not voting is not an option to me - we have to stand for something, even if it's just against total idiocy.
|
|
|
|
03/09/2004 02:48:55 AM · #80 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
the united states CIA funded and trained bin ladin and his organization. |
Hmmm. Let's see. Bin laden, by himself, doesn't qualify as a "religious fanatic group". So, just which "religious fanatic group" are you saying that we funded and trained.?
Ron |
|
|
|
03/09/2004 02:57:20 AM · #81 |
Olyuzi, I have re-quoted your quotes from Colin Powell below, highlighting the pertinent places that show that Powell is not saying what you say he says, he is just repeating what his sources said. If YOU are permitted to quote HIM, then you should give HIM permission to quote OTHERS without implying that HE was the originator of the information.
Ron
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Excerpts from speech given by Colin Powell to United Nations Feb. 05, 2003, verbatim.
"POWELL: Going back to the early and mid-1990s, when bin Laden was based in Sudan, an Al Qaida source tells us that Saddam and bin Laden reached an understanding that Al Qaida would no longer support activities against Baghdad. Early Al Qaida ties were forged by secret, high-level intelligence service contacts with Al Qaida, secret Iraqi intelligence high-level contacts with Al Qaida."
"We know members of both organizations met repeatedly and have met at least eight times at very senior levels since the early 1990s. In 1996, a foreign security service tells us, that bin Laden met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in Khartoum, and later met the director of the Iraqi intelligence service."
"Saddam became more interested as he saw Al Qaida's appalling attacks. A detained Al Qaida member tells us that Saddam was more willing to assist Al Qaida after the 1998 bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Saddam was also impressed by Al Qaida's attacks on the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000."
"Iraqis continued to visit bin Laden in his new home in Afghanistan. A senior defector, one of Saddam's former intelligence chiefs in Europe, says Saddam sent his agents to Afghanistan sometime in the mid-1990s to provide training to Al Qaida members on document forgery."
"From the late 1990s until 2001, the Iraqi embassy in Pakistan played the role of liaison to the Al Qaida organization."
"Some believe, some claim these contacts do not amount to much. They say Saddam Hussein's secular tyranny and Al Qaida's religious tyranny do not mix. I am not comforted by this thought. Ambition and hatred are enough to bring Iraq and Al Qaida together, enough so Al Qaida could learn how to build more sophisticated bombs and learn how to forge documents, and enough so that Al Qaida could turn to Iraq for help in acquiring expertise on weapons of mass destruction."
"Al Qaida continues to have a deep interest in acquiring weapons of mass destruction. As with the story of Zarqawi and his network, I can trace the story of a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided training in these weapons to Al Qaida."
"This senior Al Qaida terrorist was responsible for one of Al Qaida's training camps in Afghanistan."
"POWELL: His information comes first-hand from his personal involvement at senior levels of Al Qaida. He says bin Laden and his top deputy in Afghanistan, deceased Al Qaida leader Muhammad Atif (ph), did not believe that Al Qaida labs in Afghanistan were capable enough to manufacture these chemical or biological agents. They needed to go somewhere else. They had to look outside of Afghanistan for help. Where did they go? Where did they look? They went to Iraq."
"The support that (inaudible) describes included Iraq offering chemical or biological weapons training for two Al Qaida associates beginning in December 2000. He says that a militant known as Abu Abdula Al-Iraqi (ph) had been sent to Iraq several times between 1997 and 2000 for help in acquiring poisons and gases. Abdula Al-Iraqi (ph) characterized the relationship he forged with Iraqi officials as successful."
"As I said at the outset, none of this should come as a surprise to any of us. Terrorism has been a tool used by Saddam for decades. Saddam was a supporter of terrorism long before these terrorist networks had a name. And this support continues. The nexus of poisons and terror is new. The nexus of Iraq and terror is old. The combination is lethal."
|
|
|
|
|
03/09/2004 04:04:31 AM · #82 |
Chris, I applaud your bringing up these issues, which are critical to what's happening in this country.
With all these immigrants coming into this country there are going to be many more people unemployed in the coming years. The only ones to gain are big business who can pay these people much less than their American counterparts and give little, or no, benefits packages.
You are also so right about Clear Channel controlling what is said on talk radio but there's an important thing to realize here. Clear Channel gave the Bush's campaign alot of money in 2000 and so this is payback time for the Bush admin. More than likely, CC is giving the Bush campaign a lot of money for the 2004 campaign. The FCC tried to push through legislation this past year that would have consolidated even more power to the media giants by trying to change the ownership rules. This was vehemently contested and stopped by the people of this country.
The media in this country is not giving us all the information we should be getting and there is no voice for liberals in the main media outlets, despite what you believe.
Originally posted by ChrisW123:
LOL, that's a funny pic, with Bush looking throught the binoculars with the lens caps on... Reminds me of my picture taking last weekend. :)
But what is even funnier is how George W. has opened our borders to illegal immagrents from Mexico (some of which are terrorists from the Middle-East) and how our middle class jobs are being shipped overseas and H1-B Visas from China and India are allowed to flood our country to take over high tech jobs and other jobs, because they will work for 1/2 the wage. Basically Bush is selling out to corporations in both of these situations, and also for votes.
The question is, is John Kerry any better? Probably not. I'm sooo pissed off at Bush I probably won't vote in the Pres election. A protest non-vote so to speak. Why vote for a Republican (Bush) when he's not much better then a Democrat (no offense intended :)
And how about Clear-Channel's control of the talk-show radio in the US? They own 70% of the talk show stations in the US, and all of a sudden censor Howard Stern in key States after he speaks out against Bush. And almost at the same, time Michael Savage (also on Clear Channel) begins to back off his critical rethoric against Bush's stand on illegal immigrants. This smells as fishy to me as tuna boat comming in from a boom-day of fishing. The FCC is controlled by the current administration and is leveraging the Clear Chanel (70% of the market) to control their otherwise conservative talk show hosts who speak out against Bush in any way in this election year, under the threat that otherwise they will make things hard for them, in expansion of the company, penalties, etc. It's clear as day as to what is going on.
Would John Kerry be any better? I doubt it. Pick the worst of two evils I guess. :) |
|
|
|
|
03/09/2004 04:11:23 AM · #83 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
...there is no voice for liberals in the main media outlets, despite what you believe. |
|
|
|
|
03/09/2004 04:16:29 AM · #84 |
Ron, this is a lame argument as everyone quotes everyone else. I didn't hear Colin Powell quoting the MANY who were saying that this was highly improbable or quoting those that said that there were no WMD's in Iraq or there was no nuclear weapons program there. He chose who to listen to who he wanted to because there was an agenda of this administration. This was a clear and direct misrepresentation of the facts to persuade the American public into a stance of fear for the purpose of going to war.
Originally posted by RonB:
Olyuzi, I have re-quoted your quotes from Colin Powell below, highlighting the pertinent places that show that Powell is not saying what you say he says, he is just repeating what his sources said. If YOU are permitted to quote HIM, then you should give HIM permission to quote OTHERS without implying that HE was the originator of the information.
Ron
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Excerpts from speech given by Colin Powell to United Nations Feb. 05, 2003, verbatim.
"POWELL: Going back to the early and mid-1990s, when bin Laden was based in Sudan, an Al Qaida source tells us that Saddam and bin Laden reached an understanding that Al Qaida would no longer support activities against Baghdad. Early Al Qaida ties were forged by secret, high-level intelligence service contacts with Al Qaida, secret Iraqi intelligence high-level contacts with Al Qaida."
"We know members of both organizations met repeatedly and have met at least eight times at very senior levels since the early 1990s. In 1996, a foreign security service tells us, that bin Laden met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in Khartoum, and later met the director of the Iraqi intelligence service."
"Saddam became more interested as he saw Al Qaida's appalling attacks. A detained Al Qaida member tells us that Saddam was more willing to assist Al Qaida after the 1998 bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Saddam was also impressed by Al Qaida's attacks on the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000."
"Iraqis continued to visit bin Laden in his new home in Afghanistan. A senior defector, one of Saddam's former intelligence chiefs in Europe, says Saddam sent his agents to Afghanistan sometime in the mid-1990s to provide training to Al Qaida members on document forgery."
"From the late 1990s until 2001, the Iraqi embassy in Pakistan played the role of liaison to the Al Qaida organization."
"Some believe, some claim these contacts do not amount to much. They say Saddam Hussein's secular tyranny and Al Qaida's religious tyranny do not mix. I am not comforted by this thought. Ambition and hatred are enough to bring Iraq and Al Qaida together, enough so Al Qaida could learn how to build more sophisticated bombs and learn how to forge documents, and enough so that Al Qaida could turn to Iraq for help in acquiring expertise on weapons of mass destruction."
"Al Qaida continues to have a deep interest in acquiring weapons of mass destruction. As with the story of Zarqawi and his network, I can trace the story of a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided training in these weapons to Al Qaida."
"This senior Al Qaida terrorist was responsible for one of Al Qaida's training camps in Afghanistan."
"POWELL: His information comes first-hand from his personal involvement at senior levels of Al Qaida. He says bin Laden and his top deputy in Afghanistan, deceased Al Qaida leader Muhammad Atif (ph), did not believe that Al Qaida labs in Afghanistan were capable enough to manufacture these chemical or biological agents. They needed to go somewhere else. They had to look outside of Afghanistan for help. Where did they go? Where did they look? They went to Iraq."
"The support that (inaudible) describes included Iraq offering chemical or biological weapons training for two Al Qaida associates beginning in December 2000. He says that a militant known as Abu Abdula Al-Iraqi (ph) had been sent to Iraq several times between 1997 and 2000 for help in acquiring poisons and gases. Abdula Al-Iraqi (ph) characterized the relationship he forged with Iraqi officials as successful."
"As I said at the outset, none of this should come as a surprise to any of us. Terrorism has been a tool used by Saddam for decades. Saddam was a supporter of terrorism long before these terrorist networks had a name. And this support continues. The nexus of poisons and terror is new. The nexus of Iraq and terror is old. The combination is lethal."
|
|
|
|
|
|
03/09/2004 04:19:27 AM · #85 |
hahaha...
Ok, Russell, tell me who you believe to be the voice of liberals in this country.
Originally posted by Russell2566:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
...there is no voice for liberals in the main media outlets, despite what you believe. |
|
Message edited by author 2004-03-09 16:11:34. |
|
|
|
03/09/2004 04:24:46 AM · #86 |
Originally posted by ChrisW123:
But what is even funnier is how George W. has opened our borders to illegal immagrents from Mexico (some of which are terrorists from the Middle-East) and how our middle class jobs are being shipped overseas and H1-B Visas from China and India are allowed to flood our country to take over high tech jobs and other jobs, because they will work for 1/2 the wage. Basically Bush is selling out to corporations in both of these situations, and also for votes. |
No Freebies! If you want to make accusations, you have to be prepared to back them up.
So. . .
What evidence can you provide that George W. has opened our borders to illegal immagrents (sic) from Mexico? I am willing to accept evidence that he has proposed reducing the number of INS agents at the Border, that he has proposed closing checkpoints, or any other evidence the he has "opened our borders" in any way.
Please provide evidence, if you can, that ties George W. to the movement of middle class jobs to other nations. Please provide evidence that George W. has increased ( or even proposed increasing ) the number of H1-B visas.
Please provide evidence that H1-B visa holders will work for 1/2 the wage. Name one occupation where this is true.
Please provide evidence that by doing the things that you SAY Bush is doing, that he stands to GAIN votes.
Ron |
|
|
|
03/09/2004 04:39:16 AM · #87 |
H1-B visa quotas have been falling for several years.
The immigration process has effectively ground to a halt since 9/11, with the INS deciding to focus on other things than enabling legal immigration.
Jobs are moving overseas due to high salaries and a less well educated workforce in the US. Companies are finding they can get a more motivated, lower paid, better educated workforce overseas.
Immigration to the US is getting harder all the time and I think it is going to be to the detriment of a country that was after all only founded by immigrants a few 100 years ago. The idea of 'I've got here, don't let anyone else in' is well ingrained in a lot of minds.
I have some personal experience of this - I've been detained by immigration officials for being within 70 miles of the Mexican border without a passport (I never left Texas!) and was threatened with imprisonment for a month for that particular incident.
I've been jumping through hoops to meet visa requirements that are constantly shifting for over 5 years now, while the delays increase. I am one of the fortunate few who have actually made some progress in this system over the last 2 years, but that is because I'm slightly better qualified than the average applicant.
And all the while, I still get to pay more taxes than the majority of citizens, while not being allowed to vote. No taxation without representation, anyone ? :)
So the idea that the borders are being opened up is faintly silly. It may have been true 5 years ago during the dot.bomb boom when there weren't enough educated people to fill the jobs, but it has been on fast decline for several years. The legal barriers to entry have been increasing steadily since 2001. Now I get the joy of being photographed and fingerprinted every time I enter the US. (for those who object, consider how happy you will be when that happens every time you travel overseas - several countries have specifically started targetting Americans for tracking within their countries)
Edit: This isn't a gripe about the INS - I realise they are focusing on other things for a good reason. It is a gripe about things like the fingerprinting/ photographing and by association a gripe about all the freedoms people gave up to 'fight terrorism' for no good reason. Much of the current security/ police state controls put in place don't actually do anything other than give some folks a warm fuzzy while doing plenty to restrict freedoms of normal people, and nothing to stop terrorists. (how many terrorists have their fingerprints on file with the INS for example ?)
Security and freedom are a balance - the US is tipping heavily in the wrong direction, for the wrong reasons.
Though my main gripe is that because of my visa restrictions, I'm turning down offers to buy my pictures on a daily basis - which is kinda annoying.
Message edited by author 2004-03-09 09:49:46.
|
|
|
|
03/09/2004 04:56:26 AM · #88 |
For one, Ron, Bush is for the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) and has pushed that early on in his presidency.
H1 workers, brought into this country to work in the sugar cane industry in Florida were treated horribly, lived in horrible and dangerous conditions, and for little, or NO wages. They were promised things that were not delivered. This was a program that was in effect before the sugar cane cutters were eliminated due to mechanization took over that aspect of production. Also, the Bracero program during WWII was a program that had alot of abuse and unpaid wages. Those are two examples.
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by ChrisW123:
But what is even funnier is how George W. has opened our borders to illegal immagrents from Mexico (some of which are terrorists from the Middle-East) and how our middle class jobs are being shipped overseas and H1-B Visas from China and India are allowed to flood our country to take over high tech jobs and other jobs, because they will work for 1/2 the wage. Basically Bush is selling out to corporations in both of these situations, and also for votes. |
No Freebies! If you want to make accusations, you have to be prepared to back them up.
So. . .
What evidence can you provide that George W. has opened our borders to illegal immagrents (sic) from Mexico? I am willing to accept evidence that he has proposed reducing the number of INS agents at the Border, that he has proposed closing checkpoints, or any other evidence the he has "opened our borders" in any way.
Please provide evidence, if you can, that ties George W. to the movement of middle class jobs to other nations. Please provide evidence that George W. has increased ( or even proposed increasing ) the number of H1-B visas.
Please provide evidence that H1-B visa holders will work for 1/2 the wage. Name one occupation where this is true.
Please provide evidence that by doing the things that you SAY Bush is doing, that he stands to GAIN votes.
Ron |
Message edited by author 2004-03-09 10:03:06. |
|
|
|
03/09/2004 04:58:32 AM · #89 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
H1 workers, brought into this country to work in the sugar cane industry in Florida were treated horribly and for little, or NO wages. They were promised things that were not delivered. This was a program that was in effect before the sugar cane cutters were eliminated due to mechanization took over that aspect of production. Also, the Bracero program during WWII was a program that had alot of abuse and unpaid wages. Those are two examples. |
And Bush is to blame for these how ?
|
|
|
|
03/09/2004 05:08:37 AM · #90 |
I'm not saying that Bush is responsible for those programs, but I am saying that temporary workers in this country have a long and sordid history and will most likely not be any different now. The question is will immigrants be allowed to obtain citizenship and will they be treated fairly.
Also, the legislation that Bush is proposing is for immigrants to take the jobs that Americans are (supposedly) not willing to work at. How will this be determined and who will decide?
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
H1 workers, brought into this country to work in the sugar cane industry in Florida were treated horribly and for little, or NO wages. They were promised things that were not delivered. This was a program that was in effect before the sugar cane cutters were eliminated due to mechanization took over that aspect of production. Also, the Bracero program during WWII was a program that had alot of abuse and unpaid wages. Those are two examples. |
And Bush is to blame for these how ? |
|
|
|
|
03/09/2004 05:12:18 AM · #91 |
Gordon, did you see my two posts above that deals with this issue?
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Did the Bush admin put forth the idea that Hussein and al Qaida were teaming up and that Hussein was transferring weapons to al Qaida? Has this turned out to be true? |
Urm no, even the Whitehouse isn't that deluded to claim that one makes any sense. They've even stated that it doesn't make sense.
The sad thing is, last survey I saw 70% of the US apparently believe it is true, which just demonstrates a staggering lack of understanding. |
|
|
|
|
03/09/2004 05:34:47 AM · #92 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
For one, Ron, Bush is for the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) and has pushed that early on in his presidency.
H1 workers, brought into this country to work in the sugar cane industry in Florida were treated horribly and for little, or NO wages. They were promised things that were not delivered. This was a program that was in effect before the sugar cane cutters were eliminated due to mechanization took over that aspect of production. Also, the Bracero program during WWII was a program that had alot of abuse and unpaid wages. Those are two examples.
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by ChrisW123:
But what is even funnier is how George W. has opened our borders to illegal immagrents from Mexico (some of which are terrorists from the Middle-East) and how our middle class jobs are being shipped overseas and H1-B Visas from China and India are allowed to flood our country to take over high tech jobs and other jobs, because they will work for 1/2 the wage. Basically Bush is selling out to corporations in both of these situations, and also for votes. |
No Freebies! If you want to make accusations, you have to be prepared to back them up.
So. . .
What evidence can you provide that George W. has opened our borders to illegal immagrents (sic) from Mexico? I am willing to accept evidence that he has proposed reducing the number of INS agents at the Border, that he has proposed closing checkpoints, or any other evidence the he has "opened our borders" in any way.
Please provide evidence, if you can, that ties George W. to the movement of middle class jobs to other nations. Please provide evidence that George W. has increased ( or even proposed increasing ) the number of H1-B visas.
Please provide evidence that H1-B visa holders will work for 1/2 the wage. Name one occupation where this is true.
Please provide evidence that by doing the things that you SAY Bush is doing, that he stands to GAIN votes.
Ron |
|
You don't say which of my questions the FTAA remark is in response to so I will ASSUME that it is in response to my question about opening the borders, in which case it is a non-sequiter. FTAA is not about immigration at all. Mind you, you are entitled to believe that FTAA is not in the best interests of the country ( as many do ). But it is premature to say the it IS, in fact. And, for your information before George Bush was president, Bill Clinton was, and HE was president when FTAA was birthed. In an article dated July 6, 1998 ( CLinton Administration ) ( ref: HERE John Sweeney says: "The bold FTAA initiative President Clinton launched in Miami, Florida, in December 1994 to open markets, eliminate trade barriers, and create a new hemispheric partnership . . ." (emphasis mine)
Further, in another article ( ref: HERE Mark Engler says:
"It is clear, however, that the Bush administration's attitude toward globalization differs substantially from former President Bill Clinton's. In contrast to Clinton's support of multilateral negotiations, Bush's stance is as a nationalist". (emphasis mine)
The workers brought into this country to work in the sugar cane fields were brought in under H2-A visas, not H1-B visas. I know that that may be a moot point to you, but YOU said H1-B visa holders, and so I specifically asked for evidence regarding H1-B visa holders ( and I didn't even limit you to China and India as you stated in your original post ).
Ron |
|
|
|
03/09/2004 06:55:14 AM · #93 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Gordon, did you see my two posts above that deals with this issue? |
(if you want references check here for some )
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell conceded Thursday that despite his assertions to the United Nations last year, he had no "smoking gun" proof of a link between the government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and terrorists of Al Qaeda.
"I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection," Mr. Powell said, in response to a question at a news conference. "But I think the possibility of such connections did exist, and it was prudent to consider them at the time that we did."
Mr. Powell's remarks on Thursday were a stark admission that there is no definitive evidence to back up administration statements and insinuations that Saddam Hussein had ties to Al Qaeda, the acknowledged authors of the Sept. 11 attacks. Although President Bush finally acknowledged in September that there was no known connection between Mr. Hussein and the attacks, the impression of a link in the public mind has become widely accepted ΓΆ€” and something administration officials have done little to discourage.
|
|
|
|
03/09/2004 08:06:05 AM · #94 |
I stand corrected Ron, you are correct, the sugar cane workers came in under H-2 visas...not sure what the differences are though, but my assertion still stands that the new influx of temporary labor will not be treated well. And I do agree that FTAA is not about immigration but will have enormous effects on the loss of jobs anyway...I see the two go hand in hand.
I would think the reason that the Bush administration has possibly abandoned the FTAA is that they realize that there is going to be a lot of resistance to it in this country and abroad, and they don't want to be beholden to any other country, or groups of countries (like voting blocks that have formed, such as the G20+ countries of the south). They want to accomplish their economic goals as quickly as possible and with as little resistance as possible. As the article you pointed to in your post above by Engler, this nationalist approach to globalization is a "brass knuckles" approach that "is increasingly leading to the loss not only of manufacturing work, but also of white-collar jobs in the United States, in the process dubbed "off-shoring." It goes on to say that "empire-building favored by the White House is as detrimental to labor rights and living wages worldwide as the administration's domestic policy of weakening unions and giving tax cuts to the rich is to the great majority of U.S. citizens." So the means may be different, but the ends have the same goals between dems and reupubs.
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
For one, Ron, Bush is for the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) and has pushed that early on in his presidency.
H1 workers, brought into this country to work in the sugar cane industry in Florida were treated horribly and for little, or NO wages. They were promised things that were not delivered. This was a program that was in effect before the sugar cane cutters were eliminated due to mechanization took over that aspect of production. Also, the Bracero program during WWII was a program that had alot of abuse and unpaid wages. Those are two examples.
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by ChrisW123:
But what is even funnier is how George W. has opened our borders to illegal immagrents from Mexico (some of which are terrorists from the Middle-East) and how our middle class jobs are being shipped overseas and H1-B Visas from China and India are allowed to flood our country to take over high tech jobs and other jobs, because they will work for 1/2 the wage. Basically Bush is selling out to corporations in both of these situations, and also for votes. |
No Freebies! If you want to make accusations, you have to be prepared to back them up.
So. . .
What evidence can you provide that George W. has opened our borders to illegal immagrents (sic) from Mexico? I am willing to accept evidence that he has proposed reducing the number of INS agents at the Border, that he has proposed closing checkpoints, or any other evidence the he has "opened our borders" in any way.
Please provide evidence, if you can, that ties George W. to the movement of middle class jobs to other nations. Please provide evidence that George W. has increased ( or even proposed increasing ) the number of H1-B visas.
Please provide evidence that H1-B visa holders will work for 1/2 the wage. Name one occupation where this is true.
Please provide evidence that by doing the things that you SAY Bush is doing, that he stands to GAIN votes.
Ron |
|
You don't say which of my questions the FTAA remark is in response to so I will ASSUME that it is in response to my question about opening the borders, in which case it is a non-sequiter. FTAA is not about immigration at all. Mind you, you are entitled to believe that FTAA is not in the best interests of the country ( as many do ). But it is premature to say the it IS, in fact. And, for your information before George Bush was president, Bill Clinton was, and HE was president when FTAA was birthed. In an article dated July 6, 1998 ( CLinton Administration ) ( ref: HERE John Sweeney says: "The bold FTAA initiative President Clinton launched in Miami, Florida, in December 1994 to open markets, eliminate trade barriers, and create a new hemispheric partnership . . ." (emphasis mine)
Further, in another article ( ref: HERE Mark Engler says:
"It is clear, however, that the Bush administration's attitude toward globalization differs substantially from former President Bill Clinton's. In contrast to Clinton's support of multilateral negotiations, Bush's stance is as a nationalist". (emphasis mine)
The workers brought into this country to work in the sugar cane fields were brought in under H2-A visas, not H1-B visas. I know that that may be a moot point to you, but YOU said H1-B visa holders, and so I specifically asked for evidence regarding H1-B visa holders ( and I didn't even limit you to China and India as you stated in your original post ).
Ron |
|
|
|
|
03/09/2004 08:19:58 AM · #95 |
Gordon, I"m not sure what point you're trying to make here. Powell, and the Bush admin made the case of Iraq and al Qaida working together before the war and to the UN for the purpose of misleading the security council members at the time and for putting fear into the American public, fresh from the attack on 9/11, so that they would aquiesce to their war march.
Powell's concession that there was no "smoking gun" of evidence that this relationship existed is way too late. If 70% the American public is deluded into believing this, it's due to the misinformation that was put forth by the Bush admin.
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Gordon, did you see my two posts above that deals with this issue? |
(if you want references check here for some )
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell conceded Thursday that despite his assertions to the United Nations last year, he had no "smoking gun" proof of a link between the government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and terrorists of Al Qaeda.
"I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection," Mr. Powell said, in response to a question at a news conference. "But I think the possibility of such connections did exist, and it was prudent to consider them at the time that we did."
Mr. Powell's remarks on Thursday were a stark admission that there is no definitive evidence to back up administration statements and insinuations that Saddam Hussein had ties to Al Qaeda, the acknowledged authors of the Sept. 11 attacks. Although President Bush finally acknowledged in September that there was no known connection between Mr. Hussein and the attacks, the impression of a link in the public mind has become widely accepted ΓΆ€” and something administration officials have done little to discourage. |
|
|
|
|
03/09/2004 08:45:23 AM · #96 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I stand corrected Ron, you are correct, the sugar cane workers came in under H-2 visas...not sure what the differences are though, but my assertion still stands that the new influx of temporary labor will not be treated well.
|
FYI, H2-A visas are issued to temporary agricultural workers. H1-B visas are issued to temporary DOD and specialty workers ( such as hi-tech workers ). Since agricultural work does not come under the minimum wage laws, I do not consider their pay to be a valid comparison to U.S.citizens, since the pay is often not based on an "hourly" rate, often includes room & board, etc.
While I DO agree that MANY who are working under the visa program were not, and are not treated well, I think that you will agree that many workers who ARE citizens are also not treated well. That doesn't make it OK - it's obvously not - that's just the way it is. But that fact doesn't make the U.S. Government responsible.
Ron |
|
|
|
03/09/2004 09:03:34 AM · #97 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Gordon, did you see my two posts above that deals with this issue?
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Did the Bush admin put forth the idea that Hussein and al Qaida were teaming up and that Hussein was transferring weapons to al Qaida? Has this turned out to be true? |
Urm no, even the Whitehouse isn't that deluded to claim that one makes any sense. They've even stated that it doesn't make sense.
The sad thing is, last survey I saw 70% of the US apparently believe it is true, which just demonstrates a staggering lack of understanding. |
|
Yes - they used it to justify the war. It doesn't mean they actually believe it or have any proof of that fact. The fact that most American's still believe it is stunning.
|
|
|
|
03/09/2004 09:16:18 AM · #98 |
What is the definition of; is? I am glad that Bush was the President when 9\11 occurred. I don't believe that Gore would have handled the situation well. That said, Bush's high approval ratings following let him push thru some very scary things. Please let the Patriot Act die a quick death. Talk about infringing constitutional rights. Another thing that scares me and seems to be little talked about is his plan to develop nuclear bunker busters. The coming election is a choice between the devil you know vs the devil you don't.
|
|
|
|
03/09/2004 09:34:25 AM · #99 |
Originally posted by Brooklyn513:
Please let the Patriot Act die a quick death. Talk about infringing constitutional rights. |
Normally I'm up for limiting governments power... BUT there is a caviot (sp?). My Fiance is in Federal Law Enforcement and a friend of mine heads up the NY State Troopers Counter Terrorism unit.
Before the Patriot Act, their hands were tied, hand-cuffed and they eve had those little chineese finguff bastards on. I can't tell you a single way how my freedom has been infringed on by this act, but I can personally name 100's of times where it has saved us from a possible future attack...
Bush's greatest enemy is his success... If the Patriot Act failed to work and they were not catching the bad guys early, but instead too late. I'm sure the EXACT same people saying bush is doing to much would be crying that he wasn't doing enough.
EDIT:
My problem with most people on the left who are protesting efforts by Bush are that they are doing it ONLY because he is a repulican. I guearentee that most of the liberals I know (not you guys I don't know you) would defend ALL of this to the hilt is a democrat was behind it. Personally, I think I'm unbiased in my view. It just happens that Bush is the one doing it.
Message edited by author 2004-03-09 15:00:16.
|
|
|
|
03/09/2004 10:49:58 AM · #100 |
Originally posted by Russell2566:
EDIT:
My problem with most people on the left who are protesting efforts by Bush are that they are doing it ONLY because he is a repulican. I guearentee that most of the liberals I know (not you guys I don't know you) would defend ALL of this to the hilt is a democrat was behind it. Personally, I think I'm unbiased in my view. It just happens that Bush is the one doing it. |
I thought the whole right wing idea was based on the principle of not trusting the government, or giving them more powers than they need. The basic assumption is that powers will be abused, so you have this idea of checks and balances in place. The PATRIOT act is a problem because it blows all that out of the water. Several Republican senators are speaking out against the PATRIOT act for just those reasons.
If this wasn't the case ,then why is the PATRIOT act being used against drug dealers and a variety of other cases, totally unreleated to terrorist activities ? Just because it happens to be there, and gives the federal authorities some more power ? Your argument leads to a police state, faster than you perhaps realise.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 04/07/2025 03:01:37 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/07/2025 03:01:37 PM EDT.
|
