|
|
#71
10-11-2007, 06:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
I Stand Corrected.....
[ QUOTE ]
For anyone that's interested in what actually happened, as opposed to Felix's, uh, "interesting" take on what happened, Wikipedia's entry on Saudi Aramco is a good place to start. [/ QUOTE ] 1. "In 1950, King Abdul Aziz Ibn Saud threatened to nationalize his country's oil facilities, thus pressuring Aramco to agree to share its profits on oil sales 50/50" *****Mmmmmm.......so actually the USA has claims for more than 50% of the Saudi oil that was stolen from us. I like round numbers. So instead of saying 60% or 70%, lets round up to 100%. 100% of the Saudi Oil belongs to the USA and we should take it back via with the US military. We can call this policy De-nationalization. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] 2. "In 1973 the Saudi Arabian government acquired a 25% share of Aramco, increased this to 60% by 1974 and finally acquired full control of Aramco by 1980." *****Yes, each time buying shares of the company for pennies on the dollar threatening to nationalize the company where American Aramco shareholders would get ZERO if they refused. The Saudis were smart to do this during times of American political chaos and that coward Jimmy Carter.... [ QUOTE ] "most of the students that invaded the US embassy [in Iran in 1979] were not even born at the time of the CIA coup" and thus could not even claim a legitimate grievance against the United States for orchestrating the overthrow of a democratically-elected government in 1953, 26 years earlier. [/ QUOTE ] Oh? Many of these students were 26 years old and older? Mmmmmmmm....perhaps they were double majors. Yes? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Or perhaps they failed calculus several times and that delayed they graduation as well. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Or perhaps Iranians don't start kindergarden until they are 16? Yes? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] I see my personal 2+2 stalker has not forgotten me.... [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] 
|
|
#72
10-11-2007, 06:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Barbary Pirates.....
[ QUOTE ]
A core responsibility of a govt is to protect the lives and property of its citizens regardless of the location. [/ QUOTE ] Not so fast, you believe in sovereign states and all that, why don't we expect Americans investing abroad to heed the laws and protections afforded in other countries? Since when do Americans in other countries expect to enjoy all the rights and protections they do at home? [ QUOTE ] If you are robbed at knifepoint, the resources of law enforcement are at your disposal to help you catch the thief. [/ QUOTE ] Normatively I don't think this should be the case as I believe the insurance model would provide this service more effectively than the taxation model. [ QUOTE ] Protecting Americans and American property domestically and overseas is a good thing. Failure to enforce overseas theft leads to more theft because there is no consequences for stealing American property. The govt must make sure that crime does not pay for foreign govt... [/ QUOTE ] If the governmet doesn't do it no one can? Defending their investment is a risk and/or cost associated with doing business abroad. If they cannot invest profitably while bearing that ENTIRE cost themselves, then their venture is objectively a loser and the subsidy only allows them to profit by shifting some of their costs to the taxpayer. This is corporate welfare, it's wrong, and it's wasteful. Sorry for the hijacking job, if we continue this we should do it in a new thread, but I think it's an interesting topic and anothe example of how the US version of "capitalism" is far more mercantilistic than some free market opponents admit.
|
|
#73
10-11-2007, 06:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Als Spracht Zarathustra.......
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] While I agree with you that it is criminal when these countries "nationalize" these resources, perhaps this should be a lesson for companies to not invest in areas that are likely to do this. If they want to take this risk, they should be forced to foot the bill themselves for this defense. [/ QUOTE ] Absolutely agree. Why should I (a taxpayer) foot the bill to defend someone's investment? They're construed falsely as "American interests" that must be defended, but they are in fact the interests of the shareholders whom I don't wish to subsidize. [/ QUOTE ] Just for the sake of argument, what ''national interest' would you be willing to freely contribute to? Just curious, not trying to be provocative. [/ QUOTE ] Defense against invasion, probably also aginst a blanket embargo.
|
|
#74
10-11-2007, 06:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I Stand Corrected.....
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] "most of the students that invaded the US embassy [in Iran in 1979] were not even born at the time of the CIA coup" and thus could not even claim a legitimate grievance against the United States for orchestrating the overthrow of a democratically-elected government in 1953, 26 years earlier. [/ QUOTE ] Oh? Many of these students were 26 years old and older? Mmmmmmmm....perhaps they were double majors. Yes? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Or perhaps they failed calculus several times and that delayed they graduation as well. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Or perhaps Iranians don't start kindergarden until they are 16? Yes? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] At this point it's become quite difficult for me to tell if you're being intentionally obtuse or if you are actually incapable of comprehending and understanding what I write. Is it actually the case that you think the crux of my post was that the Iranian students were, in fact, alive in 1953? Are you consciously avoiding my (clearcut, I think) example of you engaging in doublethink? I urge you to at least read this section of the article on Right-Wing Authoritarianism and see if it rings any bells.
|
|
#75
10-11-2007, 06:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Barbary Pirates.....
[ QUOTE ] If you are robbed at knifepoint, the resources of law enforcement are at your disposal to help you catch the thief. [ QUOTE ] Normatively I don't think this should be the case as I believe the insurance model would provide this service more effectively than the taxation model. [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] The insurance model is a good one, the only problem is that it can't legitimately force anyone to help you, beyond mayhaps some economic sanctions.
|
|
#76
10-11-2007, 06:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Barbary Pirates.....
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] If you are robbed at knifepoint, the resources of law enforcement are at your disposal to help you catch the thief. [ QUOTE ] Normatively I don't think this should be the case as I believe the insurance model would provide this service more effectively than the taxation model. [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] The insurance model is a good one, the only problem is that it can't legitimately force anyone to help you, beyond mayhaps some economic sanctions. [/ QUOTE ] That's correct.
|
|
#77
10-11-2007, 06:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Barbary Pirates.....
[ QUOTE ]
why don't we expect Americans investing abroad to heed the laws and protections afforded in other countries? Since when do Americans in other countries expect to enjoy all the rights and protections they do at home? [/ QUOTE ] Most countries desperate for foreign investment enter into CONTRACTS with foreign companies. If these countries welch on the contract and seize American assets with the THREAT of using their military (nationalization) we have a scenario were US property has been stolen. The Barbary pirates were stealing American assets and kidnapping American citizens. We as Americans should expect that our private property be safe from theft by foreign govt... [ QUOTE ] Normatively I don't think this should be the case as I believe the insurance model would provide this service more effectively than the taxation model. [/ QUOTE ] I don't believe this would work.... People who can'f afford this insurance can have all their belongings stolen without consequences. If you increase the reward of crime, you will get more crime. [ QUOTE ] Defending their investment is a risk and/or cost associated with doing business abroad. If they cannot invest profitably while bearing that ENTIRE cost themselves, then their venture is objectively a loser and the subsidy only allows them to profit by shifting some of their costs to the taxpayer. This is corporate welfare, it's wrong, and it's wasteful. [/ QUOTE ] If the govt would allow American corporations to employ private armies with the authority to seize/destroy stolen American assets, then I could sympathize with your argument (Think of the Britsh East India company which settled in India). But this is not the case. If Exxon could threated Hugo Chavez with an airstrike on Exxon oil infranstructure stolen by Venezuela, Chavez would be singing a different tune.... So if Chavez nationalizes Exxon's oil assets, Exxon F16s burn their own drilling equipment. Venezuela goes back to square-1 being another 4th world country begging the Western companies to invest in their country... One of the primary reason Africa is poor because they have ripped-off foreign companies in the past and it is VERY risky to invest capital in their country. Perhaps if they would stop stealing foreign assets via nationalization they would not be so poor.... They have killed the Golden Goose too many times....
|
|
#78
10-11-2007, 06:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Barbary Pirates.....
[ QUOTE ]
I urge you to at least read this section of the article on Right-Wing Authoritarianism and see if it rings any bells. [/ QUOTE ] No point dude. He's obviously a high-RWA, but it's not like they are able to recognize it when it's pointed out.
|
|
#79
10-11-2007, 07:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
OK....I\'ll Take the Test Just for Fun
[ QUOTE ]
I urge you to at least read this section of the article on Right-Wing Authoritarianism and see if it rings any bells. [/ QUOTE ] 1. Well I'm atheist so I don't fit the religous zealotry part of the survey. 2a. I'm for enforcing the Bill of Rights especially the 10th amendment which is suppose to prevent the federal govt from encroaching on states rights. 2b. I'm for free speech so I'm against McCain-Feingold's (aka the incumbent protection act) speech restrictions 30/60 days before elections on TV/Radio. 2c. I'm for property rights so I'm against using eminent domain to take private property from one private citizen to give to another private citizen. 2d. In many cases, I think using drug sniffing dogs are a violation of the 4th amendent. 3a. I'm for freeing criminals that commit victimless crimes. So I would free all drug dealers, prostitutes, and people running gambling parlors. 3b. I'm for locking up career criminals for life and in many cases executing them via capital punishment. WHOOOPS! I guess I'm a RWA on this one.... [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] 4. I'm prejudice against muslims but since 99% of the world's muslims think I'm an infidel and many of them think they are justified in killing me so excuse me for being biased against them. Whoops! I guess I'm a RWA on this one! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] But I have no problem with Hindus, Buddists, and other non violent religions. It comes dowm to I'm prejudice against people that want to kill me. This is called self preservation... 5. I have no problems with h*mosexuals. Although I think their marriage stance is dopey. It is just a tactic to force mainstream acceptance on their lifestyle. They can do what they want, just don't tell me any details while I'm eating....or when I'm not eating for that matter. 6. With regard to "Authoritarian submission" I fail because I hate the political leadership int this country. The last great president we had was Thomas Jefferson... Bush is just a lesser of two evils.... 7. With regard to "Authoritarian aggression", I have not attack any self-hating Americans lately but if I do I will let you know. However, I am hoping that the recent succession meetings will result in the North-East and California succeeding from the USA. 8. With regard to "Conventionalism", I fail this too. I like to smoke weed (when I can get it) and I think the War on Drugs is terribly damaging to personal freedom... I don't tell others what to put in their body and I expect the same courtesy.... That being said, the author of this study is a nitwit. He basicaly says if you are a conservative Repub then you have a mental disorder..... Altemeyer's views carry as much weight as one of my bowel movements....and it is worth just as much......
|
|
#80
10-11-2007, 07:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Als Spracht Zarathustra.......
[ QUOTE ]
According to you, we should invade China because they produced some toys that were poisonous and injured children here? [/ QUOTE ] No.....They have stolen nothing from US citizens and they have not intentionally tried to kill US citizens....lately I think companies are STUPID to build factories in China. There is plenty of cheap labor in South/Central America and these countries are less corrupt than China. These American companies are rightly getting a black eye for subcontracting their mfg to the Chi-Coms. American unions/Pro-Union Politicians deserve a lot of blame by creating a toxic mfg environment in the USA. [ QUOTE ] However, what I do have a problem with is people who have views like yours who were never in, or even thought of joining(while of course capable). [/ QUOTE ] Then the USA would never go to war since only a small percentage of Americans join the military. People are entitled to free speech whether the served in the military or not....without being accused of hypocracy...
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
