[BurlyShirley]

Firstable, I am male, 2ndable, if what I posted was so off base, why has your tone changed throughout the thread. First you stand by the fact that the US has to defend its interests. Then you admit to the fact that the US has behaved in a not so democratic matter by installing savory characters in the past.

And lastly, you offer to throw up on my family.....what an internet tough guy. Way to go Burly.

Listen lady,

My agreements were with Alexis' assertions about US foreign policy with SA trade matters. This type of agreements are the work of a regular, out-in-the-open, democratic government. Not the skull and bones in a backroom who have a red phone to the special forces to go and assassinate any leader as they see fit. YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE OFF BASE and CONTRIVED NONSENSE.

 

[MikeD]

http://www.immigration.govt.nz/migrant/stream/work/workandlivepermanently/
Use the 'I want to' drop down on the right if the page I linked to is not you.

Heh, I've read up on the regulations...what I need is an actual job! Or leads to an actual job. And unless it's teaching tactics to your Light Armored Vehicle crews, I have no specific skills that will make it easy for me. Basic management and training skills, really, so nothing that I can use to prove I can do a certain job at a level no New Zealander can do...which seems to be the essence of employment for a foreigner who lacks a specific, necessary trade skill.

MD

 

[Jesus]

Jesus, yes, Dr. Evil=Bush Cabinet...for me anyways...how's that SLX treating you?

I like it a lot. It just feels much nicer than a 23 lb XC bike. It weighs about 34 lbs, but I am slow anyway.

Now back to your regularly programmed schedule.

 

[jmvar]

Listen lady,

My agreements were with Alexis' assertions about US foreign policy with SA trade matters. This type of agreements are the work of a regular, out-in-the-open, democratic government. Not the skull and bones in a backroom who have a red phone to the special forces to go and assassinate any leader as they see fit. YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE OFF BASE and CONTRIVED NONSENSE.

It's funny that you call the trade agreement processes between the US and LA democratic because we see it as anything but...It is more like, you will sell us X product at X price or suffer sanctions, tarriffs, etc.

I have given you an example where the US funded the coup and assasination of an elected official in the interest of US private companies. Is that what you mean by the US having the right to protect its interests?

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

the US does have its backroom with a direct-line to call special forces to coup whoever they want.

i dont see how that concept is so hard to grasp.
is it ugly?? yes, its anti-democratic? yes, is it anti free-trade?? yes, is it US policy?? YES.
just because its US policy it doesnt mean it could not be like that (actually is not exclusive of the US, but also of a good part of the 1st world).

a few examples.

1st double standard. Its OK for the US, but not OK for Iraq:
The invasion of Panama, what was that? The U.S. killed, according to the Panamanians, 3,000 civilians. Maybe they're right. anyway it certainly killed plenty of people--on the scale of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, roughly the same casualties.

Here's another example: The Venezuelan government is now asking for extradition of two military officers who were accused of participation in bombing attacks in Caracas and then just fled the country. These military officers participated in a coup, which, for a couple of days, overthrew the government. The U.S. openly supported the coup, and, according to British journalists, was involved in instigating it.

3rd
Emmanuel Constant, whose death squads killed maybe 4,000 or 5,000 Haitians [during the early 1990s while he was backed and funded by the CIA]. Today, he is living happily in Queens because the U.S. refused to even respond to requests from Aristide for extradition.

4th, president Alberto Fujimori, accused of genocide, and along with his mafia stealing around 1 billion dollars. now in japan, and japan wont send him back to peru for trial.

and like this, there are a lot of similar situations, in which the US and other openly support terrorism and genocides, as far as they are useful for economic purposes of US corporations.
you can argue this is the colateral damage of "freedom for people operations". I call that BS. maybe sometimes a bit of freedom is the colateral benefit of this operations, but most of the times is not. and even when it is, this "freedom" is a "freedom" to become dependant on the US forever.

Its important to realize, the persuit of "freedom" is almost NEVER the primary purpose of this operations. it has almost never been, and it almost never is.
most of the times is just to open new markets, to relax anti-US-imperialism laws, to leverage markets, or to control supply of good to the US (like with oil in the middle east). and that is making unethical and illegal profits on situations which in most cases were caused by the US in the first place. (iraqs weapons and wars, venezuela coups, etc), and that is what is the problem of the US foreign policy for most people. that is why everybody that hates the US does so.

 

[Changleen]

Heh, I've read up on the regulations...what I need is an actual job! Or leads to an actual job. And unless it's teaching tactics to your Light Armored Vehicle crews, I have no specific skills that will make it easy for me. Basic management and training skills, really, so nothing that I can use to prove I can do a certain job at a level no New Zealander can do...which seems to be the essence of employment for a foreigner who lacks a specific, necessary trade skill.

MD

Or just marry a Kiwi girl...Actually there are loads of construction jobs and trades type jobs. The other 'way to get in' is apply for a basic casual work visa, and apply for a bunch of jobs once you arrive. Once you got a job, as long as your boss likes you, you're in.

 

[MikeD]

Is Lucy Lawless currently single?

Hm. I could do construction. Sort of an Office Space thing for me, hm? I'll try to take an extended trip to NZ this summer and see what I can dig up. Thanks for the advice.

MD

 

[Silver]

Listen lady,

My agreements were with Alexis' assertions about US foreign policy with SA trade matters. This type of agreements are the work of a regular, out-in-the-open, democratic government. Not the skull and bones in a backroom who have a red phone to the special forces to go and assassinate any leader as they see fit. YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE OFF BASE and CONTRIVED NONSENSE.

An out in the open democratic government who also just happens to have behind it the nasty little fact that they will fvck you up if you don't make a favorable agreement with them.

It's like negotiating with Tony Soprano...it doesn't matter what your position or needs are, as long as he gets what he wants. If not, you get hit by a Cadillac, if you're lucky.

No conspiracy theory here though...it's just all about the money.

 

[BurlyShirley]

No conspiracy theory here though...it's just all about the money.

This is fine, but the concept of America's decisions being made by someone other than the govt. really irks me because its just untrue garbage. All this talk of brotherhoods that supercede traditional forms of Natl. decision making in order to create wealth or bring WORLD DOMINATION, are just silly and untrue.

 

[genpowell71]

It's funny that you call the trade agreement processes between the US and LA democratic because we see it as anything but...It is more like, you will sell us X product at X price or suffer sanctions, tarriffs, etc.

I have given you an example where the US funded the coup and assasination of an elected official in the interest of US private companies. Is that what you mean by the US having the right to protect its interests?

Repeat after me JMVAR, N-A-F-T-A. You have your idol Bill to thank for that. There was no "coup" to do there. All the US did was offer Latin and South America to produce things that we made here in the US. If you want to be mad, be mad at Bill Clinton for taking about 2 million jobs to the south area outside our country. You want to know who cares about the little man in S America? I dont. Niether does the average US person. All we care about are the instant gratifacations that we as Americans are used to every day of our pathetic little lives. Be pissed off at Billy boy, HE'S the one that gave us our foregin policy. There isnt any conspiracy there, just big business looking out for the profits.

 

[genpowell71]

An out in the open democratic government who also just happens to have behind it the nasty little fact that they will fvck you up if you don't make a favorable agreement with them.

It's like negotiating with Tony Soprano...it doesn't matter what your position or needs are, as long as he gets what he wants. If not, you get hit by a Cadillac, if you're lucky.

No conspiracy theory here though...it's just all about the money.

I never said that we were the goods guys...

 

[Jesus]

There's where the difference between south and north America begins. Because we have so many big businesses (and thats not to say that S America doesnt have big business) we can see that there are outside forces at work. I'm not a conpiracy theorist, but even my dumbarse can see that sometimes (more than not) organizations flex a bit to make something go their way.

http://www.masonicinfo.com/famous.htm

CLick on that link and see just how many politicians and military generals were and are memebers of the freemasons. It doesnrt take a genius to see that there is alot going on behind the scenes of politics. I give you an example: 11 out of 43 presidents are or were masons. If you look at the military generals, you'll see that the majority of them went on to become either their branch chief of staff or Chairman of the joint chiefs. Look futher and you'll find a number of senators and congressmen are members.

I'm a mason. How come I am not in some powerful position?

Guess I should start going to more fish fry's...

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

This is fine, but the concept of America's decisions being made by someone other than the govt. really irks me because its just untrue garbage. All this talk of brotherhoods that supercede traditional forms of Natl. decision making in order to create wealth or bring WORLD DOMINATION, are just silly and untrue.

I dont talk about brotherhood, nor free-help not anything like that.
the problem is your definition on "americas decision". wtf is an "american decision", and where US rights end to give birth to others rights.

is it my right to enslave somebody??? is it my right to take the kidneys out of a thristy guy in exchange of a cup of water??

i wanna know where do you think your rights end, or the US rights end, and where does others right start, and do you think is the FAIR thing to do when they overlap?

is it an american decision to coup somebody when he/she doesnt want to sell oil at US given prices and demand??? (like with chavez, and as much as i hate that guy, most venezuelans like thim though).

 

[BurlyShirley]

is it an american decision to coup somebody when he/she doesnt want to sell oil at US given prices and demand??? (like with chavez, and as much as i hate that guy, most venezuelans like thim though).

If that is the decision made by our ELECTED OFFICIALS, than yes. The assertion that decisions are actually made by an entity that supercedes the presidency or our other law/policy-making bodies is what Im calling stupid.

 

[Silver]

If that is the decision made by our ELECTED OFFICIALS, than yes. The assertion that decisions are actually made by an entity that supercedes the presidency or our other law/policy-making bodies is what Im calling stupid.

American's don't have to deal with that very often, true.

In South/Central America they have had delightful experiences with the IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO...

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

If that is the decision made by our ELECTED OFFICIALS, than yes. The assertion that decisions are actually made by an entity that supercedes the presidency or our other law/policy-making bodies is what Im calling stupid.

lol, you have a very romantic idea of the world, the rich, and the people who run gvmts.

examples. in the 90s, my mom´s company directly supported a presidential candidate, had that guy won, her stock would have skyrocketed. but he lost, and the supporters of the other guy (fujimori) owned us big time.

my sister owns a the franchise of the state loterry in venezuela. last year a new corporation came to the block and its making it less profitable. they pushed their own law thru a few congresman to allow his entrace in the market, but right now she is pushing 3 congressman and a governor to push a law to make her biz basically a monopoly. and actually it looks she will have her law. nobody cares what the people (the owners of their STATE lottery says).

the dad of a high school friend, who owns the biggest textile mills in the country here, became a congressman just to push pretty much his own agenda of protectinism of his biz against imports, without regard of higher cloth prices for most peruvians, or the sanctions peru will get for imposing tariffs on imports. the guy just cares about his biz, and is pushing laws to make them more profitable.

and so on, i know first or 2nd hand a lot of examples like that. and the examples i´m familiar with are tiny specs of dust compared to the power of US corporations, with their billions of bucks.

if a few hundred thousands of dollars can do what am telling you in the laws for 30 million people, imagine what a few hundred of millions would do anywhere.

I dont see HOW nor WHY this would not work in the US. and dont come saying bush or cheney are incorruptible types, or that their push an agenda for the people. BS!!, nobody does that as a primary purpose, let alone republicans.

how good a candidate or president is, is basically decided on how much of the overall wealth created will be shared, and how much will stay in-house.
presidents, EVERYWHERE, in some places more, in some places less, are nothing more than the face on a huge administrations, in which laws and actions are taking based a lot on what the funding pocket says.

 

[BurlyShirley]

how good a candidate or president is, is basically decided on how much of the overall wealth created will be shared, and how much will stay in-house.
presidents, EVERYWHERE, in some places more, in some places less, are nothing more than the face on a huge administrations, in which laws and actions are taking based a lot on what the funding pocket says.

Yawn...

So you have no facts, basically youre just saying that because things are ****ed up in Peru (obviously the governmental catalyst for the rest of the world) that the US must be exactly the same. Im sure you know there are laws that prohibit precisely the kind of thing you're talking about in the states, right? Cheney is a perfect example of this.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Yawn...

So you have no facts, basically youre just saying that because things are ****ed up in Peru (obviously the governmental catalyst for the rest of the world) that the US must be exactly the same. Im sure you know there are laws that prohibit precisely the kind of thing you're talking about in the states, right? Cheney is a perfect example of this.

no am saying politics work the same everywhere, not only in peru. i gave 2 countries as examples. even one with an almost communist model.

there is no reason it doesnt work like that in the US. think cheney, or enron or Arbusto.

why do you think there are lobbyst and people willing to pay 300 million bucks ad campaigns??? what do you think they get in exchange????

 

[BurlyShirley]

why do you think there are lobbyst and people willing to pay 300 million bucks ad campaigns??? what do you think they get in exchange????

Well lets think about that. If Im a tobacco Co., am i going to want an anti-tobacco guy to get in the white house and ban me? No. Does that mean that Im controlling the guy who takes the opposite stance? No. Companies will always donate to the side that is more lucrative to their business, but you're taking things too far with saying they dominate the making of policy. It simply is not true IMO, and definitely not on the level suggested my JMVAR earlier.

 

[Changleen]

Dude, all you 'there are no cartels' people are living in a dream world...

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

and btw, we in SA copied the lobby model from the US, when they opened the markets in the 80s, early 90s and the US companies started to lobby here, local companies had to lobby as well.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Dude, all you 'there are no cartels' people are living in a dream world...

Dude, all you "The CIA flew the planes into the WTC" people are living in an acid-dazed, schizophrenic illusion world.

 

[Changleen]

I wish...

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

oh, c´mon do you think any candidate thinks on "da people" when he is getting
100 million buck from his campaign from a single donor???
NO f* way!!!!

yeah, they push their agendas at a level you dont want to understand, because the high-rollers of US-power are so distant, so far of our reach, that we think they dont exists because we cannot see them. but they are there, like they are present in EVERY gvmt of the world, even in the so-called socialist nations, in which one would imagine the opposite.

social meassures are almost always mutually exclusive with pro-business laws. IMO, there should be a fair compromise between them, in which capitals wont take unfair advantage on people, and people wont take unfair advantages on biz-owners.

but when you introduce a lobby system in the mix, you tip balance way too much into one side. and this lobby system itself, and the outrageous amounts of money it moves are the living proof, that a huge profit is to be made, by socializing costs and monopolizing yields.

 

[Changleen]

Dude, all you "The CIA flew the planes into the WTC" people are living in an acid-dazed, schizophrenic illusion world.

So, I guess it was terrorists who blew up WTC7 eh? Oh, no! 6 hours after the collapse of the towers it just spontaneously blew up! CRAZY! Oh, There were CIA offices and a hardened command bunker inside it, designed to withstand fire and explosions. Wow! That went up too! What are the odds?

 

[BurlyShirley]

So, I guess it was terrorists who blew up WTC7 eh? Oh, no! 6 hours after the collapse of the towers it just spontaneously blew up! CRAZY! Oh, There were CIA offices and a hardened command bunker inside it, designed to withstand fire and explosions. Wow! That went up too! What are the odds?

Please post me a link to your sources that is not www.hippieconspiracytheoriesfortoolswithnofriends.org please.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

anyway burlysurly. do you think that all the lobbyst out there are like the tobacco co.?? (which is bad as it is, but seems the least harmful compared to the warmongers)

why would you blow 100 million bucks in a high-risk investment like campaign-lobbying, if the posible gains were not in the 1000%´s

where does that yield come from? other than socializing costs (1000s dying of lung cancer) like with the tobacco cos or walmart???

why is socializing benefits so bad looked upon in the US, when socializing costs is seen like just little detail by big capitals (wealthy wealthy, not wealthy by 300k a year)-

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

IMO, if costs are gonna be socialized, then yields should also be socialized. and if costs are gonna be taken by a few, then those few should be the ones taking all the yields. that is fair IMO.

not having only the sweet side, no matter who gets is.

 

[Changleen]

Dude! This stuff IS on public record!...For some reason the press just 'mentioned it' then let it drop though.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/237311p-203588c.html

No one was killed at 7 WTC when terrorists crashed a pair of commercial jets into the twin towers on Sept. 11, 2001.

The original 7 WTC collapsed nearly eight hours after burning debris from the twin towers rained down on it.

Ah, Except it's a whole block away, the building which was closer suffered virtually zero damamge, and as I'm sure you remember from watching the twin towers burn many, many times, there was no firey debris raining down!

 

[BurlyShirley]

anyway burlysurly. do you think that all the lobbyst out there are like the tobacco co.?? (which is bad as it is, but seems the least harmful compared to the warmongers)

why would you blow 100 million bucks in a high-risk investment like campaign-lobbying, if the posible gains were not in the 1000%´s

Well first, 100 million isnt THAT much money to some of the Co.s as you well know, and secondly, I just think it boils down to the two party system we have in place here. These companies know that the candidates will pick opposite sides of every argument. Therefore, ONE will be for, and the other against tobacco, halliburton, etc...IMO, it would be suicide for these companies not to finance the campaigns of those whose votes are a live or die matter for them.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Dude! This stuff IS on public record!...For some reason the press just 'mentioned it' then let it drop though.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/237311p-203588c.html

Ah, Except it's a whole block away, the building which was closer suffered virtually zero damamge, and as I'm sure you remember from watching the twin towers burn many, many times, there was no firey debris raining down!

Uh, You didnt see the big ass explosion of fuel and debris that jettisoned out of the other side of the tower when the big mutha ****in' airplane exploded through it?
That **** fell down dude. What are you thinking?

 

[Changleen]

No It didn't. Check YOUR sources dude.

 

[Changleen]

The Plane Debris was never recovered, Presumed burned up inside the the building. The fireball was just that. A fireball. They don't fall to the ground and bounce around like beachballs.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Well first, 100 million isnt THAT much money to some of the Co.s as you well know, and secondly, I just think it boils down to the two party system we have in place here. These companies know that the candidates will pick opposite sides of every argument. Therefore, ONE will be for, and the other against tobacco, halliburton, etc...IMO, it would be suicide for these companies not to finance the campaigns of those whose votes are a live or die matter for them.

you hit a good point there and i think you raised yourself a question.

what if the live or die matter for them; means live for them and literal death for thousands, or a figurative death for them (a co) means longer or better lives for thousands???? which in a lot of cases is, as i told you before, social and pro-biz reforms are mutually exclusive most of the times.
what do you think in those cases, which are not as extreme or uncommon as one might think? do you think any monolithical side cares enough to do the most ethical thing????

and also, 100 million bucks might not be macroeconomically a big number for them, but in a world where costs are reduced to a bare minimum, jobs outsourced and sub-life wages are paid for the sake of saving a few pennies, even if their contribution was 10 bucks, they do it beacuse they think its gonna be a profitable investment, rather than a gift.

 

[BurlyShirley]

No It didn't. Check YOUR sources dude.

So then, these are pictures of what?

 

[BurlyShirley]

The Plane Debris was never recovered, Presumed burned up inside the the building. The fireball was just that. A fireball. They don't fall to the ground and bounce around like beachballs.

So you're telling me that 737 traveling at 500+ miles per hour that slams into a building several hundred feet up creates no falling debris?

You are retarded, and Im finished with this argument unless you at least concede partial stupidity or a learning disorder of some kind.

 

[BurlyShirley]

you hit a good point there and i think you raised yourself a question.

what if the live or die matter for them; means live for them and literal death for thousands, or a figurative death for them (a co) means longer or better lives for thousands???? which in a lot of cases is, as i told you before, social and pro-biz reforms are mutually exclusive most of the times.
what do you think in those cases, which are not as extreme or uncommon as one might think? do you think any monolithical side cares enough to do the most ethical thing????

and also, 100 million bucks might not be macroeconomically a big number for them, but in a world where costs are reduced to a bare minimum, jobs outsourced and sub-life wages are paid for the sake of saving a few pennies, even if their contribution was 10 bucks, they do it beacuse they think its gonna be a profitable investment, rather than a gift.

Sure, some of these companies probably could care less if thousands die on their behalf..hell...weapons companies depend on it, as thier products are made for killing, but the point is, that they're not in the position to make those decisions. Sure, they may pull for a side that will side with them, and contribute to that, but its in no way forcing and making a president kill people so that the co. can earn money. Where is the gain for the pres. in this?

Also, the money they contribute to campaigns, works as a tax writeoff im relatively sure, so it IS a profitable investment in many ways.

 

[Changleen]

So you're telling me that 737 traveling at 500+ miles per hour that slams into a building several hundred feet up creates no falling debris?

You are retarded, and Im finished with this argument unless you at least concede partial stupidity or a learning disorder of some kind.

No, I'm saying: (Listen carefully) WTC7 -8 hours after the towers fell - collapsed in exactly the same fashion as the twin towers. It was a block away (that means there was another skyscraper between WTC 1+2 and it) and the building that was closer was virtually undamaged. It came down in slightly over 8 seconds. The building had not been hit by any plane, nor sustained any significant damage from the "collapse" of the Twin Towers seven hours earlier, nor was there any major fire in the building at the time.

The Official Story in the press is that diesel fuel reservoirs for backup power generators at Guilliani's Emergency Command Center in the building exploded and brought the resulting fire brought the building down, even though there has never been a case of fire-induced collapse of large fire-protected steel buildings. Not to mention that, as any one with the slightest technical background knows, diesel at normal pressure is non-explosive and barely flammable.

The text from the OFFICIAL investigation:

Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analysis are needed to resolve this issue.

Has there been subsequent investigation? Nope....

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Sure, some of these companies probably could care less if thousands die on their behalf..hell...weapons companies depend on it, as thier products are made for killing, but the point is, that they're not in the position to make those decisions. Sure, they may pull for a side that will side with them, and contribute to that, but its in no way forcing and making a president kill people so that the co. can earn money. Where is the gain for the pres. in this?

Also, the money they contribute to campaigns, works as a tax writeoff im relatively sure, so it IS a profitable investment in many ways.

yup, the president is the last one in saying yes or no, BUT his deciding power is minimal (nice paradox, isnt it).
the president saying YES or NO is a mere formalism, a requirement by democratic conventions to validate a decision made long before he signs it.
he is basically a face

he is almost never gonna go against his lobby, so you can say he is free to do whatever he decides as long as its OK with his lobby, or not??

you can argue what is there to gain for a president? well, firstable no one becomes a president without being a candidate first, and when you are the candidate is the time when you make the alliances that will shape your policy (you might argue its the other way around, but not really, economic power is more powerful than political power. i mean, a candidate cannot become a president without certain big lobbyst money, but this big lobbyst can push a law with any candidate willing to trade). so by the time you are a president, you already have some commitments due.

what else there is to gain for him??? future money for his party, an establishment of his power, and usually side-effects like donations that can be used for social causes, which raise his aproval, thus enabling him to push more laws (think about this, if you have 90% aproval, you can push more convinient laws, than say if you have 10% aproval, in which you would have riot, and would be imposible to govern)

So, you can say he has the last word, yes, but his last word is more a formalism than anything else, because he almost never will contradict what his lobbyst have decided. so pretty much, by the time he "decides" the decision is already taken.

 

[BurlyShirley]

So, you can say he has the last word, yes, but his last word is more a formalism than anything else, because he almost never will contradict what his lobbyst have decided. so pretty much, by the time he "decides" the decision is already taken.

That is just a lopsided view of the situation IMO. The lobby may buy protection for a certain company, but it would be far too obvious if things worked in the manner you suggest... I suppose its going to boil down to trust in your government at some level, which I have Alexis, whether a democrat or republican is in office.