Dude... You should hear the Galactic Empire...
Answered By: Bearded One - 9/14/2007 |
|
Nothing to add. Don't care about the points. Just wanted you to know that I learned something from your question - and the answers it drew. Guess I'll go do some "research" on the subject - so as to be able to "squawk" more intelligently - assuming, that is, that squawking does not necessitate affiliation to any political party in particular. Does it? Anyway, thanks muchly, Mad. Very interesting.
Answered By: 1staricy2nite - 9/14/2007 |
|
Answered By: imalickyouallover69 - 9/13/2007 |
|
Interesting points.
I would say it is because Liberals don't see a problem with market involvement, just military or political involvement. Neither do Conservatives for that matter - they are all about free markets.
Answered By: Theresa - 9/13/2007 |
|
Answered By: jim c - 9/13/2007 |
|
If you are really interested in the answer, check out 'America: Freedom to Facism'. It's a DVD documentary about America's ties to foriegn interests, and there is some interesting information on the immigration issue.
By the way, using the words 'liberals', 'squawk', and 'wetback' don't lend a whole lot of credibilty to an otherwise valid point. You would do well to keep your questions a bit less biased and concentrate on the facts. Your arguement is solid without mudslinging. Just my opinion....
Answered By: Bruce J - 9/13/2007 |
|
Good question.
If you want to know the answer,it's because liberals are bastards.
You can thank Bill Clinton personally for GATT,NAFTA,the WTO, and permanent MFN to China.(mmmm lead...)
.
Answered By: Dee Zsnutts - 9/13/2007 |
|
Why do Liberals always sqawk when the US interferes in the internal affairs of other countries ?
In the light of all this that you have mentioned herein ----
could it be that these "liberals" that you're speaking of
see that there is FAR MORE WORK TO DO HERE---- which makes it all that much more important --- than to be spending time somewhere ELSE doing "business" ?? !!!
Answered By: LARRY J7 - 9/13/2007 |
|
Answered By: btexpress24 - 9/13/2007 |
|
Yo bro: thomas jefferson. end of question!
Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations--entangling alliances with none, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural Address, 1801. ME 3:321
Source(s):
entangling alliances with none,
i think thats pretty clear
Answered By: mrT - 9/13/2007 |
|
Guess you should know, there is more democrats that has run to terrorist countries, took their side and talk bad about the US, and that is why the democrats, more than republicans want the illegals from Mexico gave amnesty, for their votes, only way they might be able to win. I know Dem's sure would hate to disappoint their foreign campaign fund donors.
I noticed you forgot to mention the China Clinton Connection.
Answered By: lilly4 - 9/13/2007 |
|
This is common conservative fallacious logic.
One doesn't affect the other. NAFTA and the rest are frauds, but so is what we do all over the world.
what you re saying is we either have to squawk both times or neither. study some critical thinking, youll understand why we can squawk whenever we want.
Answered By: gary - 9/13/2007 |
|
Excellent queston, Madpol. I think at least part of the problem lies in the fact they (both Libs and Cons) do not consider the influence of foreign interests in the US threatening to our democracy (and it is very threatening indeed) as they think the US is invincible and thus not subject to a vague and diffuse threat such as mass media ownership by foreigners or Chinese owning most of our debt, or DC lobbies. It is, I believe, a calculated unwillingness to admit US is not a country it was a few decades ago. They live in the past and still refuse to ackgnowledge, even to themselves, the world has changed and so did the US.
House of Saud - roughly 80 BILLION dollars invested in the US
Prince Walid, a Saudi, de facto ownership of Citigroup
Red China - owns most of US debt
R. Murdoch - owner of the US mass media
IPAC in DC, the most powerful lobby - let me give you a quote of Y. Shamir (former PM) "who cares who the president is in the US, as long as we have the Congress"
Cuban Exiles - de facto dictating US policy toward Cuba
I think we gave away, or sold, our sovereignity when we became the biggest debtor nation in the world, and that momentous event was not lost on the likes of Murdoch or the Saudis. And I must say we did this rather nonchalantly and with premeditation. It was about the same time a war on the middle class was declared. Besides, they can't tell the people the ugly truth, if they did there would be a revolution in the US which would end up exposing and then deposing them for what they did.
Answered By: death from above - 9/13/2007 |
|
Good question, wrong assumption.
According to a 2005 congressional study, the USA sells 35?f the worlds arms, some independent studies put that at 50?nd others as high as 60?
Therefore, I'd say we interfere in others countries in ways that are murderous.
As far as economically, again good question, wrong assumption.
What the USA needs to do is not to have protectionist practices, but rather beat the China's of the world at their own game. We do not plan (except ones like Cheney's secret energy plan) while other countries, like China plan and their people know what those plans are.
Our biggest problem is lack of planning. We'd rather argue about protectionist practices and tell everyone to buy America when there is little to buy from America.
Our biggest allies are the countries that do plan for their economic future. Our biggest enemy, is we don't listen to them. We can learn so much from the ones that are planning, how to do it, why its working for them, how we can make it work for us. But we don't. At least we don't do it publicly, it seems we'd rather take our eyes off the eight ball and argue about flag burning, abortion, and prayer in school, issues that don't affect the vast majority of us, as we fetter away our future and most importantly, our children's future.
That is why I have lost faith in America's economic future.
Peace
Jim
.
Answered By: just plain jim - 9/13/2007 |
|
There is a big difference in our government interfering in other countries , and privet citizens from any country investing in privet companies , i do have a problem with us leasing out our public roads to foreign investors to make toll roads , i have a problem with us using foreign company's doing our checks on our docks and airports, and i do have a problem with foreign countries running our pipeline
Answered By: TheDude - 9/13/2007 |
|
Because liberals was a combination of all religions party in disguised. Example : IRAQ WAS A MUSLIM RELIGION PARTY OF A COUNTRY.loll.
Answered By: azman m - 9/13/2007 |
|
Instigator! Back Back! Some one get me an exorcist! This guy is at it again.
Morning Steve.
You speak the truth, most of us will never hear.
The liberals have a defective gene that leads to a common form of Tourets syndrom. They squawk they can't help it. I tend to humour them. I am pretty sure I know what you think, so I will go down the road with my own little dittie doo doo.
Maybe there is just not enough incentive to keep American money in America. The billionaires and millionaires of North America are afraid to lose their money, or they are selfish, or they just think they have to leave some sort of legacy behind for their equally shallow offspring. They are not willing to put forth the effort to save any other American but their own. So the field is left open for buy outs takeovers, or just hand it to em on a plate cause 'quicknobodieslooking' kinda deals.
Youscrachamyballsiscratchayouballs and then there's 'we don hav ta tell ya wut we do'
Source(s):
Now you've done it! I am going to clean my house and settle down. How's you like the 'Oh Please' answer. I could just smack em. Oops I gonna go
Answered By: Hoonew Day - 9/13/2007 |
|