Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Defector admits to WMD lies that triggered Iraq war (Page 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Defector admits to WMD lies that triggered Iraq war
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Star Pilot 111, I agree with your call to civility.

But I am not sure about your message of decline: "This country is unique. But it is slowly losing it's greatness and respect" There have been many ups and downs over our history; were not at the best point but we are not at the worst, either.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Drake said:

quote:
Hans Blix clearly stated that Iraq was not cooperating. They failed to prove that they didn't have WMD, or even look like they were trying to prove it.
This simply incorrect. Hand Blix clearly stated -- twice -- that Iraq was cooperating more than they ever had before, and that the level of cooperation had substantially increased as the investigation went on. He did not say that the cooperation was absolute, but I believe he used the word "unprecedented." This is all in the record. Look it up.

Blix also expressed surprising optimism that the issue could be resolved in a period of months, and that there was every reason for the inspection process to continue.

He did say that there were many hurdles that still needed to be overcome. But he most emphatically did *not* suggest pessimism about the process. He was astonished and outraged when, a mere week after his second report, noting substantial improvement in Iraqi openness, the inspectors were kicked out to make way for air raids and troops.

[ February 25, 2011, 12:35 PM: Message edited by: KidTokyo ]

Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Star Pilot 111
Member
Member # 1972

 - posted      Profile for Star Pilot 111     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Greg you're right it isn't the worst it could get.
I think, though, we can't get out of the, your way sucks mode. And many people are becoming frustrated.

An example of something that seems bizzare to me is, voting for workers to not have a union to bargain for them. The take away.
We don't have six year old working in mines any more because of unions. The working conditions are, mostly, much better because of unions. Some states don't have unions and that's fine as long as the worker gets a fare share of the booty.

I understand because of budget problems there needs to be some cut backs but if the employers agreed to something and now because they (the employers) have money problems they want to resind the legal agreement, there is something wrong with that. So now to see it doesn't happen again the employers want to elliminate the unions. It's gone on for years, the bosses hate the unions and the unions hate the bosses. But in every agreement the employer benifits also. they aren't stupid (or are they). The employer (I'll call "Boss")now is trying to make the Worker look like the bad guy, while the Boss is just as responsible for the problem. Maybe even more so, because they didn't anticipate their last agreement would to cause a problem.
There are concessions both sides make in every brgaining process. Both sides get something from it. They didn't balance their books well enough, and now their causing a big scene getting the media involved and saying the Worker is the cause of it all. When in reality it takes two to tango (tangle). Here we have another example of one side demonizing the other.
The Boss makes more money than the worker in most cases. If the Boss takes the same percent of pay or benifit cuts as the Worker that would solve the anger and disputes. But very rarely will the boss do that.

This economy sucks, wall street is back and they are making money, while the mid and low class are still losing ground with the prices of everthing goin up. The trickle down B.S. does not trickle down fast enough to be a viable economic strategy for the mid and lower classes(the worker bees).

So the Aristocrisy still looms forebodingly for those below the clouds. [LOL]

Posts: 337 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Star Pilot 111
Member
Member # 1972

 - posted      Profile for Star Pilot 111     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That [LOL] represents the evil conditions of contention and mis-trust
Posts: 337 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Star Pilot 111:
Some states don't have unions and that's fine as long as the worker gets a fare share of the booty.

I'm pretty sure every state in the country has multiple unions in the state. So I'm not really sure what you mean there?

quote:
Originally posted by Star Pilot 111:
I understand because of budget problems there needs to be some cut backs but if the employers agreed to something and now because they (the employers) have money problems they want to resind the legal agreement, there is something wrong with that.

When a politician obtains office, due in no small part, to the influence of the public service unions and then gives the Unions generous benefits that will affect state finances for generations, eventually the system will become unaffordable.

What you are implying is that a future politician should never be allowed to reduce promised benefits, once made. If that were the case, every time a politician favoring the public service unions got elected, he could grant evermore benefits that will far outlast his term in office. If there is no ability to reduce these benefits then eventually the entire state budget will do nothing but service the public service union's pension funds.

Now I believe Walker is taking the wrong approach here. Instead of trying to change the negotiation rules, what he should be trying to change is the pension schemes. The state should change over to a defined contribution plan instead of a traditional pension, both for retirement and health care. This would prevent a future politician from indebting the state for generations to come.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
What you are implying is that a future politician should never be allowed to reduce promised benefits, once made
Unilaterally.

That's the important word that you're missing there.

If benefits need to be reduce, that reduction should be negotiated so that it can happen on fair and even terms. Like already happened in Wisconsin, but was blocked in favor of setting up an excuse to strip bargaining rights.

quote:
The state should change over to a defined contribution plan instead of a traditional pension, both for retirement and health care.
Yeah, now that we've let the private sector be robbed that way, we may as well toss everyone to the dogs.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
An important note: Wisconsin state employees already pay their own pensions; the 5% of their salary that goes into their pension is in the form of deferred compensation.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Star, if we reduce the power of labor relative to capital, then the likely outcome would be that in the negotiation between those representing laborers and those representing capital (or owners/management) would result in owners capturing a progressively greater share of wealth than laborers (this sounds like Karl Marx, but it also sounds like Adam Smith if you have actually taken the time to read The Wealth of Nations). And this is precisely what the American experience has been, to a remarkable degree over the past 30 years.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Star Pilot 111
Member
Member # 1972

 - posted      Profile for Star Pilot 111     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Greg said
..if we reduce the power of labor relative to capital(owners/management)
.....precisely what the American experience has been, to a remarkable degree over the past 30 years.
__________________________________________________________________________

Marx/Smith I don't know the details of either. But I do feel the populous should not be sacrificed for the sake of the economy which is exactly what has gone on since and during the Reagan administration. Hmm, I guess that's about 30 years.

Civility and respect are keys
And because by nature business men with tons-o money tend to want the upper hand, self-regulation is a joke.

Labor and capital can equally co-exist indefinitely. I, just, don't think any of the economic wizzes have tried without letting their philosophies clash.

I'll try to read "...Wealth of Nations" again. But it's just so boring.
That was years ago. It's probably still boring, but maybe I can last longer. [Roll Eyes]

Posts: 337 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1