Genoa CFC ....American

Since the depression is global, then I do believe it is hitting China as well as it is us.

The difference, IMHO, is that China has been building up a manufacturing infrastructure while America has been disassembling ours and replacing it with a service industry infrastructure.

It is my personal opinion that a country with a manufacturing base can grow it’s GDP.  In fact, the P in GDP stands for PRODUCT, it does not stand for SERVICE.  I also, personally, determine wealth by not only money, but products owned - but in any case, it is not services received that creates wealth.  I can hire an attorney all day long, but that attorney did not give me wealth, it may have given me knowledge, but not wealth.  If I were to take that knowledge and change raw materials into some PRODUCT then that PRODUCT would give me wealth.

It’s a fine line, and I’m sure some of you will attempt to disagree with me (some because they legitimately don’t understand what I am trying to say, some because they honestly think I am wrong, and some out of pure habit.)

That said, a nation with a manufacturing basis will be able to recover from depression and experience less impact from a depression than a nation who relies on services for it’s economy.

To put it into perspective:

If Nation A makes tanks then they have tanks.
If Nation B cleans Nation A’s tanks, then they have nothing.

Like, totally, OMG Stuka! (Sorry, I don’t do Valley Girl well enough….<sob>)  Seriously it would be great if we could require the elderly to take the train, taxi, limo or bus instead of letting them drive!

As for Social Security (and like programs)  i think they should be need based, not age based if you want my honest opinion.  If you are 65 with five different kinds of cancer and a missing leg, sure, you can get Social Security!  if you are 65, in great health, physically and mentally fit and employed full time, I don’t think you should qualify.

However, I could see just an elevated age requirement.  I think we would need to look at the statistical ages people die now versus how they were in the 1940s when the program was established.  If, and this is a hypothetical because I am using IF, men typically died at 45 years of age in 1941 and the age you were allowed to collect on Social Security was 56, then we should look at the actuarial tables to determine the odds of someone living to 56 when the life expectancy was 45.  Then we should look at the tables for today and find the odds that are closest to those of the 1940s and that should be the age.

for instance.  If you had a 3% chance to live to age 56 in 1941 and you have a 3% chance to live to 93 today, then you should not be able to collect on Social Security until you reach the age of 93.

That is purely a hypothetical example with every number pulled out of my little, “bubble-butt” to demonstrate my point.  Those numbers are not to be held as cast in stone, nor are they researched.  I just grabbed numbers that seemed somewhat realistic in my mind.</sob>

Not to mention that there were more than 10, and they can be found in 2 different locations in the Bible (with various differences): http://members.cox.net/deleyd/religion/tencommandments.html

But if we want to discuss borrowing ideas, Jesus sounds damn near like Mithras.  A beautiful concept though…proselytizing through assimilation.  Has worked wonderfully.

One last: Jen made the point that to almost win is the same as losing. Not true. For example, if I punch someone in the face repeatedly, and ALMOST knock him out, did I somehow lose the fight? Meade’s forces were defeated on the first day… Meade was punched repeatedly on the 2nd, but stayed on his feet… Lee thought he could land the knock-out blow with Pickett, and failed.

That is basically Gettysberg, in one paragraph.

Edit:

Just to extend the metaphore further, Gettysberg was like a three-round fight:

Round 1: Lee cautiously approaches Meade. Lee lands several devastating blows. Meade staggers. Lee continues pummelling Meade, but Meade is saved by the bell. Meade retreats to his corner and regroups.
Lee wins the round.

Round 2: Meade assumes a defensive stance. Lee pummels Meade the entire round, opening up several cuts. Meade reels, staggers, drops to the ground twice, but Lee misses several knockout blows. Meade counters and bloodies Lee.
Lee narrowly wins the round on points.

Round 3: Meade keeps his defensive stance, knows Lee will go for the knockout blow to the center. Lee begins the round with a weak attack that Meade easily counters. Lee and Meade circle each other warily. Lee, unaware he is ahead on points, throws one last desperate haymaker. Meade guards his center. Lee breaks his hand on Meade’s forearm. Meade, barely conscious, has a chance to finish the fight, but is too battered, bruised and bloodied to do anything but wait for the bell.

Lee is unable to continue the fight. Meade wins a TKO.

Edited cause I like boxing.

That is so true, balungaloaf.  No matter what they may say, the old saw applies, “Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.” :-D

I fail to see how anti-Muslim sentiment is racist. There is no Muslim race. Muslims are Arabs, Persians, Turks, Africans, Afro-Caucasians, etc. Some are even Caucasians. It may be a prejudiced sentiment, but it’s not racism. The Palestinians and Jews are both Semites, for goodness sake. Race and religion often have nothing to do with one another. This is one of those cases.

Why choose NYC as a site for an Al-Qaeda attack when there as many Muslims in NYC as there are in the largest cities of some other countries? Because NYC is mostly white people instead of brown? Because there’s alarge Jewish population, too? Because it’s easily noticed and is centrla to the Western way of life? Because the building hit were the tallest in the world, and in the opionion of the attackers showed a Babel-style pride?

Please don’t tell me that anyone seriously believes it’s because NYC is a haven for white people, if there actually are still more white than nonwhite people in NYC. It’s not racism. It’s religion. It’s politics. It’s economics. It’s a lot of things. It’s not racism.

@cystic:

@Mr:

@cystic:

I think we sold the US about 2B$ in military equipment for Vietnam. What a travesty.

Ghoul - you have a point, however i don’t know that the extent to which we are allied w/ the US and UK has been determined. Certainly we need to keep up w/ our NATO committments, however aside from basic peacekeeping what need have we for a large military? We sent at least 5 bronze star recipients to Afghanistan (in addition to our own highly trained PPCLI) as well as a lot of equipment the Americans did not have. Our country needs little defence irrespective of the US regard for our borders, aside from that required to make the US think that we have a military.
Of course we’ve discussed Liberal government failings, and i agree that Britain holds us in minimal regard (the bastards), but i do not think that the US is supporting our military to any real extent, but rather Canada supplies military equipment and infantry, not to mention diplomatic equity to American pet projects instead.

I agree, I don’t no the extent of our alliance with US/UK.
I assuming that some form of document was signed in reguards to Canadian military upkeep.
I just trying to justify the American commentary about our military.
It has to be based on something. I hope.

lol - true enough.
also give me a buzz sometime about a game. It’s been a while. Although play w/ Wild was good, i like a real person on the other end :)

I’ll give you a call and set something up.

[while eatting a mouthful of BLT]: Mmmph Wha-? Mmmph Okay.