Quote:
|
Originally Posted by alansmithee
.... it seems that it has greatly slowed down, with most of the threads being made by one or two people. Also, it seems any non-"liberal" point of view has been driven away almost entirely.
|
alansmithee....could it be that the "non-liberal point of view", cannot compete, alongside examples like:
I offered a simple challenge (below, in bold)....not just here at TFP, but at another, busier politics forum.....no attempt at an answer, just retorts with the same old talking points:
Quote:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...20&postcount=8
....you have an opportunity to persuade me that Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq was not "the supreme international crime", the "crime of aggressive war".
<h3>All you have to do is detail what portion(s) of Sec'ty of State Colin Powell's February, 2003 UN presentation, justifying military invasion of Iraq and "regime change", were accurate and rose to a level justifying the immediate threat described by Powell, Bush, cheney, and Rumsfeld, that required attacking Iraq asap.</h3> I'll point you here:
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030205-1.html
For Immediate Release
February 5, 2003
U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell Addresses the U.N. Security Council....
....Zarqawi's activities are not confined to this small corner of north east Iraq. He traveled to Baghdad in May 2002 for medical
treatment, staying in the capital of Iraq for two months while he recuperated to fight another day....
|
Is it reasonable to believe, as you do, that it was just Bush's and Powell's "bad luck" that every significant Iraqi "threat" touted by Powell and Bush in Feb., 2003, turned out not to rise to a level justifying military invasion...WMD, mobile (trailer mounted) bio-weapons labs, Iraqi government "relations" with al-Zarqawi and al-Qaeda, or is it reasonable to believe that Bush authorized and participated in an agenda of aggressive war against Iraq?
|
I asked folks who do not believe that a reasonable role for government is to redistribute wealth, to avert unrest, at the extreme.... if they are not concerned with the top ten percent in the US, owning 70 percent of all US assets, at what higher percentage of wealth inequity, would or might concern them...(Canadians are concerned after a 30 year rise in inequity from 52 to 58 percent of total wealth owned by the top ten percent...), and <h3>no one named a higher percentage of wealth inequity that would concern them...</h3>.
Quote:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=128049
The U.S. gini "neighborhood":
https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...elds/2172.html
................Gini
Ecuador 42
note: data are for urban households (2003)
Burundi ........ 42.4 (1998)
Iran ........ 43 (1998)
Uganda ........ 43 (1999)
Nicaragua ...... 43.1 (2001)
Turkey ........ 43.6 (2003)
Nigeria ........ 43.7 (2003)
Kenya ......... 44.5 (1997)
Philippines .....44.5 (2003)
Cameroon ........44.6 (2001)
Uruguay ........ 44.6 (2000)
Cote d'Ivoire ...44.6 (2002)
United States ...45 (2004)
Jamaica ........ 45.5 (2004)
Rwanda ........ 46.8 (2000)
Malaysia ........46.1 (2002)
Mexico ........ 46.1 (2004)
China ........ 46.9 (2004)
Nepal .......... 47.2 (2004)
Mozambique ......47.3 (2002)
Madagascar ......47.5 (2001)
Venezuela .......49.1 (1998)
Argentina .......48.3 (June 2006)
Costa Rica.......49.8 (2003)
Sri Lanka .......50 (FY03/04)
Niger ...........50.5 (1995)
Papua New Guinea 50.9 (1996)
Thailand ........51.1 (2002)
Dominican Republic 51.6 (2004)
Peru ............52 (2003)
Zambia ........ 52.6 (1998)
Hong Kong........52.3 (2001)
El Salvador......52.4 (2002)
Honduras ........53.8 (2003)
Colombia ....... 53.8 (2005)
Chile .......... 54.9 (2003)
Panama ........ 56.1 (2003)
Brazil ......... 56.7 (2005)
Zimbabwe ........56.8 (2003)
Paraguay ........58.4 (2003)
South Africa ....59.3 (1995)
Guatemala 59.9 (2005)
Bolivia ........ 60.1 (2002)
Central African Republic 61.3 (1993)
Sierra Leone ....62.9 (1989)
Botswana........ 63 (1993)
Lesotho 63.2 (1995)
Namibia .........70.7 (2003)
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...093000495.html
Chinese Officials Vow to Spread Growth Benefits
Decision Reflects Awareness That Inequalities Could Become Politically Troublesome
By Edward Cody
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 30, 2005; 10:48 AM
....The Politburo's call for more determination to attack the problem
reflected growing awareness at senior levels of the party that widespread dissatisfaction over the glaring inequalities has become a potentially troublesome political issue....
|
(If a Gini co=efficient in China of 46.9 is described in WaPo reporting as a "glaring inequalities", and the US Gini is 45, and in Norway and Scandanavia, it is under 30, why i the US Gini no catalyst for discussion or concern?)
From post #6:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
How about an actual discussion. The questions are in the OP. Your post hints that you don't see a problem with US wealth inequity.
|
|
alansmithee, I'll give you more examples upon request. The "problem" here is that some arguments cannot compete alongside others, and some are not arguments at all, they are "feelings"...and they do not translate well from keyboard to screen.