Imagine a conglomerated nation-state or regional hegemony on the North America continent where the United States, Mexico, Canda, Central America and the Caribbean all existed under one state akin to the European Union.

What would you think this would look like and what it would entail for it to occur? Or if you don't think it would occur, why not?

Because there is no compelling reason or benefit for the countries to do it.

US and Canada maybe, but you'd have to have that compelling reason first.

Everything else? The difference in power, infrastructure, development et al is simply too large a gap. What exactly would compel Canada to want to join with Haiti or Guatemala in a EU style arrangement?

That and due to immigration problems we might as well count Mexico as part of the US anyway.....

Slarg232 wrote:That and due to immigration problems we might as well count Mexico as part of the US anyway.....

Technically that would solve every immigration problem instantly.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:That and due to immigration problems we might as well count Mexico as part of the US anyway.....

Technically that would solve every immigration problem instantly.

Well, not every one, but all of the ones involving mexico, yes.

WarOne wrote:Imagine a conglomerated nation-state or regional hegemony on the North America continent where the United States, Mexico, Canda, Central America and the Caribbean all existed under one state akin to the European Union.

What would you think this would look like and what it would entail for it to occur? Or if you don't think it would occur, why not?

I would go to war with that state, instantly.

Problem with the EU is that it started as a free trade organisation and somewhere in the 80's it morphed into a pan european government.

In terms of Free trade I think it would be a good idea.
In terms of a political union, it would be hard to see.

US and Canada would be less likely than a significant grouping of the Carribean islands or the central american countries.

WarOne wrote:Imagine a conglomerated nation-state or regional hegemony on the North America continent where the United States, Mexico, Canda, Central America and the Caribbean all existed under one state akin to the European Union.

What would you think this would look like and what it would entail for it to occur? Or if you don't think it would occur, why not?

No thanks. Been proposed been talked about, don't want it and don't need it.

National identity tends to follow common language, so a union between the current USA and Canada would probably be easier than a union with Mexico.

OTOH, so many US citizens now speak Spanish, that a union with Mexico couldn't be ruled out on those grounds.

1812 part two?

2012 -- the Bicentennial!

Yea cause the EU is working out oh so perfectly right? I dont like the idea of other countries having a say so in what our country does. And dont bring in the fact that China practically owns us, thats not what Im talking about.

If you look back to 1860 you find that at that time there was a strong feeling in the USA that the union was not working out so perfectly.

Somehow those differences were resolved, more states were added, and eventually the union came to the state of perfection it enjoys today.

The same could happen in the EU.

Kilkrazy wrote:If you look back to 1860 you find that at that time there was a strong feeling in the USA that the union was not working out so perfectly.

Somehow those differences were resolved, more states were added, and eventually the union came to the state of perfection it enjoys today.

The same could happen in the EU.

Those differences where resolved only with the bloodiest war the Americas has ever seen.

Are yo saying the EU is about to have a civil war?

European Union is not a state. It's just easy bussines between neighbours.

Erasoketa wrote:European Union is not a state. It's just easy bussines between neighbours.

And yet it functions like a state.

sA

I say absolutely not.

Canada and the US might benefit each other from it.

However Mexico would offer next to nothing and gain so much in return.

^

Like they do now Shivan? LOL.

I think Mn should annex Manitoba that way whenever I want to vacation into Canada I won't need a passport. Hell, we'll even let you keep claiming it as part of Canada though we won't allow the ridiculous taxes you currently pay in that province and of course our state gun laws will naturally take precedence in Manitoba.

In the south we should set up an Omaha Beach type border between us and Mexico. Razor wire, MG-42 nests every 30 yards and mortars 300yds inland to soften up the illegals before they hit the MG-42 nests. That should deter illegals trying to sneak across.

As much as I would personally like to see this happen. There is no way it will happen in our lifetime, unless a crisis of unparalelled magnitude strikes. USA and Canada are just too far apart in political ideology to have this ever happen.

USA and Mexico is more of a possiblity.(Although probably never happen)

GG

Meh just make a volunteer group of texans who are allowed to apprehend and hold the illegals trying to cross the border ( at the border) until someone arrives to cart them off.

There would have to be background checks, legal stuff, and papers to sign but i bet enough people would sign up to secure the border.

Given the trade conditions in NAFTA are already in place, what else would be gained by removing further boundaries between the countries?

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:If you look back to 1860 you find that at that time there was a strong feeling in the USA that the union was not working out so perfectly.

Somehow those differences were resolved, more states were added, and eventually the union came to the state of perfection it enjoys today.

The same could happen in the EU.

Those differences where resolved only with the bloodiest war the Americas has ever seen.

Are yo saying the EU is about to have a civil war?

We did that in 1914-18 and 1939-45. That's the main reason we have the EU now.

I think a united world is a good idea, but if that is just a utopian dream I would actually prefer smaller countries than bigger ones. From the United States citizen's perspective they stand little to gain from either of their neighbors. Canada is just our small quiet nation above us that we just kind of ignore, because despite its physical size, it is pretty tiny in population, and we simply don't care what they are doing up there.

Mexico would just be further drain on economy since the peso is so poor as it is. It would also cause racial tensions escalating and religious tensions I would think. Look at what's happening in Arizona for instance.

A lot of Mexicans are devout Catholics, which means a HELL of a lot of kids that are suddenly needing care, and deserving it like every sensible American who is responsible enough to only have a couple of them. It would have to downgrade our entire lifestyle to have to deal with so many little kids. I already resent the walmart moms around here for getting their fat government payoffs for their fat asses just for not keeping their fat thighs shut, and feeling entitled to it and just take it for granted, while I, an unmarried male and not a father have to shell out the taxes for their flatscreen TV they buy themselves the moment they get their welfare check (yes I know a girl who did this). Adding a nation of families-of-twelve would seriously drive me nuts with anger. I don't mind Mexicans at all, as a people, they are quite nice. I just don't like when people have kids they cannot afford to support and therefore it becomes my problem. I like it even less when my tax burden is caused by the insistance of their imaginary friend that they can't use birth control.That's why Mexico is out. Too many kids to feed.

Personally I already pay enough to support deadbeats and single moms on wellfare around here, I don't need the extra burden of needing to clean up Mexico city and feed even more poor people who live in the desert. We have more than enough land as a nation as it is (ever been through Wyoming?).

To tell you the truth, I have always thought that the Confederacy should have been allowed to seceed. Smaller countries can't be bullies. They would have eventually gotten around to the slave issue (like maybe like by like 1968 as was the case with the oh-so progressive Northern states?) Sorry. Call me sarcasto.

Guitardian kinda summed up what i think of universal healthcare and welfare in one post. i asked a 22 year old having her 3rd or 4th kid if she considered birth control. im a nurse

Her answer i gak you not was

"I get more money if i have more kids"

Thats what is wrong with welfare ladies and gents!

If Canada andf Mexico adopted the US Constitution and government style just like every other US territory then broke into new states in the Union I'd be more onside. It'd be about a 20 year process.

Fateweaver wrote:
In the south we should set up an Omaha Beach type border between us and Mexico. Razor wire, MG-42 nests every 30 yards and mortars 300yds inland to soften up the illegals before they hit the MG-42 nests. That should deter illegals trying to sneak across.

You know that beach was crossed eventually, right? That ground was eventually taken?

I'm confuzzled. Shivan and Guitardian acknowldege welfare queens exist but others like Dogma and Shuma say they don't. Me thinks Dogma and Shuma are wrong. LOL.

At least making Mexico part of our country it would get rid of mexican illegals but what would they have to offer us? More weed? More people leeching the welfare system?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

malfred wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:
In the south we should set up an Omaha Beach type border between us and Mexico. Razor wire, MG-42 nests every 30 yards and mortars 300yds inland to soften up the illegals before they hit the MG-42 nests. That should deter illegals trying to sneak across.

You know that beach was crossed eventually, right? That ground was eventually taken?

It's a better solution than what we have now.

I think they believe they exist but are the exception not the norm.

However i have seen enough of them come through the ER to know that there are a lot more of them then others want to believe.

Frazzled wrote:If Canada andf Mexico adopted the US Constitution and government style just like every other US territory then broke into new states in the Union I'd be more onside. It'd be about a 20 year process.

I think they would have to.

Both countries are already divided into provinces or states which could easily be incorporated into the US system. It would mean a serious dilution of 'native' US citizen's voting power, of course. Mexico has a pretty big population.

As an alternative scenario, how about handing Texas back to the Mexicans, Louisiana to the French and the 13 colonies to the UK?

@Shivan. I hear ya. We are surrounded by 2 reservations and the number of NA's getting free health care because we somehow OWE it to them is probably a ratio of 50:1, factor in the caucasian deadbeats and it's like 75:1. Same goes for our Walmart. The Walmart in my city would probably go bankrupt if the peoples from the 2 reservations surrounding us stopped shopping there. Sure there are lots of caucasian folk that shop there (me included) but we are still outnumbered 50:1 at least and when it comes to abusing the hand outs and entitlements lets just say the NA's do it best.

@KK. You mean I'd get ugly teeth and have to speak with a crappy accent. No thanks. Oh, and lose my gun rights. Naw, I like it here in America. TYVM.

You could emigrate.

I think it'll happen eventually. The problem is if there isn't a powerful central government, it's meaningless. And no one wants to cede power to a higher government.

Manifest destiny means all of america and all of south america. Take 'em!

Kilkrazy wrote:

Frazzled wrote:If Canada andf Mexico adopted the US Constitution and government style just like every other US territory then broke into new states in the Union I'd be more onside. It'd be about a 20 year process.

I think they would have to.

Both countries are already divided into provinces or states which could easily be incorporated into the US system. It would mean a serious dilution of 'native' US citizen's voting power, of course. Mexico has a pretty big population.

As an alternative scenario, how about handing Texas back to the Mexicans, Louisiana to the French and the 13 colonies to the UK?

Thats why we have all the guns, to make sure that doesn't happen. The Brits tried that in 1814. We're much better shots now.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:If you look back to 1860 you find that at that time there was a strong feeling in the USA that the union was not working out so perfectly.

Somehow those differences were resolved, more states were added, and eventually the union came to the state of perfection it enjoys today.

The same could happen in the EU.

Those differences where resolved only with the bloodiest war the Americas has ever seen.

Are yo saying the EU is about to have a civil war?

We did that in 1914-18 and 1939-45. That's the main reason we have the EU now.

You're forgetting the period from about 500BC to the mid 80s, where all europeans did was kill each other. We've been at it for a good two and a half thousand years now, its about time we calmed down a bit.

Fateweaver wrote:
@KK. You mean I'd get ugly teeth and have to speak with a crappy accent. No thanks. Oh, and lose my gun rights. Naw, I like it here in America. TYVM.

But on the other hand you'll be more intelligent and not so fat that you cant fit through doorways

The only way we'll incorporate Mexico is if we decide to classify this rash of gang violence and piracy that is seeping across our borders as terrorism that the Mexican government is either supporting, or failing to stop. Once that nomenclanture is applied, it is only a matter of time before we invade to defend our interests. Once someone comes out and starts campaigning that we recognize these drug lords as agents of terror, we'll have a hot button issue to act upon.

Personally I'd try to ramp up awareness of the crisis 3 years into the presidency, and ride the victorious war into the campaign. It is controversial, but a successful war on terror would be an awfully big feather to have in your cap as you approach the polls. The trick would be freeing up enough troops to get the job done. Ideally, you would identify the area controlled by drug lords, declare it fair game, and discreetly conquer a chunk of Mexico and place it under martial law until such time as the area can be restored to order. The Mexican armed forces could be used to try to corral the runners when the US sack their bases of operation.

This has the potential to be a Gulf War style incident, especially since you can declare the problem solved whenever you like and pull out. Just leave a garrison force on our side, and let the drug runners know that we will do it again if we need to.

yeah and don't even get started on Casinos. Those people I lived near when I was in Washington state were loaded, and getting handouts.

Fateweaver said just now that some posters here don't think wellfare queens exist, but he thinks they do.

He is absolutely correct.

let me tell you a story, a true story:

When I was in Chicago I worked a gak job in a kitchen and my lazy co-worker who spent most of her time 'at work' talking on her cellphone to one or another of her "baby-daddy"s instead of getting stuff done, lived with her great grandma, had 6 kids, and one of her kids had just had a kid (at 14). Her and her 2 sisters (with all of their spawn) all lived in the same house, and had big TVs, she drove a LEXUS! she got her hair done every week, and she always had a cash roll on her. Her current baby-daddy and her 14 yr old daughters baby-daddy all stayed their too and slung weed on the side. This is all true. I made minimum wage, and she made slightly more because she had been working there longer... but a LEXUS?! I couldn't even buy a car, could barely pay my rent, and worked my ass off. But oh yeah I don't spawn a gazillion kids either, I guess that's the struggle of single white males who use a condom. Well even if you don't use one and knock someone up, that's just another bill for child support, while she gets her flatscreen and her lexus for being a skank.

The icing on the cake is a quote from my co-worker: "In mah house, we don't eat vegetables cuz they dirty! They come out the ground!"

While this is inherently logical, the ground is dirty... veggies grow in the ground... therefore veggies are dirty...

Its the logical skills of a 36 year old kindergartener at work. And shes a grandma. Yay. And she works a Burger King (well doesn't really work much, but she goes to her job there and punches in)... She gets a Lexus, I walk to work.

she was munching on a french fry while saying this.
I told her that was made of potatoes.
She said "nah its french fries"

facepalm.


yes I'm serious.
Geneva was 36 years old, a grandmother.
god have mercy on her children.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
oh yeah... her entire neighborhood was full of people who lived the same way. I visited once, and I was so mad that I didn't have a Lexus and a TV and and... you get the idea... I NEED TO SPAWN MORE STUPID CHILDREN TO GET AHEAD!

ShumaGorath wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:That and due to immigration problems we might as well count Mexico as part of the US anyway.....

Technically that would solve every immigration problem instantly.

Not at all, it would shift the entire problem to the southern border of the 'state of Mexico'. It is a lot narrower though.

Wow, we agree on something.

@Regwon. I can fit through doors just fine now. I'm 6', 245. I'm above average intelligence but then I went to school during a time when schools actually worked to educate and before the pc-liberal police changed txtbooks to how THEY think history took place. Tx is changing them back to how I was taught.

Well, I would think that trying to blow up a dam in Tx to flood an area that endangers 4M people would be an act of terrorism. Oh snap, according to the government terrorism doesn't exist. They aren't terrorists, they are "religious extremists" so I guess Mexicans would be called "pharmacuetical extremists".

The EU is failed experiment, that unfortunately for those of us in it will remain the status quo for some time to come. The states involved simply have to much invested in the EU too disband it. The Euro is a failed currency that has had to be bailed out on several occasions. And the commonality or European identity does not exist in even the slightest form for most Brits.

Trust me you'd be better remaining autonomous.

The Euro has never had to be bailed out once.

Kilkrazy wrote:The Euro has never had to be bailed out once.

Greece has however.

Fateweaver wrote:@KK. You mean I'd get ugly teeth and have to speak with a crappy accent. No thanks. Oh, and lose my gun rights. Naw, I like it here in America. TYVM.

But, ive rattled LOADS of American birds and they said they liked my accent.... i guess theres no accounting for taste eh?

Greece isn't the Euro.

I don't trust Mexican cops near the border. They are held to absolutely no standard of accountability. Ours are bad enough, but the Mex guys are just thugs with a badge and a gun and they WILL just pull you over, search your car, take your money, and drive away and there's just nothing to do about it. What call the cops?
they know this. It happened to my friend he told me about the incident. Not even an attempt to make an excuse for the reason. That in itself is a singular reason why the U.S. should have no interest whatsoever in bonding with our neighbor to the south. Now we have to police your police? gak, the bill gets bigger and bigger now...

Kilkrazy wrote:Greece isn't the Euro.

Tell that to the stock market. Tell that to the currencies market E down to US$1.20 at point of writing, and falling.

Lennysmash wrote:The EU is failed experiment, that unfortunately for those of us in it will remain the status quo for some time to come. The states involved simply have to much invested in the EU too disband it. The Euro is a failed currency that has had to be bailed out on several occasions. And the commonality or European identity does not exist in even the slightest form for most Brits.

Trust me you'd be better remaining autonomous.

Englands economy isn't exactly doing well in the eurozone.. Not sure where this level of smugness is coming from. You're doing worse than most EU states.

mattyrm wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:@KK. You mean I'd get ugly teeth and have to speak with a crappy accent. No thanks. Oh, and lose my gun rights. Naw, I like it here in America. TYVM.

But, ive rattled LOADS of American birds and they said they liked my accent.... i guess theres no accounting for taste eh?

yeah fateweaver you need to get out more. chicks dig foreigners.
also... crappy accent? sorry, I speak English, not American, Ebonics, Texmex, Midwest, New Yoik, New Joisey... but English. Whose language is it anyway? Who has the funny accent?

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Greece isn't the Euro.

Tell that to the stock market. Tell that to the currencies market E down to US$1.20 at point of writing, and falling.

The stock market thinks America is the Euro also. Since when has reactionary trading ever been intelligent or guided?

@Regwon. I can fit through doors just fine now. I'm 6', 245. I'm above average intelligence but then I went to school during a time when schools actually worked to educate and before the pc-liberal police changed txtbooks to how THEY think history took place. Tx is changing them back to how I was taught.

So you were taught about intelligent design and the conservative takeover in the latter portion of the clinton administration?

Several US states suffered sovereign debt defaults in the 1840s, did that make the US dollar a bad currency, or lead to default of the federal government?

mattyrm wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:@KK. You mean I'd get ugly teeth and have to speak with a crappy accent. No thanks. Oh, and lose my gun rights. Naw, I like it here in America. TYVM.

But, ive rattled LOADS of American birds and they said they liked my accent.... i guess theres no accounting for taste eh?

Were they sober when they said it?

Sobriety plays a huge factor into what looks good at the time. Trust me on this. I've been down THAT road. Waking up, looking over and asking yourself "who the feth let the dogs out?"

Were you so drunk you spoke with slurred speech? Maybe they didn't hear your accent because you were speaking in the language of too many ales?

Just playin' ya Matty.

Kilkrazy wrote:Several US states suffered sovereign debt defaults in the 1840s, did that make the US dollar a bad currency, or lead to default of the federal government?

At the time the US$ was NOT considered a strong currency. Notes were also issued by individual banks so its, er not relevant.
Oh crap we're back at early 2009 levels. Yep 2nd dip.

Fateweaver wrote:

mattyrm wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:@KK. You mean I'd get ugly teeth and have to speak with a crappy accent. No thanks. Oh, and lose my gun rights. Naw, I like it here in America. TYVM.

But, ive rattled LOADS of American birds and they said they liked my accent.... i guess theres no accounting for taste eh?

Were they sober when they said it?

Sobriety plays a huge factor into what looks good at the time. Trust me on this. I've been down THAT road. Waking up, looking over and asking yourself "who the feth let the dogs out?"

Were you so drunk you spoke with slurred speech? Maybe they didn't hear your accent because you were speaking in the language of too many ales?

Just playin' ya Matty.

So your proof that women don't like english accents is the fact that you've woken up next to ugly women before?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Several US states suffered sovereign debt defaults in the 1840s, did that make the US dollar a bad currency, or lead to default of the federal government?

At the time the US$ was NOT considered a strong currency. Notes were also issued by individual banks so its, er not relevant.

Currency markets were much less global and significantly slower at the time too.

Guitardian wrote:

mattyrm wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:@KK. You mean I'd get ugly teeth and have to speak with a crappy accent. No thanks. Oh, and lose my gun rights. Naw, I like it here in America. TYVM.

But, ive rattled LOADS of American birds and they said they liked my accent.... i guess theres no accounting for taste eh?

yeah fateweaver you need to get out more. chicks dig foreigners.
also... crappy accent? sorry, I speak English, not American, Ebonics, Texmex, Midwest, New Yoik, New Joisey... but English. Whose language is it anyway? Who has the funny accent?

I don't recognize ebonics as a language anyway. To the pc minded it's a language and should be taught. To the mentally stable it's rap speak, lazy speak, talking with mouth full of gak speak.

Most chicks I know dig French accent, NOT British accent. Then again I can't stand the southern accent. Sounds like a bunch of ill educated hicks (sorry Frazz, lol).

ShumaGorath wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:

mattyrm wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:@KK. You mean I'd get ugly teeth and have to speak with a crappy accent. No thanks. Oh, and lose my gun rights. Naw, I like it here in America. TYVM.

But, ive rattled LOADS of American birds and they said they liked my accent.... i guess theres no accounting for taste eh?

Were they sober when they said it?

Sobriety plays a huge factor into what looks good at the time. Trust me on this. I've been down THAT road. Waking up, looking over and asking yourself "who the feth let the dogs out?"

Were you so drunk you spoke with slurred speech? Maybe they didn't hear your accent because you were speaking in the language of too many ales?

Just playin' ya Matty.

And based on actual gold/silver reserves.

So your proof that women don't like english accents is the fact that you've woken up next to ugly women before?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Several US states suffered sovereign debt defaults in the 1840s, did that make the US dollar a bad currency, or lead to default of the federal government?

At the time the US$ was NOT considered a strong currency. Notes were also issued by individual banks so its, er not relevant.

Currency markets were much less global and significantly slower at the time too.

KK you are correct it has never been 'bailed out' yet it has recieved funding from several sources to 'bolster' it.

Ignoring Shumas posts is nice. Only when I want to read them do I have to.

Reading comprehension fail Shuma. Was taking a friendly jab at Matty. Don't need or want your input. Ty. Have a nice day.

:double post:

How do these double posts keep happening..?

Ok, now the original post is gone. Someone needs to get lego up in here, this has happened to many times.

They werent ALL ugly FW!, im a dashing fellow me, i will concede however that one of them looked like she went apple bobbing in a deep fat fryer.

The exotic accent all depends on where you're from. I find the Boston accent, with its exaggerated vowels and minimized trailing consonants, absolutely appalling. On the other hand, I could listen to anyone with an Irish accent read a phone book cheerfully, and am quite fond of our own Southern drawl. My wife only shifts back into it when she's very tired, and is invariably mad at me for pointing it out when it appears. Southern cussing makes me smile. Mine only appears on a very small number of words, as my parents were West Virginians but I was raised in primarily Florida with a brief stint in Georgia.

ShumaGorath wrote "Englands economy isn't exactly doing well in the eurozone.. Not sure where this level of smugness is coming from. You're doing worse than most EU states."


It's not smugness. I am well aware how poorly the economy is, given that I live in the country. It is merely a personal view and an observation. Remember a lot of British people do not see the EU as a good thing. There is an animosity in Britain against the EU, and a wide spread feeling by some, not all, that Britain has lost its autonomy. As stated earlier, the EU started on the basis of a free trade agreement, now however I feel each nation is expected to serve two masters. The point I was trying to make, however ineloquently, was that in my opinion coalitions along the lines of the EU are at present not the outstanding successes they were thought to be.

ID just like to say that I believe welfare is a good system, designed to help those in need. I'm married, have a 16 month old. If I lose my job I would have to go on welfare till I found another. It is a good system that assists when you're down and out, especially in a country where jobs are still at a premium.

Is it a program that gets abused? Sure it is. Does that mean we should get rid of it? Of course not. The people that abuse need to be dealt with by the law. I hate that just as much as anyone else. They should pay a very steep fine and have their welfare checks taken away.

But I'm seeing alot of negativity about this program on this forum. Guitardian especially. So you know someone abuses welfare? Report it or stay out of it. Wanting to get rid of a program simply because you know someone that uses it so horribly doesn't make alot of sense to me at all. And taxes? Jesus Christ people get over the tax thing. In my dealings with individuals, the same people who whine about all their hard-earned money being taxed are the same people who in the very next sentence complain about not having enough policemen and teachers.

So. Complain about welfare, taxes, gun rights, and immigration all you want. Vote republican next election so we can poor the rest of this failing economy down the drain. Then watch as we go through a second depression. But hey, at Least you have your gun and your bible.

IGLannister wrote:
So. Complain about welfare, taxes, gun rights, and immigration all you want. Vote republican next election so we can poor the rest of this failing economy down the drain. Then watch as we go through a second depression. But hey, at Least you have your gun and your bible.

(looks at the stock market)
Oh I think your president is doing that just fine thanks.

Yeah, it has nothing to do with the LOSER you supported the last 8 years does it?

Drones are truly the NeoCons best friends.
(edited by Frazzled as the replaced word is not appropriate for Dakka)

IGLannister wrote:Yeah, it has nothing to do with the LOSER you supported the last 8 years does it?

Drones are truly the NeoCons best friends.

First recession linked to policies of Congress (controlled by Dems since 2006) and previous administration.
But you turkeys own this one.

Obama, single handedly destroying the Democratic Party from the inside out since 2006.

Loser then. Apologies.

Fateweaver wrote:^

Like they do now Shivan? LOL.

I think Mn should annex Manitoba that way whenever I want to vacation into Canada I won't need a passport. Hell, we'll even let you keep claiming it as part of Canada though we won't allow the ridiculous taxes you currently pay in that province and of course our state gun laws will naturally take precedence in Manitoba.

You don't want Manitoba. Trust me, there is NOTHING there. Unless you're going for the many feet of snow and the endless wheat fields.

What you want is Quebec. Go ahead, take her. Hell, we'll even pay YOU

They don't wanna be here anyway, might as well give em' what they want.

Frazzled wrote:

IGLannister wrote:
So. Complain about welfare, taxes, gun rights, and immigration all you want. Vote republican next election so we can poor the rest of this failing economy down the drain. Then watch as we go through a second depression. But hey, at Least you have your gun and your bible.

(looks at the stock market)
Oh I think your president is doing that just fine thanks.

A presidents effect on the economy is based in the confidence he can instill and his ability to put the right people in the right jobs. Obamas effect at this point is really little more than the power of his words and the effectiveness of a stimulus that isn't finished being handed out yet. It's certainly too early to tell how his policies are effecting the economy in the long run and many of his decisions (the stimulus and the fallout from the buyouts especially) were not really ever his to make. On the other hand it's fairly clear that bush pushed for a deregulatory atmosphere during his years and placed most of his 'economic confidence' on the exact bubbles that saw our economy destroyed. It took six years for people to realize just how destructive the Raegan era policies bush advocated were and it's likely going to take a similar amount of time for an appreciable review of Obamas policies.

Obama, single handedly destroying the Democratic Party from the inside out since 2006.

Oh wait, you don't join discussions for the purpose of realistic and intelligent conversation!

IGLannister wrote:Loser then. Apologies.

No harm no foul.

Sure it is. These things always take time to come to fruition. But people that rag on Obama for this mess are the same types of people that think bush was sent from on high to deliver this nation of sinners, and not the man who is responsible for allowing his party to rot this country from the inside out. We all know bush was a total failure, yet fine gentlemen like frazzle here are willing to shovel it all off on someone else.

Disingenuous at the very least.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

IGLannister wrote:
So. Complain about welfare, taxes, gun rights, and immigration all you want. Vote republican next election so we can poor the rest of this failing economy down the drain. Then watch as we go through a second depression. But hey, at Least you have your gun and your bible.

(looks at the stock market)
Oh I think your president is doing that just fine thanks.

A presidents effect on the economy is based in the confidence he can instill and his ability to put the right people in the right jobs. Obamas effect at this point is really little more than the power of his words and the effectiveness of a stimulus that isn't finished being handed out yet. It's certainly too early to tell how his policies are effecting the economy in the long run and many of his decisions (the stimulus and the fallout from the buyouts especially) were not really ever his to make. On the other hand it's fairly clear that bush pushed for a deregulatory atmosphere during his years and placed most of his 'economic confidence' on the exact bubbles that saw our economy destroyed. It took six years for people to realize just how destructive the Raegan era policies bush advocated were and it's likely going to take a similar amount of time for an appreciable review of Obamas policies.

Obama, single handedly destroying the Democratic Party from the inside out since 2006.

Oh wait, you don't join discussions for the purpose of realistic and intelligent conversation!

BS. We're more than halfway through year II of the Adminstration. Every other time (except when FDR tried the same stunt) the economy started improving by now, including Kennedy's. the business community has no confidence in the current adminstration at this point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

IGLannister wrote:Sure it is. These things always take time to come to fruition. But people that rag on Obama for this mess are the same types of people that think bush was sent from on high to deliver this nation of sinners, and not the man who is responsible for allowing his party to rot this country from the inside out. We all know bush was a total failure, yet fine gentlemen like frazzle here are willing to shovel it all off on someone else.

Disingenuous at the very least.

it. I said the first recession resulted form the policies of the previous Adminstration and Congress. their low approvals were justly deserved.

This one is on Obama's neck.

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

IGLannister wrote:
So. Complain about welfare, taxes, gun rights, and immigration all you want. Vote republican next election so we can poor the rest of this failing economy down the drain. Then watch as we go through a second depression. But hey, at Least you have your gun and your bible.

(looks at the stock market)
Oh I think your president is doing that just fine thanks.

A presidents effect on the economy is based in the confidence he can instill and his ability to put the right people in the right jobs. Obamas effect at this point is really little more than the power of his words and the effectiveness of a stimulus that isn't finished being handed out yet. It's certainly too early to tell how his policies are effecting the economy in the long run and many of his decisions (the stimulus and the fallout from the buyouts especially) were not really ever his to make. On the other hand it's fairly clear that bush pushed for a deregulatory atmosphere during his years and placed most of his 'economic confidence' on the exact bubbles that saw our economy destroyed. It took six years for people to realize just how destructive the Raegan era policies bush advocated were and it's likely going to take a similar amount of time for an appreciable review of Obamas policies.

Obama, single handedly destroying the Democratic Party from the inside out since 2006.

Oh wait, you don't join discussions for the purpose of realistic and intelligent conversation!

BS. We're more than halfway through year II of the Adminstration. Every other time (except when FDR tried the same stunt) the economy started improving by now, including Kennedy's. the business community has no confidence in the current adminstration at this point.

And it had incredible confidence in the bush administration. It's as if it has no fething idea what it's actually doing and can't make informed decisions concerning the future! Any economic theory that would lend large scale business and markets as having the trait of farsightedness or prescience of thought or action is abjectly wrong and historically daft. Also, it would appear that the economy is recovering, but hey lets not let reality cloud your "The stimulus won't work, oh the economies getting better the stimulus clearly has nothing to do with that" outlook. If you couldn't make ill informed and ranty posts about the economic superiority of policies you have never advocated or explained this forum would be a much less interesting place.

Takes longer than two years to do the following:

Deal with Iraq
Deal with Afghanistan
Assemble a regulatory committee for the stock market
Overhaul Americas ruined image
Deal with a huge catastrophy in the Gulf
Stabilize the economy

Bush came into office with none of these problems, and proceeded to create most of them. And just to make things extra spicy, we have the republicans in congress who have vowed to lock down the passing of any legislation because their feelings were hurt over healthcare. Gimme a break.

IGLannister wrote:Takes longer than two years to do the following:

Deal with Iraq
Deal with Afghanistan
Assemble a regulatory committee for the stock market
Overhaul Americas ruined image
Deal with a huge catastrophy in the Gulf
Stabilize the economy

Bush came into office with none of these problems, and proceeded to create most of them.

Technically every one of those could be accomplished in less than two years as there is no actual required step by step process for the successful completion of any of them. It took like three weeks to overhaul americas ruined image (in the eyes of europeans).

I pledge allegiance.

To the flag.

Of the United States of America. And Mexico. And Canada. And maybe even Alaska, too.

malfred wrote:I pledge allegiance.

To the flag.

Of the United States of America. And Mexico. And Canada. And maybe even Alaska, too.

The American Empire has a nice ring too it.

Empire, might be pushing it atleast in this day and age.

United Nations of America? That sounds sweet.

Empires always fall from the inside. Coincidence? I think not. Thanks, George.

ShumaGorath wrote:

And it had incredible confidence in the bush administration. It's as if it has no fething idea what it's actually doing and can't make informed decisions concerning the future! Any economic theory that would lend large scale business and markets as having the trait of farsightedness or prescience of thought or action is abjectly wrong and historically daft.

You have no argument from me.

Also, it would appear that the economy is recovering, but hey lets not let reality cloud your "The stimulus won't work, oh the economies getting better the stimulus clearly has nothing to do with that" outlook. If you couldn't make ill informed and ranty posts about the economic superiority of policies you have never advocated or explained this forum would be a much less interesting place.

Now you have an argument. Indicators have shifted to 2008 levels through the month. There was effectively no private hiring in May. The markets have tanked. Deficit spending is the highest in the history of mankind. Certain debt markets have dried up over the last 30 days.

And yes frazzle, those things shouldn't take too long to accomplish, if you have two functioning parties. We don't. We have one party that tries to work with the other, while the other is throwing a hussy fit and sayin, "Waaaaaah, no we won't work with you, waaaaah!"

so...?

malfred wrote:I pledge allegiance.

To the flag.

Of the United States of America. And Mexico. And Canada. And maybe even Alaska, too.

But not Leichtenstein. Once the Explosive Space Modulator is perfected their dark reign will end.

And I feel the need to say to you, frazzle, that I hope the Cowboys win the superbowl. So charade to you.

I don't think you can call it the 'last recession' as opposed to 'this one', as it is a cycle that feeds itself. There isn't a stated start time and end time for economic screwups. Blaming it on Obama is just silly. Blame banks and multinationals, don't blame the guy who's just stuck with an inherited mess. I may not agree with many of his policies but at least he's trying, instead of feeding into it with cronyism. (Hi uncle Cheney! Hi Enron! Hi Haliburton! Hi real estate fiends!Thanks so fething much you schmucks!). Meanwhile he also is tasked to improve foreign relations, fight 2 wars he didn't start, and be the first white president. Oh wait no he's only half white. Give the guy a break. That's a lot on his plate. And you know what the hicks will be saying when he fails out of office? "See I told you it was them dern Nword's fault this whole place is fethed up..." conveniently forgetting the warmonger who proceeded him. The general public has extremely short political attention spans, and conveniently selective memories.

Now you have an argument. Indicators have shifted to 2008 levels through the month. There was effectively no private hiring in May. The markets have tanked. Deficit spending is the highest in the history of mankind. Certain debt markets have dried up over the last 30 days.

Yeah, it was a bad month. Job gains 30k under expectations and a lot of that was census hiring. There were still gains though, and any expectation of a rapid recovery should have been dashed when everyone said slow and painful recovery like 300 times a second in 09.

As an aside if deficit spending wasn't at it's highest in the history of mankind I would be confused considering we have a larger population and more money than any time previously in history. Economic indicators like that aren't really useful when taken in that kind of context. It's like saying more people are dying than in any time before in history. True. Also totally unhelpful and contextless.

IGLannister wrote:And yes frazzle, those things shouldn't take too long to accomplish, if you have two functioning parties. We don't. We have one party that tries to work with the other, while the other is throwing a hussy fit and sayin, "Waaaaaah, no we won't work with you, waaaaah!"

so...?

Excuses are like donkey-caves everybody got one. Democrats had historic majorities in both houses + the Presidency. You achieved the Democratic boondoggle spending, tax and spend, nationalizing the domestic auto industry, and Obamacare. You scared all of business out of hiring due to your shifting tax plans. You just banned drilling in the Gulf (hello $4 - $5 gas). 2 years and nothing to actually help the economy on a long term or short term basis.

IGLannister wrote:And yes frazzle, those things shouldn't take too long to accomplish, if you have two functioning parties. We don't. We have one party that tries to work with the other, while the other is throwing a hussy fit and sayin, "Waaaaaah, no we won't work with you, waaaaah!"

so...?

I responded to you, not frazzled. You should pay more attention.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Now you have an argument. Indicators have shifted to 2008 levels through the month. There was effectively no private hiring in May. The markets have tanked. Deficit spending is the highest in the history of mankind. Certain debt markets have dried up over the last 30 days.

Yeah, it was a bad month. Job gains 30k under expectations and a lot of that was census hiring. There were still gains though, and any expectation of a rapid recovery should have been dashed when everyone said slow and painful recovery like 300 times a second in 09.

As an aside if deficit spending wasn't at it's highest in the history of mankind I would be confused considering we have a larger population and more money than any time previously in history. Economic indicators like that aren't really useful when taken in that kind of context. It's like saying more people are dying than in any time before in history. True. Also totally unhelpful and contextless.

More than 30M more like 250M off. eleminate the census and no effective hiring.

Every other recession upturn wasn't slow and painful though. Only during FDR's time with his joyous spending program that hiccupped a (surprise) double dip depression. Sounds familiar.

Frazzled wrote:

IGLannister wrote:And yes frazzle, those things shouldn't take too long to accomplish, if you have two functioning parties. We don't. We have one party that tries to work with the other, while the other is throwing a hussy fit and sayin, "Waaaaaah, no we won't work with you, waaaaah!"

so...?

Excuses are like donkey-caves everybody got one. Democrats had historic majorities in both houses + the Presidency. You achieved the Democratic boondoggle spending, tax and spend, nationalizing the domestic auto industry, and Obamacare. You scared all of business out of hiring due to your shifting tax plans. You just banned drilling in the Gulf (hello $4 - $5 gas). 2 years and nothing to actually help the economy on a long term or short term basis.

The auto industry is being sold back, and you guys nationalized the banking industry so don't pull that gak. Stop being a child. As for scaring out business hiring, I think you've managed to pull that one straight out of your ass. As for banning gulf drilling, the feth does that have to do with raising gas to five dollars? The amount of oil being pulled from the gulf was and is far below the amount that would be required for that kind of effect. Are you usually this daft or are you taking this as a special occasion because you're being trolled by Glannisoap?

As for the majorities, they don't matter particularly much against a minority party as unified and childish as the republican party and and we had to nuke the fillibuster just to healthcare through. To act like we just squabbled it all away is about as childish as a response as I would expect at this point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Now you have an argument. Indicators have shifted to 2008 levels through the month. There was effectively no private hiring in May. The markets have tanked. Deficit spending is the highest in the history of mankind. Certain debt markets have dried up over the last 30 days.

Yeah, it was a bad month. Job gains 30k under expectations and a lot of that was census hiring. There were still gains though, and any expectation of a rapid recovery should have been dashed when everyone said slow and painful recovery like 300 times a second in 09.

As an aside if deficit spending wasn't at it's highest in the history of mankind I would be confused considering we have a larger population and more money than any time previously in history. Economic indicators like that aren't really useful when taken in that kind of context. It's like saying more people are dying than in any time before in history. True. Also totally unhelpful and contextless.

More than 30M more like 250M off. eleminate the census and no effective hiring.

Every other recession upturn wasn't slow and painful though. Only during FDR's time with his joyous spending program that hiccupped a (surprise) double dip depression. Sounds familiar.

Yeah, it's as if the recovery is proportional to the fall. Are you being this obtuse and ignorant on purpose?

My bad Gorath. My response won't change though. Just insert your name where frazzled name is, and it should work out ok.

Seriously though, my mistake. I'll keep a closer eye.

And how am I trolling? It's a debate. You're the one calling people daft around here. Relax bro.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

IGLannister wrote:And yes frazzle, those things shouldn't take too long to accomplish, if you have two functioning parties. We don't. We have one party that tries to work with the other, while the other is throwing a hussy fit and sayin, "Waaaaaah, no we won't work with you, waaaaah!"

so...?

Excuses are like donkey-caves everybody got one. Democrats had historic majorities in both houses + the Presidency. You achieved the Democratic boondoggle spending, tax and spend, nationalizing the domestic auto industry, and Obamacare. You scared all of business out of hiring due to your shifting tax plans. You just banned drilling in the Gulf (hello $4 - $5 gas). 2 years and nothing to actually help the economy on a long term or short term basis.

The auto industry is being sold back, and you guys nationalized the banking industry so don't pull that gak. Stop being a child. As for scaring out business hiring, I think you've managed to pull that one straight out of your ass. As for banning gulf drilling, the feth does that have to do with raising gas to five dollars? The amount of oil being pulled from the gulf was and is far below the amount that would be required for that kind of effect. Are you usually this daft or are you taking this as a special occasion because you're being trolled by Glannisoap?

As for the majorities, they don't matter particularly much against a minority party as unified and childish as the republican party and and we had to nuke the fillibuster to healthcare through. To act like we just squabbled it all away is about as childish as a response as I would expect at this point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Now you have an argument. Indicators have shifted to 2008 levels through the month. There was effectively no private hiring in May. The markets have tanked. Deficit spending is the highest in the history of mankind. Certain debt markets have dried up over the last 30 days.

Yeah, it was a bad month. Job gains 30k under expectations and a lot of that was census hiring. There were still gains though, and any expectation of a rapid recovery should have been dashed when everyone said slow and painful recovery like 300 times a second in 09.

As an aside if deficit spending wasn't at it's highest in the history of mankind I would be confused considering we have a larger population and more money than any time previously in history. Economic indicators like that aren't really useful when taken in that kind of context. It's like saying more people are dying than in any time before in history. True. Also totally unhelpful and contextless.

More than 30M more like 250M off. eleminate the census and no effective hiring.

Every other recession upturn wasn't slow and painful though. Only during FDR's time with his joyous spending program that hiccupped a (surprise) double dip depression. Sounds familiar.

Yeah, it's as if the recovery is proportional to the fall. Are you being this obtuse and ignorant on purpose?

The fact you don't understand the relationship between drilling and gasoline prices (or natural gas prices for that matter) is staggering. I..don't know what to say other than macroeconmics courses are amzingly helpful and really should be required in primary education.

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

IGLannister wrote:And yes frazzle, those things shouldn't take too long to accomplish, if you have two functioning parties. We don't. We have one party that tries to work with the other, while the other is throwing a hussy fit and sayin, "Waaaaaah, no we won't work with you, waaaaah!"

so...?

Excuses are like donkey-caves everybody got one. Democrats had historic majorities in both houses + the Presidency. You achieved the Democratic boondoggle spending, tax and spend, nationalizing the domestic auto industry, and Obamacare. You scared all of business out of hiring due to your shifting tax plans. You just banned drilling in the Gulf (hello $4 - $5 gas). 2 years and nothing to actually help the economy on a long term or short term basis.

The auto industry is being sold back, and you guys nationalized the banking industry so don't pull that gak. Stop being a child. As for scaring out business hiring, I think you've managed to pull that one straight out of your ass. As for banning gulf drilling, the feth does that have to do with raising gas to five dollars? The amount of oil being pulled from the gulf was and is far below the amount that would be required for that kind of effect. Are you usually this daft or are you taking this as a special occasion because you're being trolled by Glannisoap?

As for the majorities, they don't matter particularly much against a minority party as unified and childish as the republican party and and we had to nuke the fillibuster to healthcare through. To act like we just squabbled it all away is about as childish as a response as I would expect at this point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Now you have an argument. Indicators have shifted to 2008 levels through the month. There was effectively no private hiring in May. The markets have tanked. Deficit spending is the highest in the history of mankind. Certain debt markets have dried up over the last 30 days.

Yeah, it was a bad month. Job gains 30k under expectations and a lot of that was census hiring. There were still gains though, and any expectation of a rapid recovery should have been dashed when everyone said slow and painful recovery like 300 times a second in 09.

As an aside if deficit spending wasn't at it's highest in the history of mankind I would be confused considering we have a larger population and more money than any time previously in history. Economic indicators like that aren't really useful when taken in that kind of context. It's like saying more people are dying than in any time before in history. True. Also totally unhelpful and contextless.

More than 30M more like 250M off. eleminate the census and no effective hiring.

Every other recession upturn wasn't slow and painful though. Only during FDR's time with his joyous spending program that hiccupped a (surprise) double dip depression. Sounds familiar.

Yeah, it's as if the recovery is proportional to the fall. Are you being this obtuse and ignorant on purpose?

The fact you don't understand the relationship between drilling and gasoline prices (or natural gas prices for that matter) is staggering. I..don't know what to say other than macroeconmics courses are amzingly helpful and really should be required in primary education.

The fact that you lack basic knowledge of scale and mathematics is a bit worse don't you think? To the point where your inability to count above 'DRILL BABY DRILL' has impaired your ability to accurately assess the amount of oil that was and will be drilled in the gulf contrasting against how much oil we actually use as a nation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

IGLannister wrote:My bad Gorath. My response won't change though. Just insert your name where frazzled name is, and it should work out ok.

Seriously though, my mistake. I'll keep a closer eye.

And how am I trolling? It's a debate. You're the one calling people daft around here. Relax bro.

You're probably going to want more intelligible and reasoned responses if you're going to try and defend those points. I'm harder to debate than frazzled, who is apparently the debate equivalent of one of those coin operated gypsies that tells your fortune in the front of a 1960s theatre.

ShumaGorath wrote: I'm harder to debate than frazzled, who is apparently the debate equivalent of one of those coin operated gypsies that tells your fortune in the front of a 1960s theatre.

Ok, then here we go.

I take exception to being called a troll. At most, I've called frazzled disingenous and insulted the former presidents intelligence. I find it to be somewhat odd that a person who is arguing basically the same point as myself would accuse me of trolling, while in numerous posts questions the intelligence of the mod by calling him "daft" which, last I knew, was the same as calling someone mildly mentally deficient.

Furthermore, lol at the coin fed gypsy statement.

IGLannister wrote:Ok, then here we go.

I take exception to being called a troll. At most, I've called frazzled disingenous and insulted the former presidents intelligence. I find it to be somewhat odd that a person who is arguing basically the same point as myself would accuse me of trolling, while in numerous posts questions the intelligence of the mod by calling him "daft" which, last I knew, was the same as calling someone mildly mentally deficient.

Furthermore, lol at the coin fed gypsy statement.

You could visit your points in a more factual or well explained manner without resorting to calling presidents names. slow as a derogatory term is little different then gay in how it insults people. Bush wasn't slowed, and to imply his incapability (a level of incapability you didn't actually really address) is due to some form of mental disability can often times be insulting to people that suffer from those disabilities. Daft as per the dictionary does not mean the same thing as slowed, its mostly a stand in for foolish or ignorant.

Lennysmash wrote:KK you are correct it has never been 'bailed out' yet it has recieved funding from several sources to 'bolster' it.

That's a different thing, isn't it.

My worry is that when people don't get facts correct they make themselves look ignorant and stupid, which is a bad position to adopt in argument.

IGLannister wrote:Ok, then here we go.

I take exception to being called a troll. At most, I've called frazzled disingenous and insulted the former presidents intelligence. I find it to be somewhat odd that a person who is arguing basically the same point as myself would accuse me of trolling, while in numerous posts questions the intelligence of the mod by calling him "daft" which, last I knew, was the same as calling someone mildly mentally deficient.

Furthermore, lol at the coin fed gypsy statement.

Wait, who called you a troll?
I liked the gypsy statement myself. If I still had access to photbucket at work I'd have to reply in kind due to its awesomenessness.

Frazzled wrote:

IGLannister wrote:Ok, then here we go.

I take exception to being called a troll. At most, I've called frazzled disingenous and insulted the former presidents intelligence. I find it to be somewhat odd that a person who is arguing basically the same point as myself would accuse me of trolling, while in numerous posts questions the intelligence of the mod by calling him "daft" which, last I knew, was the same as calling someone mildly mentally deficient.

Furthermore, lol at the coin fed gypsy statement.

Wait, who called you a troll?
I liked the gypsy statement myself. If I still had access to photbucket at work I'd have to reply in kind due to its awesomenessness.

I made mention of 'glannisoap' trolling you in an earlier post.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

IGLannister wrote:Ok, then here we go.

I take exception to being called a troll. At most, I've called frazzled disingenous and insulted the former presidents intelligence. I find it to be somewhat odd that a person who is arguing basically the same point as myself would accuse me of trolling, while in numerous posts questions the intelligence of the mod by calling him "daft" which, last I knew, was the same as calling someone mildly mentally deficient.

Furthermore, lol at the coin fed gypsy statement.

Wait, who called you a troll?
I liked the gypsy statement myself. If I still had access to photbucket at work I'd have to reply in kind due to its awesomenessness.

I made mention of 'glannisoap' trolling you in an earlier post.

well then, don't do that!

Even getting my name wrong. I never insulted anyone, and if what I said was construed as such, I detailed it above. You, however, have not. So I stand by my case as is.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Yeah, it's as if the recovery is proportional to the fall. Are you being this obtuse and ignorant on purpose?

Every depression in American history has been closely followed a recession. Two of these depressions (1807-1810 and 1815-1821) did not feature large amounts of government spending.

The relationship between the severity of a recession, and government policy is more complicated than "spending is bad, and tax breaks are good." I assume that Fraz knows this, and is simply being obtuse for the sake of being obtuse.

IGLannister wrote:Even getting my name wrong. I never insulted anyone, and if what I said was construed as such, I detailed it above. You, however, have not. So I stand by my case as is.

What about president Bush?

Anyone on this forum. I've already said I insulted bush. Read between the lines.

ShumaGorath wrote:
The fact that you lack basic knowledge of scale and mathematics is a bit worse don't you think? To the point where your inability to count above 'DRILL BABY DRILL' has impaired your ability to accurately assess the amount of oil that was and will be drilled in the gulf contrasting against how much oil we actually use as a nation.

Its not even blanket ban on all drilling in the gulf, only a moratorium on the issuance of permits to drill new deep water wells in the gulf.

Source.

Gypsies you say!?

noooo it doesnt work

>=(

dogma wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
The fact that you lack basic knowledge of scale and mathematics is a bit worse don't you think? To the point where your inability to count above 'DRILL BABY DRILL' has impaired your ability to accurately assess the amount of oil that was and will be drilled in the gulf contrasting against how much oil we actually use as a nation.

Its not even blanket ban on all drilling in the gulf, only a moratorium on the issuance of permits to drill new deep water wells in the gulf.

Source.

Thats incorrect. As of yesterday ALL drilling, care of a statement sent to us from the MMS. Thanks for playing do not pass go do not collect $200.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
AP News Break: Feds halt new drilling in Gulf amid criticism for lifting shallow-water ban
Published June 03, 2010
| Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration is blocking all new offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, a day after regulators approved a new permit for drilling in shallow water.
An e-mail Thursday from the Gulf Coast office of the Minerals Management Service says that "until further notice" no new drilling is being allowed in the Gulf, no matter the water depth. A copy of the e-mail was obtained by The Associated Press.
The announcement comes a day after the minerals agency, which oversees offshore drilling, granted a new drilling permit for a site about 50 miles off the Louisiana coast, 115 feet below the ocean surface. Environmental groups accused the administration of misleading the public by allowing work to resume in waters up to 500 feet deep while maintaining a moratorium on deepwater drilling.
Kendra Barkoff, a spokeswoman for Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, denied that the administration was placing a hold on shallow-water drilling.
"There is a six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling," Barkoff said in an e-mail Thursday. "Shallow-water drilling may continue as long as oil and gas operations satisfy the environmental and safety requirements Secretary Salazar outlined in his report to the president and have exploration plans that meet those requirements. There is no moratorium on shallow water drilling."
Bob Abbey, the acting director of the Minerals Management Service, announced further restrictions for offshore drilling on Wednesday night.
Abbey, who took over the minerals agency last week after the forced resignation of its previous director Elizabeth Birnbaum, said operators will be required to submit additional information about potential risks and safety considerations before being allowed to drill. The rule applies even to those plans that have already been approved or received a waiver exempting them from detailed environmental scrutiny, Abbey said.
The new information must be submitted before any drilling of new wells begins, Abbey said, adding that the rule should ensure that tighter safety standards and better consideration of risks are incorporated into drilling plans.
The administration will establish separate requirements for deep water and shallow water exploration, Abbey said.
In a recent letter, Gulf Coast senators urged President Barack Obama to allow shallow-water drilling to continue, arguing that it is far safer than deepwater exploration. The senators said shutting down the roughly 60 shallow-water rigs in the Gulf could cost some $135 million in revenues and affect at least 5,000 jobs.

Truly this is "le bummeur" as the French might say.

..homophobe..!

*reports*

Frazzled wrote:
Thats incorrect. As of yesterday ALL drilling, care of a statement sent to us from the MMS. Thanks for playing do not pass go do not collect $200.

That's false, according to your own article.

Frazzled wrote:
AP News Break: Feds halt new drilling in Gulf amid criticism for lifting shallow-water ban
Published June 03, 2010
| Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration is blocking all new offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, a day after regulators approved a new permit for drilling in shallow water.
An e-mail Thursday from the Gulf Coast office of the Minerals Management Service says that "until further notice" no new drilling is being allowed in the Gulf, no matter the water depth. A copy of the e-mail was obtained by The Associated Press.

So not all drilling, only new drilling.

Additionally, given the following quote, it seems that there is at least some degree of confusion (possibly intentional misdirection) in either the AP, the government, or both.

Frazzled wrote:
Kendra Barkoff, a spokeswoman for Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, denied that the administration was placing a hold on shallow-water drilling.
"There is a six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling," Barkoff said in an e-mail Thursday. "Shallow-water drilling may continue as long as oil and gas operations satisfy the environmental and safety requirements Secretary Salazar outlined in his report to the president and have exploration plans that meet those requirements. There is no moratorium on shallow water drilling."

It does seem that MMS has revoked the permits that were granted on Wednesday, which lends credence to a combination of confusion and intentional misdirection.

My suspicion is that drilling has been put on hiatus while proposed regulations are put in place.

Guitardian wrote:I don't trust Mexican cops near the border. They are held to absolutely no standard of accountability. Ours are bad enough, but the Mex guys are just thugs with a badge and a gun and they WILL just pull you over, search your car, take your money, and drive away and there's just nothing to do about it. What call the cops?
they know this. It happened to my friend he told me about the incident. Not even an attempt to make an excuse for the reason. That in itself is a singular reason why the U.S. should have no interest whatsoever in bonding with our neighbor to the south. Now we have to police your police? gak, the bill gets bigger and bigger now...

I had that happen to a friend and his wife while they were down in Mexico. It was too bad for the cop that did it that he didn't recognize my bud's wife as the daughter of a police chief down there.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Thats incorrect. As of yesterday ALL drilling, care of a statement sent to us from the MMS. Thanks for playing do not pass go do not collect $200.

That's false, according to your own article.

Frazzled wrote:
AP News Break: Feds halt new drilling in Gulf amid criticism for lifting shallow-water ban
Published June 03, 2010
| Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration is blocking all new offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, a day after regulators approved a new permit for drilling in shallow water.
An e-mail Thursday from the Gulf Coast office of the Minerals Management Service says that "until further notice" no new drilling is being allowed in the Gulf, no matter the water depth. A copy of the e-mail was obtained by The Associated Press.

So not all drilling, only new drilling.

Additionally, given the following quote, it seems that there is at least some degree of confusion (possibly intentional misdirection) in either the AP, the government, or both.

Frazzled wrote:
Kendra Barkoff, a spokeswoman for Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, denied that the administration was placing a hold on shallow-water drilling.
"There is a six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling," Barkoff said in an e-mail Thursday. "Shallow-water drilling may continue as long as oil and gas operations satisfy the environmental and safety requirements Secretary Salazar outlined in his report to the president and have exploration plans that meet those requirements. There is no moratorium on shallow water drilling."

It does seem that MMS has revoked the permits that were granted on Wednesday, which lends credence to a combination of confusion and intentional misdirection.

My suspicion is that drilling has been put on hiatus while proposed regulations are put in place.

Sometimes it helps to actually know what you're talking about and not blowing internet smoke out your ass. All drilling is new drilling. Its either eploratory or developmental. But its all new drilling.

Its not false. All our clients are freaking out.

Frazzled wrote:
Sometimes it helps to actually know what you're talking about and not blowing internet smoke out your ass. All drilling is new drilling. Its either eploratory or developmental. But its all new drilling.

No, it isn't. Shockingly I know a thing or two about environmental law and, by extension, petroleum regulation. Drilling that is currently in progress is not 'new drilling' but it is still drilling, ergo 'new drilling' is not 'all drilling'.

Frazzled wrote:
Its not false. All our clients are freaking out.

Yes, because new drilling has been suspended, not because all drilling has been suspended.

You're wrong, again. I was wrong in my first comment as well, but I have admitted to that tacitly, and now explicitly. You have done neither, at any point, ever.

A US Canada Union would have the best chance of success. Not because of common skintones or language, but because of similar mind set.

Mexican laws are profoundly Mexican in nature and enforcement. There is a level of elitism in how they administer their country that would create issues with any type of combined union.
This is one of the problems with dealing with the country of Mexico on immigration law. They want to dictate how the border should be controlled. The Mexican people may enbrace the idea but the Mexican Politians would see their power as being usurped and would fight the idea as Anti- Mexico, not Pro North America.

The US and Canada are far closer in basic ideology than Mexico and the US.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Sometimes it helps to actually know what you're talking about and not blowing internet smoke out your ass. All drilling is new drilling. Its either eploratory or developmental. But its all new drilling.

No, it isn't. Shockingly I know a thing or two about environmental law and, by extension, petroleum regulation. Drilling that is currently in progress is not 'new drilling' but it is still drilling, ergo 'new drilling' is not 'all drilling'.

Frazzled wrote:
Its not false. All our clients are freaking out.

Yes, because new drilling has been suspended, not because all drilling has been suspended.

You're wrong, again. I was wrong in my first comment as well, but I have admitted to that tacitly, and now explicitly. You have done neither, at any point, ever.

Yes the gym manager knows everything about drilling in GOM vs. the guy who's clients are the actual drillers...yea..

Frazzled wrote:
Yes the gym manager knows everything about drilling in GOM vs. the guy who's clients are the actual drillers...yea..

So you're going to hide behind 'qualifications' now? You would send me up the river for that. Probably with this emoticon.

I never claimed to know everything about drilling in the Gulf. I claimed to know this one thing about drilling in the Gulf, and an indefinite number of other facts pertinent to environmental law. You inferred that I claimed to know 'everything', most likely because you seem only to deal only in hyperbole. You may indeed know more about environmental law than I do, but I don't know anything about what you know beyond that which is committed to this board. If you don't communicate with sense, it appears that you have none. And a person working in environmental law who does not understand the difference between new drilling and current drilling is not someone who appears to communicate with sense.

You know that new drilling is not all drilling, you simply will not relinquish the point by even hinting at the fact that you misspoke.

I would advocate for immediate secession if such a government would come into being. The US is already spinning down the crapper, making a western hemisphere version of the Eurozone would only hasten the plunge.

Edit: Don't get me started on NAFTA, what a boot to the junk that whole fiasco is.

Tyras wrote:I would advocate for immediate secession if such a government would come into being. The US is already spinning down the crapper, making a western hemisphere version of the Eurozone would only hasten the plunge.

Edit: Don't get me started on NAFTA, what a boot to the junk that whole fiasco is.

Would you agree to a more united North American sphere of influence if say, China or the EU became more powerful than the United States and the United States by itself could not compete?

No I would not, first (and this is not to slight Canada or Mexico) the US would not gain all that much influence by incorporating the other North American Nations.

I am much more of an advocate for fixing the problems in our Country that have made the cost of living so expensive, thus driving up wages and making companies look elsewhere due to the cost of doing business in the US. It was The United States industrial might that made us what we are today, and now most of that has been outsourced to various parts of the world. China and India are aware of this and they are gobbling up every manufacturing industry they can get their hands on. Their growth is through the roof as a result. The EU, IMO, is doomed. Their currency is debt. The US isn't far behind on that path I'm afraid, butI think there's enough coal left in the fire to turn things around if only we could get Washington to stop spending like a freakin teen with a limit free credit card. I just don't see that in European Nations. I'm no expert though, I just lived there for a few years and had a discussions over a pint every now and then.

Tyras wrote:No I would not, first (and this is not to slight Canada or Mexico) the US would not gain all that much influence by incorporating the other North American Nations.

I am much more of an advocate for fixing the problems in our Country that have made the cost of living so expensive, thus driving up wages and making companies look elsewhere due to the cost of doing business in the US. It was The United States industrial might that made us what we are today, and now most of that has been outsourced to various parts of the world. China and India are aware of this and they are gobbling up every manufacturing industry they can get their hands on. Their growth is through the roof as a result. The EU, IMO, is doomed. Their currency is debt. The US isn't far behind on that path I'm afraid, butI think there's enough coal left in the fire to turn things around if only we could get Washington to stop spending like a freakin teen with a limit free credit card. I just don't see that in European Nations. I'm no expert though, I just lived there for a few years and had a discussions over a pint every now and then.

What other reforms would you advance if I project my previous scenario in which China or the European Union actually became clearly more dominant than the United States on any number of fronts, such as technology, military, ect.?

Keep in mind for instance the collective economic might of the EU is stronger than the United States. There are other categories in which the United States is challenged.

Science!

Tyras wrote:Don't get me started on NAFTA, what a boot to the junk that whole fiasco is.

So you want government control of trade? Shall we raise tariffs and whatnot?

I thought free trade was good. Let the market set prices I say!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyras wrote:No I would not, first (and this is not to slight Canada or Mexico) the US would not gain all that much influence by incorporating the other North American Nations.

Incorporating both means reaching nearly a half-billion people. That's a lot of influence.

Tyras wrote:
I am much more of an advocate for fixing the problems in our Country that have made the cost of living so expensive, thus driving up wages and making companies look elsewhere due to the cost of doing business in the US. It was The United States industrial might that made us what we are today, and now most of that has been outsourced to various parts of the world.

Do you want to work on an assembly line?

I'm not a Canadian, but afaik Canada just doesn't want the US?

Canada benefits from the existance of the U.S. because they know they can't be invaded. They enjoy all the benefits of our military with none of the cost, and then smugly make fun of our militarism and lack of health care.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
We just don't care though because they are just moose hunting, weed, and vancouver hookers and such frivolity to most United Statesians who bother to go there.

Guitardian wrote:Canada benefits from the existance of the U.S. because they know they can't be invaded. They enjoy all the benefits of our military with none of the cost, and then smugly make fun of our militarism and lack of health care.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
We just don't care though because they are just moose hunting, weed, and vancouver hookers and such frivolity to most United Statesians who bother to go there.

To be fair we are far more likely to make fun of the American preference for violence above sex. For religion above fun. And to be honest we wonder if the apparent nationwide celebration of military power isn't well, just compensating for, well you know, something (as stated earlier there really isn't more then one serious military threat to us and we just don't have the money to protect ourselves against the US)
Sale on for Vancouver hookers, buy one get two diseases for the price of one.

Guitardian wrote:Canada benefits from the existance of the U.S. because they know they can't be invaded. They enjoy all the benefits of our military with none of the cost, and then smugly make fun of our militarism and lack of health care.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
We just don't care though because they are just moose hunting, weed, and vancouver hookers and such frivolity to most United Statesians who bother to go there.

Yeah, I'd attribute Canada's safety from other nations to the United States... not like, y'know, geography or anything...

dogma wrote:

Tyras wrote:Don't get me started on NAFTA, what a boot to the junk that whole fiasco is.

So you want government control of trade? Shall we raise tariffs and whatnot?

I thought free trade was good. Let the market set prices I say!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyras wrote:No I would not, first (and this is not to slight Canada or Mexico) the US would not gain all that much influence by incorporating the other North American Nations.

Incorporating both means reaching nearly a half-billion people. That's a lot of influence.

Tyras wrote:
I am much more of an advocate for fixing the problems in our Country that have made the cost of living so expensive, thus driving up wages and making companies look elsewhere due to the cost of doing business in the US. It was The United States industrial might that made us what we are today, and now most of that has been outsourced to various parts of the world.

Do you want to work on an assembly line?

To answer in order here,

I don't have a problem with tariffs. Our goods and services are taxed in other countries. China with the manipulation of their currency and tariffs has become an economic powerhouse.

The influence from a nation's populace was present in history because it could be directly linked to a given nations ability to use that population as an army. That influence declined as the technology of war advanced. Take note of China and India. Only after they changed their policies on how they dealt with the world's economic powers did they start seeing success.

You seem to look down on factory workers. Why? I lived next to a Ford factory for a while and those people that I knew who worked in the factory were happy, and proud of the work they did there. If I can maintain my standard of living (nothing extravagant), take care of my Daughter and have some left over for the saving account and some time to enjoy life I'm working for, then it doesn't really matter what job I have. So, I wouldn't mind working the line if it allowed me to to achieve the above.

How would I fix the problems? I don't have an answer at the ready for that. I just see problems in the theories presented here, the economic practices of the EU and the US and the crisis of debt happening in Greece, Spain and the policies of the past few administrations here in the US. I am sure people with much more education in economics could answer those questions. I would like my government to act more like citizens as individuals are expected to act. I don't have credit cards. Save for my car payment I am debt free. My monthly budget pays for everything and leaves money left over to go into savings for those things I can't afford in a given month. Simplistic, yes, but it's my opinion that the government has grown so large and convoluted that it's become little more than an engine for failure.

The difference between the Government or a business and a private individual is that the government or a business can use borrowed money to invest in productive "things" such as infrastructure, machinery, health, education, and so on.

There is very little a private individual can buy which actually helps them produce more and generate more income. Solar panels are one example.

Therefore borrowing does not make sense for private people but it can do for the government or business.

Tyras wrote:
To answer in order here,

I don't have a problem with tariffs. Our goods and services are taxed in other countries. China with the manipulation of their currency and tariffs has become an economic powerhouse.

The influence from a nation's populace was present in history because it could be directly linked to a given nations ability to use that population as an army. That influence declined as the technology of war advanced. Take note of China and India. Only after they changed their policies on how they dealt with the world's economic powers did they start seeing success.

Large populations are necessarily significant consumers. Look at the US when compared to Europe. The US has a far larger population than any European nation; leading directly to a more grossly powerful economy when considered in the context of nominal growth. This in turn allows the US to spend more, again in a gross sense, on military development than any other nation; which leads to major technical advantages. I don't think the influence of population has declined, merely changed.

Also, I think you're ignoring the extent to which governing a large number of people is essentially a license to influence those people. China would be considered influential no matter how successful they happened to be in international politics, because it would influence a billion people regardless.

Of course, there's also the issue of population size as a defense against invasion. One of the reasons Iran is so daunting is its sheer human mass.

Tyras wrote:
You seem to look down on factory workers. Why? I lived next to a Ford factory for a while and those people that I knew who worked in the factory were happy, and proud of the work they did there. If I can maintain my standard of living (nothing extravagant), take care of my Daughter and have some left over for the saving account and some time to enjoy life I'm working for, then it doesn't really matter what job I have. So, I wouldn't mind working the line if it allowed me to to achieve the above.

I don't look down on factory workers. The point I was trying to make is that the policies you advocate are those that, to my mind, most directly hinder our ability to produce industrial jobs by which individuals can support themselves. Tariffs drive up prices for everyone, and the people most hurt by that are those at the bottom of the earnings pyramid.

Its unfortunate that certain industries are dieing in the US, but the notion that we don't produce anything is false. We produce more goods for export than all but 2 nations (China and Germany).

Here's a lesson in economics: a bushell of carrots is worth a bushell of carrots no matter what country it comes from. Theoretically that cost could add the costs of transporting said bushell of carrots, at the cost of the actual shipping, and paying for the livelihood of the people who go to the time and trouble to make you able to buy one. Trade regulation just makes one countries carrots more valuable than the next.

Drugs are a commodity from Mexico and Canada because they are easily grown there because their governments just don't care that much. Yay... lets annex then for their drugs, since the carrots just aren't worth it.

Canada and the US are littermates, one just happens to be bigger (geographically). I think the US wouldn't really benefit from having Canada be in an economic pact like the EU.

Canada is a nice country, but it will always be an also ran to the US, not from lack of effort or incompetnence, I just don't see how they could squeeze any more blood from their economic stone. Mexico is a cluster feth of European empire meddling (Spain and France) and a lack of any kind of real goverment since the 1880's. It's all about who has the most politicians paid off, hired guns or Drugs. Not about the power of the people. They have a great amount of natural resources, but graft and instability keep Mexico from ascending anywhere.

The US is slowly dying from polices that have bled it dry since Teddy Roosevelt. (I could go into more detail but that is an entire thread for another time.) I really think the US is on a precipice, it could be restored with some semblance of economic sanity (and some serious governmental overhauls), or it could implode from runaway deficit spending. Most of what has been put into place by progressives over the last 110 years has doomed this country.

The Jobs report in may was a hollow one at best. Great, 331,000 temporary jobs that will last until August or September, then what? More people that need a job. The trickle of Private sector Jobs being created is at best a natural attrition rate (people retiring or getting fired), and is occuring in spite of anything the congress did. That "stimulus" is now a legal slush fund, not really aimed at anything specific and not accomplishing anything either. It's just a pile of money to throw at "problems", being thrown by people who think $100 million is a drop in the bucket.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Henners91 wrote:I'm not a Canadian, but afaik Canada just doesn't want the US?

Do you like drawing ire or is it just natural to you?

Henners91 wrote:I'm not a Canadian, but afaik Canada just doesn't want the US?

Lol. true.. We are happy enough without guns in every house .

Stormrider wrote:Canada and the US are littermates, one just happens to be bigger (geographically). I think the US wouldn't really benefit from having Canada be in an economic pact like the EU.

NAFTA

Stormrider wrote:Mexico is a cluster feth of European empire meddling (Spain and France) and a lack of any kind of real goverment since the 1880's.

Remember the Alamo.

The Mexican-American War.

Stormrider wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Henners91 wrote:I'm not a Canadian, but afaik Canada just doesn't want the US?

Do you like drawing ire or is it just natural to you?

No he's just stating fact the same way you were.

Truth be told, most Canadians don't want the US. We don't want any sort of 'political union' that might require both nations to join together. There're a lot of different reasons for this, but the feeling itself is pretty mutual across the country.

Simply, No. I don't want mayo on my damn fries. Gross.

Pipboy101 wrote:Simply, No. I don't want mayo on my damn fries. Gross.

What the hell? Mayo on fries? I'm Canadian and I've never heard of this. It even sounds gross to me.

Unless you're thinking of Poutine, which isn't mayo, but rather mozarella cheese and gravy. Though your crap factory will still hate you for eating it.

You can wash it down with some bag-milk.

How is mayo and fries not delectable?! Belgian delicacy. Bag-milk we have over here, you can keep that.

sA

I kind of like mayo on fries for a change... but gravy on fries is even better, or steak sauce, or cheese fries, or curly fries.... America wins on the fries I think. They aren't 'french' anyway, they're from like, Idaho or somewhere like that. Damn french even trying to steal our fries! FREEEEDOM!

WHERE THE HELL DOES THE BAG MILK THING COME FROM!?

Seriously. I'm born, raised, and proudly Canadian, but I have -never once- seen milk in a bag. Powdered milk, yea, but that rubbish is in every grocer no matter what country you're from. Someone link me a picture of bagged milk so I can finally know what we're talking about

And Guitardian, 'french fries' refers to how they're cut - a technique called 'frenching'. Hence why you don't capitalize the 'f' in 'french'. Now then, where's one of those 'More You Know' stars...

Ding!

Supposedly, French fries were discovered when US troops entered Belgium in 1944.

Since the locals spoke French, the US troops assumed they were French, and called the new form of fried potatoes French fries.

That's one -assumed- story KK. Thing is, there were also places in the States that claimed to invent them prior to -and- after the end of WWI as well as post WWII. England and France have both claimed to have invented the french fry as well. Personally, I stick to the story of them being named such as that's the technique used to cut the potato when making fries from scratch due to the fact that the word 'french' in 'french fries' is (according to grammar nazis) not supposed to have a capital "f".

Bathroom Readers sure are full of useful facts

Well, the first chip-shop opened in the north of England in 1863...

Exactly. No one knows exactly what the origin of the french fry is. Hence why they're regarded as one of the world's 'mystery foods'. That' right. They have mystery. That alone makes them one of the coolest foods ever.

Are we talking about chips -- the fat British version of chipped potatoes -- or French fries, the very thin, crisp chips?

If it's chips, it is well known they were invented in WIltshire where they have the Devizes for Chippenham.

French fries are similar to traditional game chips eaten with partridge, etc.

Kilkrazy wrote:Are we talking about chips -- the fat British version of chipped potatoes -- or French fries, the very thin, crisp chips?

If it's chips, it is well known they were invented in WIltshire where they have the Devizes for Chippenham.

French fries are similar to traditional game chips eaten with partridge, etc.

I read that the first place to comercially sell them was a small shop in Oldham. Not sure when fries were first sold. That's how I'm measuring it - it seems easier than just trying to find out when people started making them at home, for obvious reasons. It's like trying to discover the first person to have a glass of water!


At least, it is to me. Chips are important. They are brain-food.

I thought it was burgers Canadians put mayo on... or did Bruce Willis lie to me?

Chips is a food which follows logically from previous culinary art.

Natto and cheese however are definitely foods which must have been discovered in circumstances of dire famine.

I can't imagine the discovery of cheese anything other than like this.

Pastoralist 1: I'm so hungry, I think I am going to faint.

Pastoralist 2: There's one jar of milk I have been saving but it could have gone off by now.

P1: Give it here.

SF: Pop.

P1: Eww! It's off. It's gone completely solid. Still, needs must when the devil drives, eh?

P2: Don't eat that, it's disgusting! You will be killed.

P1: I don't care, I would rather die quickly of poison than slowly of hunger.

SFX: Munch, munch, munch.

P1: This stuff is all right, actually! Give the port a fair breeze, there's a good chap.

The discovery of natto must have been the same, only in Japanese.

I think the Greeks invented cheese probably, all those mountains, all those goats, no farmland. Mmmmm feta...

The glass of water is most likely an Arabian invention, because they didn't allow beer like all the Euro countries.

Chips are, as far as I know of, any part of a potato that is chopped up and fried in grease. I would guess that would make them come from Greece too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm not sure if this is relevant... but it is funny:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_TfBbR6L0M&feature=related