A Person's Liberal Background
- Thread starter demsformd
- Start date
I am not aware that the no fly zones are authorized. By whom? My understanding is that the UN resolutions allow no Iraqi miltary activity in ceratin areas, largely the same as the no fly zones. But they do NOT authorize the US and some friends to control those areas.
H
Heretic
Guest
Originally posted by Oz
You grew up in the city, huh?
Na we just didnt think it would be THAT bad.
Pete
Repete
Re: Re: A Person's Liberal Background
I agree Oz. Dems would be a good conservative, he just doesn't realize it.
The principle here that separates liberals and conservatives is actually quite small. I see that we all agree that there is a potential for anyone to need assistance at one time or another. Be it in the form of low interest college loans, drought relief, FEMA, or even welfare. Only a monster would deny a person a helping hand when in need. Conservatives are not the unfeeling monsters we are made out to be. The difference is this; a conservative admires a person who accepts the aide, uses it as a stop gap and re-emerges as a productive member of society. I abhor the ones that consider assistance as their primary source of income, manipulating the system abusing it and thumbing their noses at the spirit and intent of the aide and those who provide it. Liberals, see the same thing and shrug their shoulders, and claim that these people are exceptions to the rule or make excuses for them. I grew up in Georgia and saw it for years. There are countless instances of unmarried mothers with numerous children on welfare for life, as primary income with no ambition to get off the public roles. They claim on the birth certificates the father is unknown, so that he will not be pursued for child support to offset the welfare. Why would they do this? Because they live together and enjoy the added benefit provided by us!! I applaud welfare reform, and believe if you are going to increase government jobs; it should be in the area of fraud investigators to cut these people off
I agree Oz. Dems would be a good conservative, he just doesn't realize it.
The principle here that separates liberals and conservatives is actually quite small. I see that we all agree that there is a potential for anyone to need assistance at one time or another. Be it in the form of low interest college loans, drought relief, FEMA, or even welfare. Only a monster would deny a person a helping hand when in need. Conservatives are not the unfeeling monsters we are made out to be. The difference is this; a conservative admires a person who accepts the aide, uses it as a stop gap and re-emerges as a productive member of society. I abhor the ones that consider assistance as their primary source of income, manipulating the system abusing it and thumbing their noses at the spirit and intent of the aide and those who provide it. Liberals, see the same thing and shrug their shoulders, and claim that these people are exceptions to the rule or make excuses for them. I grew up in Georgia and saw it for years. There are countless instances of unmarried mothers with numerous children on welfare for life, as primary income with no ambition to get off the public roles. They claim on the birth certificates the father is unknown, so that he will not be pursued for child support to offset the welfare. Why would they do this? Because they live together and enjoy the added benefit provided by us!! I applaud welfare reform, and believe if you are going to increase government jobs; it should be in the area of fraud investigators to cut these people off
This was the last year for tobacco...it is quite sad to see the end of that tradition but I am ultimately pleased to know that smoking may be halted somewhat...
He is doing better than ever due to some other financial decisons that I helped him make as an adviser. With the buyout, my brother is supposed to receive funds for ten years. During that time he is going to use the money to buy more acres from an adjacent farm and plant more corn because in order to make the same profit for that crop as he did for tobacco, more acreage is needed.
I find it stunning that you people are even having a debate with someone who's lied about his ethnicity and had to have Steve tell him the correct spelling of the college he supposedly graduated from.
UFB
UFB
The authority is contained in UN Resolution 678 which has the following relevant phrases.
Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter,
1. Demands that Iraq comply fully with Resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent resolutions, and decides, while maintaining all its decisions, to allow one final opportunity, as a pause of good will, to do so;
2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;
3. Requests all States to provide appropriate support for the actions undertaken in pursuance of paragraph 2 above;
Since Iraq has not come into full compliance with the many resolutions the authority has been granted, even though many throughout the world have lost the resolve to carry out their obligation as Member States. Again, the ball has been in the Iraqi court and Hussein has made the choice to hold it instead of making progress towards a peaceful conclusion.
Bluto, stop! He's not going to answer you. #1, I doubt he's a lawyer in any fashion. #2, I doubt he grew up on a tobacco farm. #3, he obviously didn't go to Berkeley because he couldn't even spell it.
Hey, Dems - what color are you today?
Hey, Dems - what color are you today?
K
Kain99
Guest
Silently watching.....
You didn't come right out and say, "I'm black" though, did you?
I don't get a mental picture of forum people - they could be any color, any gender, any anything to me. Unless, of course, they come right out and say, "I'm THIS!" and use it as a basis for argument. It's really no different than those stalkers who go online pretending to be something they're not - they're trying to deceive people and cause harm.
Oz
You're all F'in Mad...
A couple of questions further about the buyout.
Corn is less labor intensive, since it doesn't have to be cut, speared and hung. So are his savings from the alternative crop realized from lower labor costs, or is there something else that helps him to higher profitability? Is 10 years of subsidy enough time and support to fully replace that income? What other crops is he planting, since I presume you can't continue to plant corn year after year on the same land without turning a different crop from time to time. How about renting farmland to increase acreage?
My concern is obviously that the subsidy creates a dependency on government funds, and when the tobacco money runs out, we're back to having poor farmers everywhere who need more help. Sounds like you're giving good advice and he has the work ethic you mentioned, but what about the rest of the farmers?
Pete
Repete
Mixed emotions about buy outs
I have mixed emotions about buy outs. As I said earlier, I grew up in rural Georgia. My Grandfather, my father and all my uncles all farmed, some dairies, some cash crops. The first buy outs came with regard to the cash crops, soybeans, grains and corn. The farmers were paid a stipend per acre not to plant anything. Some planted rye as a cover to prevent erosion and were told that planting anything that could be harvested, whether harvest was indended or not was a violation of the buyout agreement, so they plowed it under to avoid penalties. Within 2 years, the green fertile counrtyside was laid to waste, becoming overgrown with weeds. The equipment market was flooded with used equipment that sold for pennies on the dollar, barns and outbuidings soon fell into ruin, it was devastating to see. Men who had farmed hundreds and even thousands of acres, and were held in high esteem were now working in hardware stores and driving trucks to supliment the meager incomes derived from the buyouts, to make payments on land they could only let sit empty.
Next came the dairy buyouts. Dairymen were paid not to produce milk. Entire heards of groomed, registered herds were loaded into the trucks and hauled of to the meat plants to become a #6 extra value meal on the McDonalds menu. Again, the dairy barns, grain bins and silo's soon fell into ruin. Now when I go home it is painful to drive through countryside and see fields and farms that were once green and tidy, rusted, falling down heaps. An entire generation of rural Americans were displaced. Was it worth it?
Practices such as buyouts do alot to stabilize prices, to prevent the total collapse of an industry, but at what price? Of course these people took the governments money of their free will. No one forced them to take the checks. They could have weathered on, with ever dropping prices without price support, or the ever looming possibility of a drought without drought relief, so they made the hard choice and moved on. I believe it is one of the sadest chapters of my life having to see the collapse of so many peoples livelyhoods.
But progress must move on, all of those people labored on and some are re-entering the farming industry now that the buyout period has ended. Others have found different uses for the land and are producing catfish, switching over from agriculture to aquaculture, now to see another threat from foreign fish producers, which will likely cause the same result as before.
I have no problem with subsidies for these hardworking people. They became their own worst enemies, they were too productive and worked too hard. When faced with the bleak reality, they made the hard decision, changed livelyhoods and became productive in another endevour. As I said before, I have no problem with these people getting assistance, but I do have a problem with people getting assitance who were never productive in the first place and have no plan to become productive.
I have mixed emotions about buy outs. As I said earlier, I grew up in rural Georgia. My Grandfather, my father and all my uncles all farmed, some dairies, some cash crops. The first buy outs came with regard to the cash crops, soybeans, grains and corn. The farmers were paid a stipend per acre not to plant anything. Some planted rye as a cover to prevent erosion and were told that planting anything that could be harvested, whether harvest was indended or not was a violation of the buyout agreement, so they plowed it under to avoid penalties. Within 2 years, the green fertile counrtyside was laid to waste, becoming overgrown with weeds. The equipment market was flooded with used equipment that sold for pennies on the dollar, barns and outbuidings soon fell into ruin, it was devastating to see. Men who had farmed hundreds and even thousands of acres, and were held in high esteem were now working in hardware stores and driving trucks to supliment the meager incomes derived from the buyouts, to make payments on land they could only let sit empty.
Next came the dairy buyouts. Dairymen were paid not to produce milk. Entire heards of groomed, registered herds were loaded into the trucks and hauled of to the meat plants to become a #6 extra value meal on the McDonalds menu. Again, the dairy barns, grain bins and silo's soon fell into ruin. Now when I go home it is painful to drive through countryside and see fields and farms that were once green and tidy, rusted, falling down heaps. An entire generation of rural Americans were displaced. Was it worth it?
Practices such as buyouts do alot to stabilize prices, to prevent the total collapse of an industry, but at what price? Of course these people took the governments money of their free will. No one forced them to take the checks. They could have weathered on, with ever dropping prices without price support, or the ever looming possibility of a drought without drought relief, so they made the hard choice and moved on. I believe it is one of the sadest chapters of my life having to see the collapse of so many peoples livelyhoods.
But progress must move on, all of those people labored on and some are re-entering the farming industry now that the buyout period has ended. Others have found different uses for the land and are producing catfish, switching over from agriculture to aquaculture, now to see another threat from foreign fish producers, which will likely cause the same result as before.
I have no problem with subsidies for these hardworking people. They became their own worst enemies, they were too productive and worked too hard. When faced with the bleak reality, they made the hard decision, changed livelyhoods and became productive in another endevour. As I said before, I have no problem with these people getting assistance, but I do have a problem with people getting assitance who were never productive in the first place and have no plan to become productive.
Well, this has been very interesting looking into this.
Resolutions 660 and 678 were the resolutions authorizing the liberation of Kuwait back in 1990. Following that operation, there was a ceasefire agreement and resolution 688. And since then there have been many other resolutions specifically dealing with Iraq, up to 1441 this past November. I can't find any reference to the US or anyone else citing 660 or 678 as justification for the US setting up no fly zones.
The best I can tell, the US is claiming authority under resolution 688, although only the US and Britain seem to agree to this. Other members of the security council have condemned the imposition of the no-fly zones.
There appears to be quite a bit of controversy surrounding their existence and enforcement. Now I know better why the US was pushing for a clearer UN position, but #1441, which was based on a US supplied draft this past November, also does not authorize member states to enforce or even maintain them.
Some of the stuff I've read say that the issue comes down to "intent". Does the UN "intend" for 688 (and I supose 660 and 678 for that matter) to remain in effect indefinitely, even though the original purpose has long since passed, and other resolutions have been passed which obviously seem to supersede them?
So again we've come down to a technical legal question which people more expert than us (or at least me, anyway) are struggling with. The fact that the UN hasn't specifically opposed the no fly zones is interesting. As well as the fact that we have tolerated Iraq's resistance to them for several years now. My observation is that there is a gray area here- the UN won't resist as long as we don't escalate further. But of course Bush IS trying to escalate and bring this to a head. Next week should be very interesting.
Tim Mcneil
New Member
Defense of a Friend
Now unlike the people here, I know Rick and he is almost like a father figure for me. While his family lived in Montgomery County where I grew up, I was best friends with his oldest son. My dad left me and my mom when I was 8 so Rick became my dad pretty much. He is white and I accept his explanation that a black associate of his posted under demsformd. He is a corporate lawyer and graduate of Berkeley...I clerked for his firm when I was in college with his son, who was my roommate. I don't care if he misspelled the college's name after all look at my name. I wrote Tim Mcneil and forgot to capitalize the n. This happens all the time and well Rick is an awful typer. When I clerked for him, I always had to correct his neglectful mistakes. I don't know how the hell he got through Berkeley and Georgetown with all those mistakes (but his wife insists that she typed all his papers after he wrote them because he was so dreadful at typing). Rick is a great man and he is one that has outstanding credibility.
Now unlike the people here, I know Rick and he is almost like a father figure for me. While his family lived in Montgomery County where I grew up, I was best friends with his oldest son. My dad left me and my mom when I was 8 so Rick became my dad pretty much. He is white and I accept his explanation that a black associate of his posted under demsformd. He is a corporate lawyer and graduate of Berkeley...I clerked for his firm when I was in college with his son, who was my roommate. I don't care if he misspelled the college's name after all look at my name. I wrote Tim Mcneil and forgot to capitalize the n. This happens all the time and well Rick is an awful typer. When I clerked for him, I always had to correct his neglectful mistakes. I don't know how the hell he got through Berkeley and Georgetown with all those mistakes (but his wife insists that she typed all his papers after he wrote them because he was so dreadful at typing). Rick is a great man and he is one that has outstanding credibility.
My brother has said that he is going to plant more soy beans and also experiment with olives yet again. He did it once before but it didn't work then and it won't now but he insists that he should do it. Corn has a much lower cost yet ultimately less profit; that is why he is going to buy more acreage and plant more corn to increase his output and hopefully his profit. You are right when you say that continue planting corn on the same field will hurt productivity. In the past one year we would plant corn and the year afterwards soy. But I don't think that he still does that.
The buy-out provides my brother with $1 a pound of tobacco that would have been produced. This is the same amount of profit that farmers typically make off of tobacco per pound. So, the farmers get paid just as equally as they would had they harvested the tobacco. On top of this they also make profit from whatever alternative crop they grow. But of course the alternative crop will not provide nearly the same profit as tobacco. And tobacco was only planted on twenty acres of the farm. Twenty acres of tobacco produces the same profit as roughly one hundred acres of corn and 75 of soy. Thus, you see the reasons for buying more land to make up for the profit loss.
You know the more and more that I think about it, I doubt that other farmers know what to do here. My brother often comments that they have no ideas to make up for the profit loss that will occur down the road. But my brother is smart and he knows that in ten years the money will be gone and the buy-out presents him with a unique opportunity to expand. So, it helps him but I am not sure about the others.