Thats a vague Statement.

Were also nothing in industry anymore. Even the cars that are made here are owned by Japanese and European firms for the most.

You know what I meant, as well. Your little William Buckley Debating techniques are coming apart.

Let's see what little remark you use next to change the subject.

__________________
"It is the Right of the People to alter or abolish the Government"
Declaration of Independence
"Never trouble another for what you can do for yourself."
Thomas Jefferson
"If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand."
Milton Friedman

What's a vague statement?

What difference does it make who owns the company in a global economy?

I don't know what you are refering to RE: William Buckley tactic. Try to be more precise.

How have I changed the subject?

Do you disagree that the US' is the largest economy on the planet?

Tokie

Its only the largest economy on the planet when Democrats are in office. Otherwise somehow it becomes something less than it was. After all if a 4.5 unemployment rate can be called the greatest economic success under Clinton and a 4.6 unemployment rate the reatest economic failure under Bush then changing our relative position should be a simply matter no?

__________________
Its better to have fussed and crabbed then never to have fussed at all - Lucy

Your changing the subject from current Economic Issues to that of the 1980s, than on to this about the size of our Economy...

William Buckley is a master of this. Covert little word plays to change the subject.

__________________
"It is the Right of the People to alter or abolish the Government"
Declaration of Independence
"Never trouble another for what you can do for yourself."
Thomas Jefferson
"If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand."
Milton Friedman

Yeah...funny, that.

I remember when Bush the Oncest was in office and the "homeless" problem was rampant...headlines just ahead of the election were claiming 40-50 million people were "homeless."

The day after the coronation of Bill the 1st, the number dropped to zero.

Tokie

Indicating your...unfamiliarity with modern debating approaches: an analogy (when apt--comparing economy today with the economy of 1980, or 1730, or 200...whatever...is apt) is perfectly fine in rational discourse.

What's not fine is shrieking that we can ONLY compare it to 1785. Or 1971. Or whatever. We have, today, a large industrial/post-industrial economy (and country) and the economy cannot be EASILY compared to the ones you like to compare it to, pre-1930s. Or even to the one in 1971, which is more comparable, but still...a different time when our economy was based, largely in different things.

Because you cannot deal with these lareger issues, you shriek that I am "changing the subject!!!" I'm not, I'm asking questions that are designed to pin you down, to provide details about what it is you believe or even what you know.

The tactic here is simply this: I've figured out that you really don't very well understand this stuff (believe me, almost no one does...it's very complex--I certainly don't), and you don't even understand very well your shrieking insistence on a return to a gold or silver standard. You are able to parrot and even plagerize others' words here, and make them appear to be your own, but you are for some reason not able to produce anything (your own or something you lift from the Patriot website) that makes SENSE in TODAY's economy.

Sure, some of what you believe would work fine IF we can first turn the calendar back a few decades to a couple hunnert years.

I asked for a pretty simple explanation: how would you shift to this gold/silver-backed economic structure without casting the entire world into economic chaos?

You can't answer that BECAUSE you don't understand, even at a surface level, economics and the economic structure of nations (modern).

So, rather than answer, and demonstrate your ignorance (nothing wrong with ignorance, so long as you are not pretending you are NOT ignorant in the way you are), which you know you will by providing any answer, either someone else's (which I may have questions about) or your own (in which, since your understanding is so...void, will virtually howl your ignorance) you divert it by claimng that I am engaging in some Buckley-esque tactic.

Buckley, by the way, was an expert debator.

Thank you for comparing me to him....I will say that once upon a time, I strove to be like him in debate. Today, I don't bother.

I don't need to work that hard.

Tokie

In 2009, Democrats will rule the earth for a few years. Thank God, and Amen.

Bush has had his last SOTU, another thank God and Amen.

Can't leave any one party in power too long or things will get screwed up, but they will really get screwed up bad, when the chief decider is one cowboy named George. History will record it.

Favorite quote "it took a Clinton to clean up after bush 1, and it will take another Clinton to clean up after bush 2".

Go Obama!

Here is a quote of my own, "Bush was an abomination, now it is time for an Obamanation".

Good riddance cowboy.

The odd thing is....Bush Sr. was just about one of the best presidents the United States ever had; comparable to George Washington and Lincoln.

Bush Sr. was able to keep the US economy from entering a depression during the chaos of post-Cold War readjustment; he was able to set the stage for the technological boom to follow, as well...he was able to create a massive Coalition that the entire world thought IMPOSSIBLE....

Clinton didn't accomplish anything, in fact he lost prior-Bush policies.

Clinton lost Somalia (which Bush excelled at).

Clinton lost Iraq (which Bush excelled at).

Clinton lost NATO...lost the technological boom...lost Energy Policy...lost the Oil crisis....god damn he just lost about everything.

The only thing Clinton did was create a budget surplus by firing government workers and reducing the US Army by 2 (TWO) divisions....

Fucking ass bag.