A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 12-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

If you twits would quit letting terrorists in, we might not have to.

None of the Sept 11 terrorists came from Canada. The claim that
Canada lets in terrorists is absurd.

Hardly. It's one of our major concerns. Your lefty-liberal "open border" and
"political refugee" policies are very scary, and it's been proven several
times that terrorists and other criminals have entered North America via
Canada. The 9-11 terrorists are hardly the only concerns here.


We may not have utterly unguarded borders with Canada or
Mexico, but not only CAN you travel freely from state to state in the US,
you have an absolute constitutional right to do so, regardless of what any
particular state may say.

You don't seem to know the difference between countries and states. Bizarre.

Well, let's see...the "countries" in the EU are now pretty much "states"
like those in the US, aren't they? You do know that an alternative term for
an independent nation is "state," don't you? Where do you think the EU got
the idea? From us.


Which is fine, except that socialized medicine has been proven to be a death
sentence for the seriously ill because underpaid, overworked doctors have no
reason to extend themselves and because health care is free, people with
minor complaints feel free to clog the system with petty complaints.

Total bull****, seen from my position as a person living in a country with
government provided health care.

Uh huh. Do you have heart disease? Diabetes? Cancer?



fund public transit.

So do we.

What Americans call public transit is a joke in the rest of the world.

It's a big country, and we like cars. Big deal.


When you give subsidies to companies to help them succeed, excel and become
larger, the immediate return is more jobs that the poor can take, thus
becoming productive and self-sufficient members of society rather than
leeches.

But the inevitable outcome is actually a transfer of wealth from the poor
to the rich.

True. So what? If the poor want to buy consumer products, why shouldn't the
producer of those products make a profit? That's why he produces the
products.


Corporate subsidies prop up ineffective and obsolete companies.

Sometimes. It's true that the programs have to be carefully assessed and
monitored, but the occasional abuse of the programs doesn't impeach the
overall benefits.

US steel
companies are a perfect example. They saw the competition as the offshore
companies and got government support.

Steel is a strategic resource. It's what caused Japan to go to war with us.

Instead of modernizing and competing,
the share holders got rich from the subsidies and the companies wallowed in
inefficiency.

Yup, many old-school steel mills did just that, then went out of business.
Some steel producers, however, adopted the efficiencies of automated
steel-making and excelled, becoming great companies.


Now it turns out that those American steel companies that
were not subsidized are the real threat to the subsidized ones.

Indeed. Capitalistic innovation triumphs.

BUt the
old companies still can't compete because they are more obsolete than
ever. Full analysis in The Economist (www.economist.com) 'coupla years ago.

Very true. And many of the old-line steel companies no longer exist because
the subsidies were not enough to compensate for the technical innovation of
companies like Nucor.

Still, the fact that subsidies could not overcome the burden of inefficient
technology (and bad management-- read "Good to Great by Jim Collins" for a
discussion of the steel mill issue.) does not mean that protectionist
subsidies are not necessary or useful. Fortunately, Nucor decided that by
adopting Japanese steel-mill technology, and then improving it (they
pioneered continuous thin slab casting) they could undercut imports because
of the costs of transportation.

What government should be doing is paying subsidies to US steel companies
for the purposes of upgrading their technology to the current Nucor model.
Once accomplished, the companies would be extremely competitive and the
subsidies could be eliminated, while building a necessary strategic resource
capacity.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

weiser says:
===========
It's true that the programs have to be carefully assessed and
monitored, but the occasional abuse of the programs doesn't impeach the
overall benefits.
============

i'd say that pretty-much sums up welfare of all sorts. the occasional
"welfare queen" hardly negates the value of giving the underpriviliged
temporary assistance.

frtzw906

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

weiser says:
===========
It's true that the programs have to be carefully assessed and
monitored, but the occasional abuse of the programs doesn't impeach the
overall benefits.
============

i'd say that pretty-much sums up welfare of all sorts. the occasional
"welfare queen" hardly negates the value of giving the underpriviliged
temporary assistance.

As long as its temporary. Problem is that traditional welfare programs, not
just in the US, but everywhere, become permanent "entitlement" programs
instead. Therein lies the problem
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

Weiser says:
==============
As long as its temporary. Problem is that traditional welfare programs,
not
just in the US, but everywhere, become permanent "entitlement" programs
instead. Therein lies the problem
================

I knew we'd agree on something. I further contend that, like individual
humans, corporations also generally behave as they are rewarded. Thus
the agri-businesses growing oranges in the desert, using cheap water,
will never "get off their fat asses" to figure out how things might be
done more efficiently.

We apparently agree. Isn't that nice?

frtzw906

On 15-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Your lefty-liberal "open border" and
"political refugee" policies are very scary, and it's been proven several
times that terrorists and other criminals have entered North America via
Canada. The 9-11 terrorists are hardly the only concerns here

The fact that Canada accepts more refugees than the US (but then, most
countries are more open to help others than the US) has nothing to
do with terrorism.

If anyone gets into the US from Canada, the problem is at _your_ border.
We do not check on who leaves our country - people are free to move
around here. If you are paranoid and want to keep people out, then fix
your own damned border.

The vast majority of illegal immigrants enter the US via the Mexican
border. Why would terrorists enter via Canada if the Mexican border
is so porous?

Corporate subsidies prop up ineffective and obsolete companies.

Sometimes. It's true that the programs have to be carefully assessed and
monitored, but the occasional abuse of the programs doesn't impeach the
overall benefits.

If you actually study the effects of government subsidies, you'll find that
_most_ of them prop up inefficient companies. Companies that are completely
viable can be dealt with by loan guarantees (like Chrysler 25 years ago),
not corporate welfare.


Steel [...] It's what caused Japan to go to war with us.

Read your history books, Japan went to war over oil. The US
embargoed it and threatened to intervene if Japan tried anything
in the Pacific. Japan tried to secure oil in Indonesia and took
out Pearl Harbor and the bases in the Philippines to prevent
the Yanks from interfering.

What government should be doing is paying subsidies to US steel companies
for the purposes of upgrading their technology to the current Nucor model.

What they should be doing is underwriting loans to these companies and not
seeing taxpayer's money disappear. If the loans are too risky, the companies
should be allowed to die.

All you're doing is using doublespeak to try to avoid calling subsidies
what they are - corporate welfare.

Mike

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 15-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Your lefty-liberal "open border" and
"political refugee" policies are very scary, and it's been proven several
times that terrorists and other criminals have entered North America via
Canada. The 9-11 terrorists are hardly the only concerns here

The fact that Canada accepts more refugees than the US (but then, most
countries are more open to help others than the US) has nothing to
do with terrorism.

Unfortunately, you are mistaken.


If anyone gets into the US from Canada, the problem is at _your_ border.

Indeed. Which is why we ought not have an open border with Canada...because
you are careless about who you let in up there.

We do not check on who leaves our country - people are free to move
around here. If you are paranoid and want to keep people out, then fix
your own damned border.

That's precisely what I'm proposing.


The vast majority of illegal immigrants enter the US via the Mexican
border. Why would terrorists enter via Canada if the Mexican border
is so porous?

Because it's easier, physically. One can get to Toronto without any
scrutiny, and then it's a short car trip across the border to the US, rather
than having to walk a long way through the desert. Plus, a terrorist can
import weapons much more easily from Canada, once again because they don't
have to hump the Sarin precursors across the desert.


Corporate subsidies prop up ineffective and obsolete companies.

Sometimes. It's true that the programs have to be carefully assessed and
monitored, but the occasional abuse of the programs doesn't impeach the
overall benefits.

If you actually study the effects of government subsidies, you'll find that
_most_ of them prop up inefficient companies. Companies that are completely
viable can be dealt with by loan guarantees (like Chrysler 25 years ago),
not corporate welfare.

I dispute this assertion. While I agree that some companies are inefficient
to the point that subsidies ought to be withdrawn, the majority are not.



Steel [...] It's what caused Japan to go to war with us.

Read your history books, Japan went to war over oil.

You'd best reread yours. Japan went to war over steel. We embargoed the
export of steel to Japan and that's what triggered their aggression. We were
not exporting much oil to Japan prior to WWII.

The US
embargoed it and threatened to intervene if Japan tried anything
in the Pacific. Japan tried to secure oil in Indonesia and took
out Pearl Harbor and the bases in the Philippines to prevent
the Yanks from interfering.

Nope.


--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

On 16-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

The fact that Canada accepts more refugees than the US (but then, most
countries are more open to help others than the US) has nothing to
do with terrorism.

Unfortunately, you are mistaken.

Proof? Refugees come from around the world. Terrorists tend to
be well funded and arrive carrying briefcases.

One can get to Toronto without any scrutiny,

You've never arrived in Toronto from anywhere, right? There
is such a thing as customs and immigration. Canada's border
is _not_ open.

and then it's a short car trip across the border to the US

Which only proves that the US can't control its borders.
Don't blame anyone for your problems. The 9/11 terrorists
arrived in the US thru US ports of entry, not thru Canada.

Mike

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 16-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

The fact that Canada accepts more refugees than the US (but then, most
countries are more open to help others than the US) has nothing to
do with terrorism.

Unfortunately, you are mistaken.

Proof? Refugees come from around the world. Terrorists tend to
be well funded and arrive carrying briefcases.

No, they come looking like refugees, and acting like refugees, so that they
can move about freely and without scrutiny.


One can get to Toronto without any scrutiny,

You've never arrived in Toronto from anywhere, right? There
is such a thing as customs and immigration. Canada's border
is _not_ open.

It's more open that it ought to be.


and then it's a short car trip across the border to the US

Which only proves that the US can't control its borders.

Well, "will not" is more accurate. We can, we just choose not to. You
wouldn't like it at all if we chose to. Neither would Mexico. That, however,
is precisely what I (along with many others) are suggesting we need to do.
You won't like it if we do.

Don't blame anyone for your problems.

I'm not blaming anyone, I'm merely suggesting that if Canada doesn't do its
part to prevent infiltration by terrorists, the US may have no choice but to
close the border, which will wreck your economy.

The 9/11 terrorists
arrived in the US thru US ports of entry, not thru Canada.

And yet other terrorists arrive through Canada. Case in point: the terrorist
with a vehicle full of explosives caught entering the US from Vancouver at
Port Angeles just prior to the Millennium celebration who planned to blow up
the Space Needle in Seattle. He was caught by an alert Border Patrol agent.
Others have certainly slipped in from Canada as well.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

I always loved coming into the states - especially through Miami Florida
just after Bush stole his first presidency.

You, a non American, are asked to fill in several forms with boxes to
fill. I always feel like asking if they want a tick cross or Chad and
who is going to count these and anyway they are a good reflection of the
intelligence of the CIA terrorism controls and other forms of attempted
control. Among the questions you are asked are
1 Are you a member of a terrorist organisation?
2 Are you addicted to Narcotics
3 Were you a member of the Nazi party between xxxx and xxxx.
The rest are just as inane.
Apparently the reason for asking you these questions is so that they can
do you for lying if you are caught!

It is no wonder the phrase dumb America has arisen!

Surely the answer to all this is to look at the cause of the terrorism
and attempt to answer the questions raised.

Palestine has for too long been ignored and it was not till many years
of terrorism that the rest of the world started looking at the plight of
the refugees in Gaza and the other OCCUPIED by Israel territories. Al
Quaeda has its own agenda and maybe looking at the reason why they have
picked on the west in general and the USA in particular would help solve
the threat for better than trying to impose Western ideals on reluctant
people. I would argue that this has created more terrorism than it has
prevented.


In message , Scott Weiser
writes
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 16-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

The fact that Canada accepts more refugees than the US (but then, most
countries are more open to help others than the US) has nothing to
do with terrorism.

Unfortunately, you are mistaken.

Proof? Refugees come from around the world. Terrorists tend to
be well funded and arrive carrying briefcases.

No, they come looking like refugees, and acting like refugees, so that they
can move about freely and without scrutiny.


One can get to Toronto without any scrutiny,

You've never arrived in Toronto from anywhere, right? There
is such a thing as customs and immigration. Canada's border
is _not_ open.

It's more open that it ought to be.


and then it's a short car trip across the border to the US

Which only proves that the US can't control its borders.

Well, "will not" is more accurate. We can, we just choose not to. You
wouldn't like it at all if we chose to. Neither would Mexico. That, however,
is precisely what I (along with many others) are suggesting we need to do.
You won't like it if we do.

Don't blame anyone for your problems.

I'm not blaming anyone, I'm merely suggesting that if Canada doesn't do its
part to prevent infiltration by terrorists, the US may have no choice but to
close the border, which will wreck your economy.

The 9/11 terrorists
arrived in the US thru US ports of entry, not thru Canada.

And yet other terrorists arrive through Canada. Case in point: the terrorist
with a vehicle full of explosives caught entering the US from Vancouver at
Port Angeles just prior to the Millennium celebration who planned to blow up
the Space Needle in Seattle. He was caught by an alert Border Patrol agent.
Others have certainly slipped in from Canada as well.


--
Dave Manby
Details of the Coruh river and my book "Many Rivers To Run" at
http://www.dmanby.demon.co.uk

just after Bush stole his first presidency.

Bush won the election by every recount so far - have you found a different
result? I would like to see it. I am not some blind follower of Bush but I'm
getting tired of this stupid "Bush stole the election" crap. What happened
in Florida was absurd, but the result has been verify many times.


"Dave Manby" wrote in message
...
I always loved coming into the states - especially through Miami Florida
just after Bush stole his first presidency.

You, a non American, are asked to fill in several forms with boxes to
fill. I always feel like asking if they want a tick cross or Chad and
who is going to count these and anyway they are a good reflection of the
intelligence of the CIA terrorism controls and other forms of attempted
control. Among the questions you are asked are
1 Are you a member of a terrorist organisation?
2 Are you addicted to Narcotics
3 Were you a member of the Nazi party between xxxx and xxxx.
The rest are just as inane.
Apparently the reason for asking you these questions is so that they can
do you for lying if you are caught!

It is no wonder the phrase dumb America has arisen!

Surely the answer to all this is to look at the cause of the terrorism
and attempt to answer the questions raised.

Palestine has for too long been ignored and it was not till many years
of terrorism that the rest of the world started looking at the plight of
the refugees in Gaza and the other OCCUPIED by Israel territories. Al
Quaeda has its own agenda and maybe looking at the reason why they have
picked on the west in general and the USA in particular would help solve
the threat for better than trying to impose Western ideals on reluctant
people. I would argue that this has created more terrorism than it has
prevented.


In message , Scott Weiser
writes
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 16-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

The fact that Canada accepts more refugees than the US (but then,
most
countries are more open to help others than the US) has nothing to
do with terrorism.

Unfortunately, you are mistaken.

Proof? Refugees come from around the world. Terrorists tend to
be well funded and arrive carrying briefcases.

No, they come looking like refugees, and acting like refugees, so that
they
can move about freely and without scrutiny.


One can get to Toronto without any scrutiny,

You've never arrived in Toronto from anywhere, right? There
is such a thing as customs and immigration. Canada's border
is _not_ open.

It's more open that it ought to be.


and then it's a short car trip across the border to the US

Which only proves that the US can't control its borders.

Well, "will not" is more accurate. We can, we just choose not to. You
wouldn't like it at all if we chose to. Neither would Mexico. That,
however,
is precisely what I (along with many others) are suggesting we need to
do.
You won't like it if we do.

Don't blame anyone for your problems.

I'm not blaming anyone, I'm merely suggesting that if Canada doesn't do
its
part to prevent infiltration by terrorists, the US may have no choice but
to
close the border, which will wreck your economy.

The 9/11 terrorists
arrived in the US thru US ports of entry, not thru Canada.

And yet other terrorists arrive through Canada. Case in point: the
terrorist
with a vehicle full of explosives caught entering the US from Vancouver
at
Port Angeles just prior to the Millennium celebration who planned to blow
up
the Space Needle in Seattle. He was caught by an alert Border Patrol
agent.
Others have certainly slipped in from Canada as well.


--
Dave Manby
Details of the Coruh river and my book "Many Rivers To Run" at
http://www.dmanby.demon.co.uk