80% of the voters in AZ are white;
45% of the students in today’s schools are not white
………………..

Damn straight they aren’t all “white” students. They’re Navajo and Apache and Yavapai and Hopi and 100% LEGAL LEGAL LEGAL SINCE FOREVER, being shoved aside politically and socially in favor of illegal FOREIGN NATIONALS: – people who still maintain a citizenship and loyalty to another country.

You need to put more nuance in your narrow-minded profiling. “Brown” isn’t QUITE enough, “brown” is lazy blabbing to explain the concern of Arizona citizens, or worth much to describe students in any meaningful way in Arizona schools.

Ever consider how stupid it is for illegal foreigners to drop their kids in AZ schools when AZ education is amongst the last in the nation and the USA as a whole isn’t making it into Underdeveloped countries rankings in academic achievement?

All that effort for a piss-poor education! What a joke!! WE can ALL thank the Democrats for re-designing education to fail, and thus guarantee illegal kids in AZ schools will not be equipped for future achievement in work or college.

OK you didn’t convince me and I didn’t convince you. No surprise there. I do owe you an apology for one thing. We are taught, “Soft words turneth away wrath.” I fell short of that in some of my posts to you, and am sorry for it.

I’m bored with setting the record straight with you.

You’ve demonstrated no grasp of the basic issues of globalism, international relations, history, economics or politics.

There’s no point in even trying to talk sense to you.

You may proceed in your own delusions and mediocrities with abandon.

Have at it!

We have no problem with legal and orderly immigration in accordance with our laws – we welcome immigrants.

We DO have a major problem with *ILLEGL* immigration Moron! Don’t matter where they came from, do it right as generations of immigrants have been doing.

http://www.aztlan.net/mexican_american_war_has_not_ended.htm

80% of the voters in AZ are white;
45% of the students in today’s schools are not white.

Tonight Pat Buchanan commented on the McLaughlin Group that the GOP was shooting itself in the foot in regards to the Hispanic vote through its current behavior and going to make itself irrelevant for many years.

Trade is not the issue today, but SOVEREIGNTY. There is no reason a nation must give up it’s national integrity, laws, rules, identity and security to have free and properous trade ties with other countries. AMerica in the late 1700s was an international maritime trade powerhouse and free markets across the globe was the goal of American foriegn policy.
Until we got our butts kicked, our private ships pirated, seized, robbed, and our citizens enslaved. There’s no trade, commerce, production, when there is no security.

Our enemies simply want to get rid of the USA by other means than simple warfare, which at this point in time, they would lose, so they propagandise and finance to degrade from within. What’s rather unique in history is the number of citizens who do not understand at all how good they’ve got it, how hard it was to build it,how much is required to maintain it, and how much they stand to lose if they don’t protect it.

You are a liar. I did not discharge any debt to the state. You also are violating the business agreement we have. I paid you to be my consultant for June and July. You took my money and back-stabbed me all the while you were trying to force me to run as a team with your criminal client. Posting this during the month that you are supposed to be working FOR me should send a red flag to your other clients. Of course, you damaged them for Scott as well, when Scott tried to get the Legislature to pass an amendment to give him an exclusive contract after he had already lost the bid for E-procurement. He was lobbying without being registered and is unelectable in the general election.

There has been a global economy for 500 years, it is odd that some here fail to understand that.

As I suspected, you need a little more seasoning and experience with the world. You also should peel off the Union label, give up your Democrat talking points, and join the Republican Party. You might like it.

1. This was your main claim: “Economic interdependence precedes political interdependence.” I said there is no historical basis for your central claim, and I am right.

If the best you can do is Canada and the United States to make your main point, you really are coming up short. Where were you when Jean Chretien was premier or better yet Pierre Trudeau. Canada is culturally overwhelmed by the United States, as is most of the world, but she is not “politically interdependent” on the United States. She vigorously opposed America on Iraq, and on numerous other topics over the years. Like any free nation she supports us when she sees it in her interests to do so, and opposes us when she sees things differently. Recall: During the first Bush administration Chretien opposed us as much as Chirac did — or did you miss all that? Where were you when South Korea started playing footsie with the lunatic to the North, despite American objections? The EU is thoroughly integrated economically, and Greece still called the Germans good Nazis, all the while having her hand out. Speaking of Greece, she never passes up a good opportunity to defy the United States.

2. Reagan was a free trader, as am I. He fell short on several occasions. We all sin. Yet he did it for political reasons, not because he was convinced that tariffs (read taxes) were good for America. That proves my point that it would be idiotic to trust politicians in Congress or in the White House with the power to select industries to protect and others to let go. If Reagan cannot be trusted to honor his principles regarding free trade, who can? And he was not the most protectionist president since Hoover. That is silliness.

3. I wrote: “What major American industries has China whipped? Name one. I dare you. You will find out you can’t.” You couldn’t and didn’t. Instead, you cited the growth of the Chinese economy and the size of its foreign trade. Sorry, it won’t work. You’re out on a limb and you can’t climb back by changing the subject. I repeat, Name one major American industry China has whipped. Stating the obvious that the largest nation in population now has the second largest economy proves nothing. Japan humbled Detroit. China never did. And as I said, if China were not dominant in toys, furniture, textiles, and other low-tech industries, they still would not return to American shores. That does not mean that China will not develop high-tech industries. She will, but that’s an issue for the future.

4. You clearly can’t rehabilitate the glaring defect in your position, to wit: Who is going to pick the winners in American industry, who get protection, and the losers who don’t? Being a good protectionist, you have to trust the politicians. There is no other way for a protectionist. I am not a protectionist and thus neither want to trust the politicians nor need I do so to defend my position. So you again try to change the subject. You should have the integrity to defend a position or admit you were wrong and give it up.

5. Same with the damage that higher prices caused by protection will do to the American economy. You, and all Democrats of your stripe, never can answer that one, so you resort to name calling. Very tawdry behavior.

6. Last, on the gold standard you are utterly out of your depth, and you know it, so more name calling.

Michael, Face it. You started with some silly points you cannot defend and of which you know next to nothing. It’s all right. We all are given to hyperbole from time to time. But you really ought to lay off the name calling. Rather childish, isn’t it?

Michael,

You: Are you wearing the Union label? Sure sounds like it, as you continue blithering on. Or maybe you are too young to have any real experience in business or economics.

Me: Mr. Davidson, I’d venture to say that you really didn’t pay attention during your high school history and economics classes because you evince a profound lack of understanding of the way the world really works.

But school is in session now, so pay attention!

Again, your name calling, patronizing attitude and no real analysis or counter to my arguments except glittering generalities is exhausting to me. More evidence of a mediocre mind. Sir, if I may, please let me deconstruct your fallacious constructs, for they exist in your own self-deluded mind.

You: Here’s where you are wrong:

1. I am not now and never have been a Libertarian. My views are purely Reagan Republican. In case you were too young to remember, Reagan was the greatest free trader to sit in the White House since John Kennedy.

Me: President Reagan imposed a 100 percent tariff on selected Japanese electronics in 1987. A president can earn the title of free trader if his efforts demonstrate an attempt to remove trade barriers at home and prevent the imposition of new ones. Hence, hardly anyone was surprised when the Reagan administration also imposed quotas on sugar imports.

By that standard Reagan failed promote free trade and by his actions became the most protectionist president since Herbert Hoover, the historical heavy hitter of protectionists.

By the way, Mr. Mistaken, I served in the military under Reagan and voted for him. Yeah, I know who he is Mr. know-not-much.

You: 2. You cannot refute that from its birth the United States has been integrated in “global economic interdependence.” That 234 year history destroys your central point, to wit: “Economic interdependence precedes political interdependence.” There is no historical basis for your central claim.

Me: Wrong again! But do read on… Sir, it’s happening right before your very eyes! Nations trade. Spheres of influence develop. Economic interdependence leads to political interdependence through mutuality. The historically accepted term is called “gradualism.”

Take, for instance the economic interdependence between Canada, Japan, and America. In broad terms, each shares the view that nature should be conquered by rational means. Each nation utilizes five basic factors to foster dynamic technological and economic growth: labor, research and development, natural resources, capital, and markets for goods and services.

To some degree, each country is dependent (i.e. interdependent) on the other for one or more of the five basic factors. It’s this dependency that leads to political interdependence.

Here’s how economic interdependence can lead to political interdependence and hence to political difficulties:

Say Japan needs to sell cars in the US market because the Japanese domestic market is too small to sustain the dynamic growth of its automobile industry. In turn, Japanese competition hurts the American auto industry leading to less dynamic growth; hence, lower profits and the layoff of workers.

These problems become political problems once the American auto industry and American workers start calling for action against Japan. The types of action the American government can take (for instance, prohibiting Japanese investment, banning Japanese imports, etc.) are limited because America is dependent on Japanese (or Chinese) capital to service its debt (the Chinese own 1 trillion in T-Bills), create new jobs and keep the American stock market buoyant.

Hence, while the two nations can debate and fight with each other, neither can really afford to take strong action against the other without damaging itself. You hear a lot of talk about China dumping its US holdings. But can they?

Here’s a historical example of economic interdependence preceding political interdependence: Take a look at the relationship between Canada and the United States. It’s relationship began in the eighteenth century with mutual fear and hostility, and relatively little interdependence.

Today, as things have evolved, the two countries are highly integrated economically, share many of the same social and cultural values, and have many political connections between them.

Even though Canada still maintains its political sovereignty, many Canadians feel that Canada is little more than a satellite of the United States, a country with its own political institutions but an economy that is so much controlled and owned by American interests that it’s impossible for Canadian political institutions to make independent decisions concerning most significant questions. Hence, a defacto political interdependence has arisen from the economic interdependence.

My main contention is that the unbridgeable abyss between communism and capitalism is so great, and the Marxist Lenninist mind so impenetrable and impervious to Western moral thinking, that we are engaged in a “Marxist Lenninist embrace” through economic interdependence, that may ultimately prove fatal once China or Russia stabs us in the back!

You: 3. Denied any historical moorings, you resort to the argument that somehow we now are in new and unique circumstances where the Chinese are a threat to us because of their (foolish) export oriented growth model. I heard that argument from my Democrat acquaintances ad nauseam in the 1980s only the bugaboo then was Japan. What happened? Japan quickly plunged into the lost decade, which really has amounted to two lost decades. In contrast, the United States went through two decades of growth broken up by two shallow recessions in 1990 and 2001. No other developed economy matched America’s performance.

Me: Sir, with Chinese growing economic power they are pursuing an interest in increasing their military power. China has been spending 10 percent of its burgeoning wealth for, the past 2 decades, on growing their military. Official figures estimate that China spends about $71 billion a year on their armed forces, but experts believe that they spend a hell of a lot more than that!

China’s has an expanding army of cyber warriors, is developing asymmetric capabilities to combat the U.S., is accumulating missiles opposite Taiwan, and and building up of a blue-water navy to project Chinese power regionally and globally. Not to mention the development of post-nuclear nanotechnology super-weapons.

You: 4. What major American industries has China whipped? Name one. I dare you. You will find out you can’t. China has taken export business in low-wage manufacturing industries form South Korea, Mexico, and other developing countries. Until now she has not been a large player in high-wage, complex, high-tech manufacturing. Our competitors there are mainly the Japanese and Germans. Do you want the toy business back? Or shoes, textiles, furniture, or other low tech industries? It’s not going to happen, regardless of whether China is or is not a player on the international stage. Those industries started in the North, moved to the South, and then moved overseas. If it’s not China, it will be Korea, or India, or Singapore, or somewhere else.

Me: The US is the world’s largest manufacturing nation by output, but is poised to relinquish this lead in 2011 to China; thereby, ending a 110-year run as the #1 country in factory production.
Last year, the US created 19.9% of world manufacturing output, compared with 18.6% per cent for China, with the US slightly ahead.

A study by the Pew Charitable Trusts shows that Chinese investment in clean energy soared by more than 50% in 2009 reaching $34.6 billion, far more than any other country. The report said that China has shown determination to be on the forefront of green technology, while Total U.S. investment was about half that at $18.6 billion.

China has overtaken the United States as the world’s largest energy consumer, according to the International Energy Agency. China’s 2009 consumption of energy sources ranging from oil and coal to wind and solar power was equal to 2.265 billion tons of oil, compared to 2.169 billion tons used that year by the United States.

China has made technological innovation a leading goal innovation in every from supercomputers to nanotech, including clean energy technologies.In 2009, it invested $34.6 billion in clean energy, almost double of that spent by the U.S.

China has a massive technical labor pool. A large Shanghai outsourcing company screens applicants with an IQ test with a cutoff score of 140; less than 1 percent of the population reach that high. In 2005, the U.S. awarded 137,000 engineering degrees while China awarded 351,500 at the same time.

China’s rate for undergraduates earning science or engineering is 42 percent of all college graduates. Only 2 percent of U.S. 9th-grade boys and 1 percent of girls go on to attain the same degrees.

China is getting U.S. technology and technology such as that of the Sony Corporation who closed its last TV manufacturing plant, shifting an assembly plant to Mexico but most of the components are made in Asia.

China does have huge problems with pollution, corruption, accounting and finance chicanery. So the word’s not yet out on their long-term prospects. Caution is the watch word.

China has overtaken Japan as the world’s second-largest economy. China is on a course to eclipse the United States and catapult into the No.1 spot sometime around 2025.

You: 5. Here is where your ravings really fall apart: Who is going to pick the American industries to shelter or protect with tariffs or quotas? Congress? The President? The Federal Reserve? If the choices are made by politicians, they will be made to favor political friends and punish political enemies. They will not be made in the best interest of America. Recall the Bush tariffs imposed in 2002 to shelter the steel industry and win votes in Pennsylvania? A complete failure. Recall Obama’s take over of Government Motors? The unions got a sweetheart deal, the bondholders got screwed. We all would have been better off if GM went through a normal bankruptcy and shed itself of its unproductive lines and bloated union contracts.

You: You’re just projecting a bunch of things I never said onto my postings and ranting away. I actually agree with some of the above statements you made but you’re acting like a reactionary. Do I need to go line by line and say where I agree and disagree with you? You’re friggen’ scatter-brained and too ideologically marinated in the cool Ranch Dressing of your own mental fruit salad! I’m sick of exploding your hypotheses and trite statements! Sheesh!

You: 6. Here is where your ravings really fall apart (Part Two): If you shelter certain industries, as Bush did with steel, the price goes up and hurts consumers and all domestic industries that buy that industry’s products. In 2002, the price of everything made with domestic steel went up, and became less competitive in the world market. As a footnote, it hurt Bush politically in other states and did nothing for him in Pennsylvania.

Me: Aww, shut up! Quit bitching and whining. Now you’re just ranting about this and that…gawd almighty! You’re worse than a pro-amnesty McCain-bot. I’ve had it with your dumb nonsense and suppositions…

You: 7. Here is where your ravings really fall apart (Part Three): Free trade has been America’s goal and policy (even if unevenly achieved) since WW II. First, several rounds of GATT, and now the WTO, were founded on it. The United States will be exposed as a hypocrite and pariah if we unilaterally impose quotas or tariffs on China. She will sue us in the WTO and she will win. Free trade has brought us unprecedented prosperity. If we replace it with tariffs and quotas decided on by politicians, Heaven help us. Smoot-Hawley, and resulting disaster, all over again.

Me: Do I really need to go into detail again and waste another half an hour refuting or agreeing in part with your vomitus extremus imbecilous grande? Stick a bagel in your mouth and cool out!

You: 8. Last, your comments on the gold standard betray a really shallow understanding of economics. As I noted before, America was on the international gold standard from about 1880 to 1933. It resulted in thorough integration of the American economy in “global economic interdependence.” The country lost most control of its money supply and surrendered it to the London and New York bankers. Example: In 1931, after international speculators forced Britain to close the gold window, they attacked the Dollar next, and massively sold dollars for gold. In response, the Fed raised interest rates domestically to draw gold back into the United States. It worked – only too well, because it led directly to the collapse of the American banking system. If you don’t believe me, read Friedman’s analysis.

Me: I’d have to do another long dissertation on your long list of generalities and it’s just not worth it at this point. You’ve been biatch slapped silly and tongue tied by your own broad brush sweeps of history and presumptuousness. Turn the TV off…

You: I will repeat: You are babbling.

Me: Sir, I list facts that explode your silly broad generalizations. YOU HAVEN’T GIVEN ONE EXAMPLE OF WHERE MY ANALYSIS IS WRONG!

You just go on and on about apples when the subject is oranges…

What do your rantings have to do with the price of tea in China?

Nothing!

Here is your professor of insane rantings, Dr. Frazzled Scruffins of Aardvark University where you obtained your BS degree in BS: http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://locallytoned.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/lupin-handvert.jpg&imgrefurl=http://locallytoned.wordpress.com/2009/07/06/sugar-glider-tones/&usg=__aGYqkV_F0aFNhaBHCx5ceB6CkRs=&h=600&w=450&sz=395&hl=en&start=494&tbnid=0qF5r91O09OkkM:&tbnh=123&tbnw=86&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dsugar%2Bglider%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG%26biw%3D800%26bih%3D408%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=rc&ei=DINTTOHhLYqisQO5yYHbAg&page=61&ndsp=9&ved=1t:429,r:7,s:494&tx=36&ty=23

Are you wearing the Union label? Sure sounds like it, as you continue blithering on. Or maybe you are too young to have any real experience in busines or economics.

Here’s where you are wrong:

1. I am not now and never have been a Libertarian. My views are purely Reagan Republican. In case you were too young to remember, Reagan was the greatest free trader to sit in the White House since John Kennedy.

2. You cannot refute that from its birth the United States has been integrated in “global economic interdependence.” That 234 year history destroys your central point, to wit: “Economic interdependence precedes political interdependence.” There is no historical basis for your central claim.

3. Denied any historical moorings, you resort to the argument that somehow we now are in new and unique circumstances where the Chinese are a threat to us because of their (foolish) export oriented growth model. I heard that argument from my Democrat acquaintances ad nauseam in the 1980s only the bugaboo then was Japan. What happened? Japan quickly plunged into the lost decade, which really has amounted to two lost decades. In contrast, the United States went through two decades of growth broken up by two shallow recessions in 1990 and 2001. No other developed economy matched America’s performance.

4. What major American industries has China whipped? Name one. I dare you. You will find out you can’t. China has taken export business in low-wage manufacturing industries form South Korea, Mexico, and other developing countries. Until now she has not been a large player in high-wage, complex, high-tech manufacturing. Our competitors there are mainly the Japanese and Germans. Do you want the toy business back? Or shoes, textiles, furniture, or other low tech industries? It’s not going to happen, regardless of whether China is or is not a player on the international stage. Those industries started in the North, moved to the South, and then moved overseas. If it’s not China, it will be Korea, or India, or Singapore, or somewhere else.

5. Here is where your ravings really fall apart: Who is going to pick the American industries to shelter or protect with tariffs or quotas? Congress? The President? The Federal Reserve? If the choices are made by politicians, they will be made to favor political friends and punish political enemies. They will not be made in the best interest of America. Recall the Bush tariffs imposed in 2002 to shelter the steel industry and win votes in Pennsylvania? A complete failure. Recall Obama’s take over of Government Motors? The unions got a sweetheart deal, the bondholders got screwed. We all would have been better off if GM went through a normal bankruptcy and shed itself of its unproductive lines and bloated union contracts.

6. Here is where your ravings really fall apart (Part Two): If you shelter certain industries, as Bush did with steel, the price goes up and hurts consumers and all domestic industries that buy that industry’s products. In 2002, the price of everything made with domestic steel went up, and became less competitive in the world market. As a footnote, it hurt Bush politically in other states and did nothing for him in Pennsylvania.

7. Here is where your ravings really fall apart (Part Three): Free trade has been America’s goal and policy (even if unevenly achieved) since WW II. First, several rounds of GATT, and now the WTO, were founded on it. The United States will be exposed as a hypocrite and pariah if we unilaterally impose quotas or tariffs on China. She will sue us in the WTO and she will win. Free trade has brought us unprecedented prosperity. If we replace it with tariffs and quotas decided on by politicians, Heaven help us. Smoot-Hawley, and resulting disaster, all over again.

8. Last, your comments on the gold standard betray a really shallow understanding of economics. As I noted before, America was on the international gold standard from about 1880 to 1933. It resulted in thorough integration of the American economy in “global economic interdependence.” The country lost most control of its money supply and surrendered it to the London and New York bankers. Example: In 1931, after international speculators forced Britain to close the gold window, they attacked the Dollar next, and massively sold dollars for gold. In response, the Fed raised interest rates domestically to draw gold back into the United States. It worked – only too well, because it led directly to the collapse of the American banking system. If you don’t believe me, read Friedman’s analysis.

I will repeat: You are babbling.

I guess people are supposed to accept this comment and never think again. Check the agreement on the FTAA site. EVerify is not “specifically mentioned.” How about eVerifying facts. Btw, you could use a hammer to build a house OR tear one down? A tool is a tool and they work anyway you please.