Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
[OT] lives of Chinese factory workers
8 views
Skip to first unread message
»Q«
Jan 27, 2013, 2:02:34 PM1/27/13
to
Interesting look at life in one of China's factory cities.
<http://www.ted.com/talks/leslie_t_chang_the_voices_of_china_s_workers.html>
In the ongoing debate about globalization, what's been missing is the
voices of workers -- the millions of people who migrate to factories
in China and other emerging countries to make goods sold all over the
world. Reporter Leslie T. Chang sought out women who work in one of
China's booming megacities, and tells their stories.
<http://www.ted.com/talks/leslie_t_chang_the_voices_of_china_s_workers.html>
In the ongoing debate about globalization, what's been missing is the
voices of workers -- the millions of people who migrate to factories
in China and other emerging countries to make goods sold all over the
world. Reporter Leslie T. Chang sought out women who work in one of
China's booming megacities, and tells their stories.
Ron Hunter
Jan 27, 2013, 2:30:13 PM1/27/13
to
people. First, most of them make their own decision about working
there, and aren't required to continue. They do it because they can
make more money in less time than they could by doing anything else
legal. They may complain about the conditions, but there are worse
conditions elsewhere in China, such as working on a farm, or other
factory job. It is their country. It is up to them to make the social
and economic changes they want, NOT the US, or European Union, or anyone
else.
Message has been deleted
Ron Hunter
Jan 27, 2013, 9:15:07 PM1/27/13
to
On 1/27/2013 3:26 PM, Sailfish wrote:
> My bloviated meandering follows what »Q« graced us with on 1/27/2013
> 11:02 AM:
> meh
>
> You know, I imagine her sounding like /laissez faire/ pro-factory
> journalists of the early 30s in the US. She starts off lightly touching
> on the obvious exploitation and abuse thereof, then immediately shifts
> to focus on anecdotal examples of a few factory workers and then frames
> it all in a false choice, i.e., exploited factory worker future or rural
> peasant before. Oddly, I notice she never mentioned how many of these
> workers will ever have a chance to attend higher education or whether
> any of them have the ability to form a workers union to insure they get
> have someone there to represent *THEIR* best interests in regards to
> wages and better working and living conditions.
>
> She was simply a shill for the exploitive multi-nationals and their
> equally exploitive Chinese factories giving a speech of cheap grace to a
> western audience who welcome every opportunity to have their hedonistic
> desires for cheap goods validated.
>
> Weak soup.
>
So, we should tell the Chinese who they can employ, when, where, and
just how? You think that's right, on ANY level? The people who work
those factories are there for exactly the same reason that people work
in factories here, often under worse conditions (think steel mills), and
many work 12 to 14 hour days, up to 6 days a week, because they need the
overtime just to get the 'ends' in sight at one time. I am tired of
hearing about the plight of Chinese factory workers. It's NONE OF OUR
DAMN BUSINESS how they run their country. Their workers are trying to
earn a better life for their families, just like American, or European,
workers, and we have no right to tell them how they can do it.
> My bloviated meandering follows what »Q« graced us with on 1/27/2013
> 11:02 AM:
>
> You know, I imagine her sounding like /laissez faire/ pro-factory
> journalists of the early 30s in the US. She starts off lightly touching
> on the obvious exploitation and abuse thereof, then immediately shifts
> to focus on anecdotal examples of a few factory workers and then frames
> it all in a false choice, i.e., exploited factory worker future or rural
> peasant before. Oddly, I notice she never mentioned how many of these
> workers will ever have a chance to attend higher education or whether
> any of them have the ability to form a workers union to insure they get
> have someone there to represent *THEIR* best interests in regards to
> wages and better working and living conditions.
>
> She was simply a shill for the exploitive multi-nationals and their
> equally exploitive Chinese factories giving a speech of cheap grace to a
> western audience who welcome every opportunity to have their hedonistic
> desires for cheap goods validated.
>
> Weak soup.
>
So, we should tell the Chinese who they can employ, when, where, and
just how? You think that's right, on ANY level? The people who work
those factories are there for exactly the same reason that people work
in factories here, often under worse conditions (think steel mills), and
many work 12 to 14 hour days, up to 6 days a week, because they need the
overtime just to get the 'ends' in sight at one time. I am tired of
hearing about the plight of Chinese factory workers. It's NONE OF OUR
DAMN BUSINESS how they run their country. Their workers are trying to
earn a better life for their families, just like American, or European,
workers, and we have no right to tell them how they can do it.
Message has been deleted
Ron Hunter
Jan 28, 2013, 3:49:45 AM1/28/13
to
On 1/27/2013 10:09 PM, Sailfish wrote:
> My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on
> 1/27/2013 6:15 PM:
> You keep talking about us wanting to demand things of the Chinese and I
> keep telling you that we need to demand things of the US multi-national
> companies. It's not that hard of a concept. All we, as a society, need
> to do is demand that they multi-national companies insure that the
> companies they sub-contract to adhere to minimum working conditions. As
> far as steel mills, I'd bet most Chinese steel mill worker would think
> ours factories are like Disneyland compared to what they are having to
> endure. Also, the US got rid of company towns a long time ago and, even
> then, the families weren't stuffed in like they are in the Chinese
> company housing units.
>
> No matter how many times you proclaim that we have no business telling
> China how to run their companies, we always have the right to demand of
> our country what we find acceptable in terms of what WE allow OUR
> companies to be associated with.
>
Just last week, Apple cancelled contracts with one Chinese company
because they found that 74 underage workers had been hired to work at
their factory. The parents and the company had conspired to falsify age
documentation so that they could work. So now, 74 families have dashed
hopes for bettering their lives. I believe this is one of the reasons
the US is losing friends in other countries. Too invasive, and
controlling. And if you believe the US no longer has 'company towns',
you aren't paying attention. One of my great nephews works for a
company that requires him to live in company quarters for several weeks
at a time, away from his family, in order to keep his job. So why does
he do it? Because is pays about twice as much as any other job he could
get, and this is satisfactory to him.
> My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on
> 1/27/2013 6:15 PM:
> keep telling you that we need to demand things of the US multi-national
> companies. It's not that hard of a concept. All we, as a society, need
> to do is demand that they multi-national companies insure that the
> companies they sub-contract to adhere to minimum working conditions. As
> far as steel mills, I'd bet most Chinese steel mill worker would think
> ours factories are like Disneyland compared to what they are having to
> endure. Also, the US got rid of company towns a long time ago and, even
> then, the families weren't stuffed in like they are in the Chinese
> company housing units.
>
> No matter how many times you proclaim that we have no business telling
> China how to run their companies, we always have the right to demand of
> our country what we find acceptable in terms of what WE allow OUR
> companies to be associated with.
>
Just last week, Apple cancelled contracts with one Chinese company
because they found that 74 underage workers had been hired to work at
their factory. The parents and the company had conspired to falsify age
documentation so that they could work. So now, 74 families have dashed
hopes for bettering their lives. I believe this is one of the reasons
the US is losing friends in other countries. Too invasive, and
controlling. And if you believe the US no longer has 'company towns',
you aren't paying attention. One of my great nephews works for a
company that requires him to live in company quarters for several weeks
at a time, away from his family, in order to keep his job. So why does
he do it? Because is pays about twice as much as any other job he could
get, and this is satisfactory to him.
Ron Hunter
Jan 28, 2013, 3:54:21 AM1/28/13
to
On 1/27/2013 10:09 PM, Sailfish wrote:
> My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on
> 1/27/2013 6:15 PM:
not too pleasant to live near either.
The changes I have seen to working conditions in the US would amaze you.
One of my friends worked in the summer for a chemical company painting
with metal based paints, over 50 feet off the ground, in an insulated
suit, sometimes inside tanks where the temperature was over 135 degrees.
They could only work about 30 minutes out of each hour, and he was
getting $50 an hour (this was when minimum wage was $.75 an hour). He
was 16. I don't know who is doing this work now, but I bet it isn't
teenagers.
> My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on
> 1/27/2013 6:15 PM:
> You keep talking about us wanting to demand things of the Chinese and I
> keep telling you that we need to demand things of the US multi-national
> companies. It's not that hard of a concept. All we, as a society, need
> to do is demand that they multi-national companies insure that the
> companies they sub-contract to adhere to minimum working conditions. As
> far as steel mills, I'd bet most Chinese steel mill worker would think
> ours factories are like Disneyland compared to what they are having to
> endure. Also, the US got rid of company towns a long time ago and, even
> then, the families weren't stuffed in like they are in the Chinese
> company housing units.
>
> No matter how many times you proclaim that we have no business telling
> China how to run their companies, we always have the right to demand of
> our country what we find acceptable in terms of what WE allow OUR
> companies to be associated with.
>
Oh, yes, steel mills aren't very pleasant places to work, anywhere, and
> keep telling you that we need to demand things of the US multi-national
> companies. It's not that hard of a concept. All we, as a society, need
> to do is demand that they multi-national companies insure that the
> companies they sub-contract to adhere to minimum working conditions. As
> far as steel mills, I'd bet most Chinese steel mill worker would think
> ours factories are like Disneyland compared to what they are having to
> endure. Also, the US got rid of company towns a long time ago and, even
> then, the families weren't stuffed in like they are in the Chinese
> company housing units.
>
> No matter how many times you proclaim that we have no business telling
> China how to run their companies, we always have the right to demand of
> our country what we find acceptable in terms of what WE allow OUR
> companies to be associated with.
>
not too pleasant to live near either.
The changes I have seen to working conditions in the US would amaze you.
One of my friends worked in the summer for a chemical company painting
with metal based paints, over 50 feet off the ground, in an insulated
suit, sometimes inside tanks where the temperature was over 135 degrees.
They could only work about 30 minutes out of each hour, and he was
getting $50 an hour (this was when minimum wage was $.75 an hour). He
was 16. I don't know who is doing this work now, but I bet it isn't
teenagers.
Jay Garcia
Jan 28, 2013, 9:14:43 AM1/28/13
to
On 27.01.2013 22:09, Sailfish wrote:
--- Original Message ---
> My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on
> 1/27/2013 6:15 PM:
Veterans recently discharged AND will be attempting to bring
manufacturing facilities back to the USA.
--
Jay Garcia - www.ufaq.org - Netscape - Firefox - SeaMonkey - Thunderbird
Mozilla Contribute Coordinator Team - www.mozilla.org/contribute/
Mozilla Mozillian Member - www.mozillians.org
Mozilla Contributor Member - www.mozilla.org/credits/
--- Original Message ---
> My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on
> 1/27/2013 6:15 PM:
> You keep talking about us wanting to demand things of the Chinese and I
> keep telling you that we need to demand things of the US multi-national
> companies. It's not that hard of a concept. All we, as a society, need
> to do is demand that they multi-national companies insure that the
> companies they sub-contract to adhere to minimum working conditions. As
> far as steel mills, I'd bet most Chinese steel mill worker would think
> ours factories are like Disneyland compared to what they are having to
> endure. Also, the US got rid of company towns a long time ago and, even
> then, the families weren't stuffed in like they are in the Chinese
> company housing units.
>
> No matter how many times you proclaim that we have no business telling
> China how to run their companies, we always have the right to demand of
> our country what we find acceptable in terms of what WE allow OUR
> companies to be associated with.
>
Wal-Mart just announced recently that they will be hiring Armed Forces
> keep telling you that we need to demand things of the US multi-national
> companies. It's not that hard of a concept. All we, as a society, need
> to do is demand that they multi-national companies insure that the
> companies they sub-contract to adhere to minimum working conditions. As
> far as steel mills, I'd bet most Chinese steel mill worker would think
> ours factories are like Disneyland compared to what they are having to
> endure. Also, the US got rid of company towns a long time ago and, even
> then, the families weren't stuffed in like they are in the Chinese
> company housing units.
>
> No matter how many times you proclaim that we have no business telling
> China how to run their companies, we always have the right to demand of
> our country what we find acceptable in terms of what WE allow OUR
> companies to be associated with.
>
Veterans recently discharged AND will be attempting to bring
manufacturing facilities back to the USA.
--
Jay Garcia - www.ufaq.org - Netscape - Firefox - SeaMonkey - Thunderbird
Mozilla Contribute Coordinator Team - www.mozilla.org/contribute/
Mozilla Mozillian Member - www.mozillians.org
Mozilla Contributor Member - www.mozilla.org/credits/
Ron Hunter
Jan 28, 2013, 12:08:52 PM1/28/13
to
all their merchandise being from China, or Mexico. Either that, or Sam
finally started haunting his kids about it!
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Ron Hunter
Jan 28, 2013, 7:22:42 PM1/28/13
to
On 1/28/2013 2:38 PM, Sailfish wrote:
> My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on
> 1/28/2013 12:54 AM:
> My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on
> Pa. where black lung disease was commonplace. Very few of the men
> working them lasted past their 50s, several of her brothers and cousins
> included.
>
> REF:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalworker%27s_pneumoconiosis#History_and_prevention_efforts
>
>
>
Mining is a really bad thing for health. The more of it that can be
transferred to machines, the better.
Ron Hunter
Jan 28, 2013, 7:24:25 PM1/28/13
to
On 1/28/2013 2:38 PM, Sailfish wrote:
> My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on
> 1/28/2013 12:49 AM:
> My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on
> adhere to minimum human rights standards as a reason the US is losing
> "friends" in other countries is so outlandish it barely warrants a
> response. That's like saying the US lost the will of the people when the
> enacted care labor laws.
>
> Regarding your understanding of "company towns":
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk
>
> Company Towns:
> REF: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town
>
People don't like to have outside interference in their affairs. Look
at the response to the UN trying to mandate anti-gun rules in the US.
It contributes to the 'ugly American' thinking. We are seen as bullies.
Ron Hunter
Jan 28, 2013, 7:31:17 PM1/28/13
to
On 1/28/2013 5:22 PM, Sailfish wrote:
> My bloviated meandering follows what Sailfish graced us with on
> 1/28/2013 12:38 PM:
> http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/28/3923918/samsung-fatal-gas-leak-hwaseong-semiconductor-plant
>
>
> [excerpt quote="
> Although the precise series of events is unclear, at some point
> overnight Samsung called maintenance firm STI Service to fix the leak,
> but did not report it to the proper authorities until shortly before 3pm
> local time, an hour after a worker for the maintenance firm died from
> exposure to the acid. Four other STI workers were hospitalized, but have
> since made a full recovery.
> " /]
>
> Noxious! Semiconductor factories the new cola mines?
>
You mean the mine cola? Does Coke know this? Grin.
Any manufacturer that uses chemicals is subject to this kind of problem.
My brother worked for many years analyzing the waste water put out by
a chemical plant. Some of the stories he told would curl your hair,
before it fell out. Like letting a few drops of ethyl mercaptan loose
and causing a whole neighborhood to be evacuated.
That's the stuff that they add to natural gas so you can smell a leak...
In concentrated form it is rather toxic, as you can imagine.
> My bloviated meandering follows what Sailfish graced us with on
> 1/28/2013 12:38 PM:
>> My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on
>> 1/28/2013 12:54 AM:
>> Yep, and in coal mining, as well. My mom came from a coal mining area
>> in Pa. where black lung disease was commonplace. Very few of the men
>> working them lasted past their 50s, several of her brothers and
>> cousins included.
>>
>> REF:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalworker%27s_pneumoconiosis#History_and_prevention_efforts
>>
> REF:
>> in Pa. where black lung disease was commonplace. Very few of the men
>> working them lasted past their 50s, several of her brothers and
>> cousins included.
>>
>> REF:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalworker%27s_pneumoconiosis#History_and_prevention_efforts
>>
> http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/28/3923918/samsung-fatal-gas-leak-hwaseong-semiconductor-plant
>
>
> [excerpt quote="
> Although the precise series of events is unclear, at some point
> overnight Samsung called maintenance firm STI Service to fix the leak,
> but did not report it to the proper authorities until shortly before 3pm
> local time, an hour after a worker for the maintenance firm died from
> exposure to the acid. Four other STI workers were hospitalized, but have
> since made a full recovery.
> " /]
>
> Noxious! Semiconductor factories the new cola mines?
>
You mean the mine cola? Does Coke know this? Grin.
Any manufacturer that uses chemicals is subject to this kind of problem.
My brother worked for many years analyzing the waste water put out by
a chemical plant. Some of the stories he told would curl your hair,
before it fell out. Like letting a few drops of ethyl mercaptan loose
and causing a whole neighborhood to be evacuated.
That's the stuff that they add to natural gas so you can smell a leak...
In concentrated form it is rather toxic, as you can imagine.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
»Q«
Jan 28, 2013, 11:33:23 PM1/28/13
to
On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 02:49:45 -0600
Ron Hunter <rphu...@charter.net> wrote:
> Just last week, Apple cancelled contracts with one Chinese company
> because they found that 74 underage workers had been hired to work at
> their factory. The parents and the company had conspired to falsify
> age documentation so that they could work. So now, 74 families have
> dashed hopes for bettering their lives.
It's rare to see a criminal conspiracy to exploit children by
Ron Hunter <rphu...@charter.net> wrote:
> Just last week, Apple cancelled contracts with one Chinese company
> because they found that 74 underage workers had been hired to work at
> their factory. The parents and the company had conspired to falsify
> age documentation so that they could work. So now, 74 families have
> dashed hopes for bettering their lives.
parents and a company cast in such a good light. "Bettering their
lives", really?
> I believe this is one of the reasons the US is losing friends in
> other countries. Too invasive, and controlling.
a criminal enterprise; they create ill will by exploiting labor and
resources ruthlessly. The less regulated the capitalism is, the worse
their abuses; every step Apple takes to regulate its own behavior WRT
these problems is a step in the right direction, at least for the ill
will you're concerned about.
Ron Hunter
Jan 29, 2013, 3:14:58 AM1/29/13
to
On 1/28/2013 8:51 PM, Sailfish wrote:
> My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on
> 1/28/2013 4:31 PM:
> My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on
> system, at least at this point. Of course, it would be interesting to
> find out more about the alleged cover-up.
>
Companies, and governments, tend to try to look good, which often means
quietly handling such things 'internally', with sealed agreements, and
'settlements' which could also be called 'payoffs'. I am sure it
happens all the time. One of my brothers in law had an almost fatal
fall when a scaffold collapsed. He had reported the scaffold as unsafe,
and had written a letter to himself, mailed it, and then kept it sealed.
After his fall the company was notified of the letter. After the
accident the company paid all his hospital bills, his pay for the 6
months it took before he was able to return to work, and told him he
never had to work more than one foot off the ground again. He was happy
with the agreement, and when he reported something as unsafe in the
remaining years, it just got fixed. They knew he could have taken them
for millions, but he wasn't greedy.
Ron Hunter
Jan 29, 2013, 3:25:55 AM1/29/13
to
don't have that income, which might mean someone in the family doesn't
get to eat. Why is it ok for a 4 year old to help plant crops in his
family garden, and then help tend, harvest, and eat, those vegetables,
but wrong to work for wages?
It is arrogance to think that we can, or should, establish such rules
for the whole world. On the other hand, the conspiracy to get them
employed illegally is another issue which would cast doubt on the ethics
of the company itself.
Daniel
Jan 29, 2013, 8:17:45 AM1/29/13
to
Ron Hunter wrote:
<Snip>
trying to mandate anti-gun rules in the US." End Quote.
Can you please provide a reference??
--
Daniel
<Snip>
> People don't like to have outside interference in their affairs. Look
> at the response to the UN trying to mandate anti-gun rules in the US. It
> contributes to the 'ugly American' thinking. We are seen as bullies.
>
Sorry, Ron, I've seen no mention anywhere concerning Quote "the UN
> at the response to the UN trying to mandate anti-gun rules in the US. It
> contributes to the 'ugly American' thinking. We are seen as bullies.
>
trying to mandate anti-gun rules in the US." End Quote.
Can you please provide a reference??
--
Daniel
Daniel
Jan 29, 2013, 8:24:24 AM1/29/13
to
Ron Hunter wrote:
<Snip>
> Tell that to the families of those 'children' (they were 16) who now
> don't have that income, which might mean someone in the family doesn't
> get to eat. Why is it ok for a 4 year old to help plant crops in his
> family garden, and then help tend, harvest, and eat, those vegetables,
> but wrong to work for wages?
> It is arrogance to think that we can, or should, establish such rules
> for the whole world. On the other hand, the conspiracy to get them
> employed illegally is another issue which would cast doubt on the ethics
> of the company itself.
Sorry, Ron, when did anyone say it was "ok for a 4 year old to help
plant crops in his family garden, and then help tend, harvest"??
And just because "It is arrogance to think that we can, or should,
establish such rules for the whole world." doesn't think we, the West,
shouldn't try!!
--
Daniel
<Snip>
> Tell that to the families of those 'children' (they were 16) who now
> don't have that income, which might mean someone in the family doesn't
> get to eat. Why is it ok for a 4 year old to help plant crops in his
> family garden, and then help tend, harvest, and eat, those vegetables,
> but wrong to work for wages?
> It is arrogance to think that we can, or should, establish such rules
> for the whole world. On the other hand, the conspiracy to get them
> employed illegally is another issue which would cast doubt on the ethics
> of the company itself.
plant crops in his family garden, and then help tend, harvest"??
And just because "It is arrogance to think that we can, or should,
establish such rules for the whole world." doesn't think we, the West,
shouldn't try!!
--
Daniel
Daniel
Jan 29, 2013, 8:34:07 AM1/29/13
to
Ron Hunter wrote:
<Snip>
> He was happy
> with the agreement, and when he reported something as unsafe in the
> remaining years, it just got fixed. They knew he could have taken them
> for millions, but he wasn't greedy.
How many years did your brother continue to work for that company, Ron??
--
Daniel
<Snip>
> He was happy
> with the agreement, and when he reported something as unsafe in the
> remaining years, it just got fixed. They knew he could have taken them
> for millions, but he wasn't greedy.
--
Daniel
Ron Hunter
Jan 29, 2013, 10:16:38 AM1/29/13
to
Ron Hunter
Jan 29, 2013, 10:17:52 AM1/29/13
to
alone. Tick them off too much, and they will foreclose on the loans.
Then where are we?
Ron Hunter
Jan 29, 2013, 10:18:22 AM1/29/13
to
»Q«
Jan 29, 2013, 7:00:50 PM1/29/13
to
On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 02:25:55 -0600
Ron Hunter <rphu...@charter.net> wrote:
> On 1/28/2013 10:33 PM, »Q« wrote:
> > Multinationals don't create ill will by refusing to contract with
> > such a criminal enterprise; they create ill will by exploiting
> > labor and resources ruthlessly. The less regulated the capitalism
> > is, the worse their abuses; every step Apple takes to regulate its
> > own behavior WRT these problems is a step in the right direction,
> > at least for the ill will you're concerned about.
>
> Tell that to the families of those 'children' (they were 16) who now
> don't have that income, which might mean someone in the family
> doesn't get to eat.
Now Chinese law shouldn't be followed in China, else children will
Ron Hunter <rphu...@charter.net> wrote:
> On 1/28/2013 10:33 PM, »Q« wrote:
> > Multinationals don't create ill will by refusing to contract with
> > such a criminal enterprise; they create ill will by exploiting
> > labor and resources ruthlessly. The less regulated the capitalism
> > is, the worse their abuses; every step Apple takes to regulate its
> > own behavior WRT these problems is a step in the right direction,
> > at least for the ill will you're concerned about.
>
> Tell that to the families of those 'children' (they were 16) who now
> don't have that income, which might mean someone in the family
> doesn't get to eat.
starve and the U.S. will be blamed?
> Why is it ok for a 4 year old to help plant crops in his family
> garden, and then help tend, harvest, and eat, those vegetables, but
> wrong to work for wages?
> It is arrogance to think that we can, or should, establish such rules
> for the whole world.
the other hand, you seem eager to turn every issue into something about
the U.S. trying to rule the whole world. What you posted (and I
haven't looked up) was that a single company, Apple, cancelled its
contract with a single factory; that's a far cry from a country trying
to impose rules on the whole world.
> On the other hand, the conspiracy to get them employed illegally is
> another issue which would cast doubt on the ethics of the company
> itself.
conspiracy?
»Q«
Jan 29, 2013, 7:05:26 PM1/29/13
to
On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 09:17:52 -0600
Ron Hunter <rphu...@charter.net> wrote:
> I think we should leave the Chinese alone if we want them to leave US
> alone.
Nice thought, but we seem determined to buy stuff from them instead of
Ron Hunter <rphu...@charter.net> wrote:
> I think we should leave the Chinese alone if we want them to leave US
> alone.
leaving them alone.
> Tick them off too much, and they will foreclose on the loans.
> Then where are we?
typed that. What loans are you talking about?
Jay Garcia
Jan 29, 2013, 8:02:27 PM1/29/13
to
On 29.01.2013 18:05, »Q« wrote:
--- Original Message ---
--- Original Message ---
China is the single largest foreign holder of U.S. Treasurys. The money
it lends to the Feds finances our significant budget deficits.
(Americans have been paying about $450 billion a year in interest on the
national credit card; without that debt to pay off, personal income
taxes could be almost 40 percent lower.)
Pulled out of context from:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503983_162-4864398-503983.html
»Q«
Jan 29, 2013, 10:56:34 PM1/29/13
to
On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 19:02:27 -0600
Jay Garcia <J...@JayNOSPAMGarcia.com> wrote:
> On 29.01.2013 18:05, »Q« wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 09:17:52 -0600
> > Ron Hunter <rphu...@charter.net> wrote:
> >> Tick them off too much, and they will foreclose on the loans.
> >> Then where are we?
> >
> > I'm really hoping you weren't thinking of the national debt when you
> > typed that. What loans are you talking about?
> >
>
> More than likely he did.
>
> China is the single largest foreign holder of U.S. Treasurys.
Yes, but those holdings aren't loans that could be foreclosed on.
Jay Garcia <J...@JayNOSPAMGarcia.com> wrote:
> On 29.01.2013 18:05, »Q« wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 09:17:52 -0600
> > Ron Hunter <rphu...@charter.net> wrote:
> >> Tick them off too much, and they will foreclose on the loans.
> >> Then where are we?
> >
> > I'm really hoping you weren't thinking of the national debt when you
> > typed that. What loans are you talking about?
> >
>
> More than likely he did.
>
> China is the single largest foreign holder of U.S. Treasurys.
Ron Hunter
Jan 30, 2013, 3:18:08 AM1/30/13
to
another country strikes me as arrogant, and invasive. Suppose you were
in business, and wanted to sell a product in Saudi Arabia, and they told
you that you couldn't employ women. Would you feel that was wrong?
Ron Hunter
Jan 30, 2013, 3:20:30 AM1/30/13
to
Should that change, things could get interesting.
China has a lot of people, but too many of them can't afford to buy
manufactured items, so they market around the world. This makes a
terrible unbalance in the money flowing each way.
Daniel
Jan 30, 2013, 5:29:16 AM1/30/13
to
070912 - Obama may have been planning the (much deserver) weapons ban
for much longer than just the recent schools shooting,
But then "A paper by the U.N.'s Coordinating Action on Small Arms (CASA)
notes that arms have been "misused by lawful owners" and says that the
"arms trade therefore be regulated in ways that would ... minimize the
misuse of legally owned weapons." " *and then the article asks* "Is
defending your home against intruders a "misuse"?"
And further down, "The treaty also establishes a bizarre moral
equivalence between countries that trade arms to defend freedom and
those that do so to suppress and extinguish it. Would such a treaty
allow us to sell weapons to Taiwan or Israel?"
Maybe, if I bothered to read the article a second time, I might find
where Obama wants to stop U.S. citizen arming themselves to the teeth,
but, after just one reading, this treaty seems to be mainly to stop the
International trade.
Oh! Wait! does the U.S. need to import the weapons they use to kill each
other??
--
Daniel
Ron Hunter
Jan 30, 2013, 5:50:29 AM1/30/13
to
in other countries. But the issues with the treaty don't stop there.
Read more about it.
Daniel
Jan 30, 2013, 6:29:34 AM1/30/13
to
Yet!!
--
Daniel
Jay Garcia
Jan 30, 2013, 8:14:51 AM1/30/13
to
On 29.01.2013 21:56, »Q« wrote:
--- Original Message ---
--- Original Message ---
Jay Garcia
Jan 30, 2013, 8:16:17 AM1/30/13
to
On 30.01.2013 02:20, Ron Hunter wrote:
--- Original Message ---
--- Original Message ---
Jay Garcia
Jan 30, 2013, 8:29:15 AM1/30/13
to
On 30.01.2013 04:50, Ron Hunter wrote:
--- Original Message ---
--- Original Message ---
1. Colt M1911
2. Smith & Wesson Model 10 Revolver
3. Bushmaster AR-15 Semiautomatic Rifle
4. Remington Model 870 Pump-Action Shotgun
5. Thompson/Center Arms Encore Muzzleloading Rifle
Now, how many of those are NOT made in America?
Also you may be interested among Americans, 58 percent own pistols, 63
percent own shotguns and 59 percent own rifles.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
»Q«
Jan 30, 2013, 3:59:20 PM1/30/13
to
On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 02:18:08 -0600
arrogant, invasive, and wrong. In your mind, Apple seems to have
strange and inexplicable moral imperative to do business with
everyone, even criminal companies.
> However, mandating the age of workers in a factory in another
> country strikes me as arrogant, and invasive. Suppose you were in
> business, and wanted to sell a product in Saudi Arabia, and they told
> you that you couldn't employ women. Would you feel that was wrong?
No, as far as I'm concerned, anyone should have the right to refuse to
do business with me based on whatever criteria they decide on. I take
it you believe they, whoever "they" are, should be forced to accept my
business no matter what they think about how I operate?
Ron Hunter <rphu...@charter.net> wrote:
> On 1/29/2013 6:00 PM, »Q« wrote:
> > On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 02:25:55 -0600
> > Ron Hunter <rphu...@charter.net> wrote:
> >> On the other hand, the conspiracy to get them employed illegally is
> >> another issue which would cast doubt on the ethics of the company
> >> itself.
> >
> > Whereas the primary issue for you is convincing Apple to overlook
> > the conspiracy?
>
> Not at all.
And yet when Apple doesn't overlook it, you say they are being
> On 1/29/2013 6:00 PM, »Q« wrote:
> > On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 02:25:55 -0600
> > Ron Hunter <rphu...@charter.net> wrote:
> >> On the other hand, the conspiracy to get them employed illegally is
> >> another issue which would cast doubt on the ethics of the company
> >> itself.
> >
> > Whereas the primary issue for you is convincing Apple to overlook
> > the conspiracy?
>
> Not at all.
arrogant, invasive, and wrong. In your mind, Apple seems to have
strange and inexplicable moral imperative to do business with
everyone, even criminal companies.
> However, mandating the age of workers in a factory in another
> country strikes me as arrogant, and invasive. Suppose you were in
> business, and wanted to sell a product in Saudi Arabia, and they told
> you that you couldn't employ women. Would you feel that was wrong?
do business with me based on whatever criteria they decide on. I take
it you believe they, whoever "they" are, should be forced to accept my
business no matter what they think about how I operate?
»Q«
Jan 30, 2013, 4:10:13 PM1/30/13
to
On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 02:20:30 -0600
on. Could you be a lot more specific about what China might do WRT its
U.S. Treasury holdings if Apple won't "leave them alone"?
Ron Hunter <rphu...@charter.net> wrote:
> On 1/29/2013 6:05 PM, »Q« wrote:
> > On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 09:17:52 -0600
> > Ron Hunter <rphu...@charter.net> wrote:
> >
> >> I think we should leave the Chinese alone if we want them to leave
> >> US alone.
> >
> > Nice thought, but we seem determined to buy stuff from them instead
> > of leaving them alone.
> >
> >> Tick them off too much, and they will foreclose on the loans.
> >> Then where are we?
> >
> > I'm really hoping you weren't thinking of the national debt when you
> > typed that. What loans are you talking about?
> >
> The US owes China trillions.
Less than that, and of course those aren't loans they can foreclose
> On 1/29/2013 6:05 PM, »Q« wrote:
> > On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 09:17:52 -0600
> > Ron Hunter <rphu...@charter.net> wrote:
> >
> >> I think we should leave the Chinese alone if we want them to leave
> >> US alone.
> >
> > Nice thought, but we seem determined to buy stuff from them instead
> > of leaving them alone.
> >
> >> Tick them off too much, and they will foreclose on the loans.
> >> Then where are we?
> >
> > I'm really hoping you weren't thinking of the national debt when you
> > typed that. What loans are you talking about?
> >
> The US owes China trillions.
on. Could you be a lot more specific about what China might do WRT its
U.S. Treasury holdings if Apple won't "leave them alone"?
Ron Hunter
Jan 30, 2013, 5:56:29 PM1/30/13
to
they have to change to get the business is wrong. Bullying, arrogant,
and likely to be perceived as coercion.
Ron Hunter
Jan 30, 2013, 5:59:21 PM1/30/13
to
manufacture, except the muzzleloader.
»Q«
Jan 30, 2013, 6:18:50 PM1/30/13
to
On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 16:56:29 -0600
Those are exactly the same thing. "We will choose not to do
business with you if you do X" is equivalent to "You must not do X in
order to get our business."
> Bullying, arrogant, and likely to be perceived as coercion.
Not likely to be perceived that way by sane people.
business with you if you do X" is equivalent to "You must not do X in
order to get our business."
> Bullying, arrogant, and likely to be perceived as coercion.
Jay Garcia
Jan 30, 2013, 9:43:06 PM1/30/13
to
that the first four on the list will be banned .. also not so. If you
say so then provide concrete evidence to the contrary and remember who
you are dealing with here. ;-)
Daniel
Jan 31, 2013, 1:01:21 AM1/31/13
to
Sailfish wrote:
> My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on
> 1/30/2013 12:20 AM:
> It's really simple to solve that problem, we just continue to inflation
> to where the dollars are worth less and less than they were when China
> loaned them to us. :)
but, isn't the Chinese currency locked to the US dollar?? So deceasing
the value of the US dollar will not change the number of US dollars the
US owes China!
--
Daniel
> My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on
> 1/30/2013 12:20 AM:
> to where the dollars are worth less and less than they were when China
> loaned them to us. :)
but, isn't the Chinese currency locked to the US dollar?? So deceasing
the value of the US dollar will not change the number of US dollars the
US owes China!
--
Daniel
Message has been deleted
Ron Hunter
Jan 31, 2013, 3:43:05 AM1/31/13
to
On 1/31/2013 12:06 AM, Sailfish wrote:
> My bloviated meandering follows what Daniel graced us with on 1/30/2013
> 10:01 PM:
> REF: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renminbi
>
> [excerpt quote="
> *Pegged with*: Partially, to a basket of trade-weighted international
> currencies
> " /]
>
> Not anymore.
>
They probably base it on iPhones now. Grin.
> My bloviated meandering follows what Daniel graced us with on 1/30/2013
> 10:01 PM:
>
> [excerpt quote="
> *Pegged with*: Partially, to a basket of trade-weighted international
> currencies
> " /]
>
> Not anymore.
>
They probably base it on iPhones now. Grin.
Sailfish
Jan 31, 2013, 2:34:59 PM1/31/13
to
My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on
1/31/2013 12:43 AM:
--
Sailfish - Netscape Champion
Mozilla Contributor Member - www.mozilla.org/credits/
Netscape/Mozilla Tips: http://www.ufaq.org/ , http://ilias.ca/
Rare Mozilla Stuff: http://www.projectit.com/
Ron Hunter
Jan 31, 2013, 4:38:41 PM1/31/13
to
the Borg.
WaltS
Jan 31, 2013, 4:47:10 PM1/31/13
to
Last I heard it was still known as the Republic of China, which is
separate from the communist People's Republic of China.
--
Fedora 17.0 (64-bit) KDE 4.9.5
Thunderbird Release
How slow is frozen snot?
Someone claims their browser is slower.
Ron Hunter
Jan 31, 2013, 6:43:34 PM1/31/13
to
commercial zone in which some capitalism is permitted for international
business. Money talks.
»Q«
Jan 31, 2013, 7:31:15 PM1/31/13
to
economies in Asia. They haven't sought or received China's blessings
about that.
China (PRC) and Taiwan (ROC) do have some relatively recent trade
agreements in place, to reduce tariffs and whatnot, but saying that
they make Taiwan a province of China is like saying NAFTA made Canada
a province of Mexico.
Ron Hunter
Jan 31, 2013, 8:25:00 PM1/31/13
to
been working pretty much like the Hong Cong area, and Shenzhen. This
seems to make both happy.
Message has been deleted
»Q«
Jan 31, 2013, 11:14:18 PM1/31/13
to
On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 19:25:00 -0600
I haven't checked.
And FWIW, Taiwan considers, and has since its inception, the provinces
of the mainland to be its own.
> Lately they have been working pretty much like the Hong Cong area,
> and Shenzhen. This seems to make both happy.
The relationship between the PRC and the ROC, even if we limit it to
economics, is considerably different than the relationship between
those two cities within the PRC.
Ron Hunter <rphu...@charter.net> wrote:
> On 1/31/2013 6:31 PM, »Q« wrote:
> > On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 17:43:34 -0600
> > Ron Hunter <rphu...@charter.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 1/31/2013 3:47 PM, WaltS wrote:
> >>> On 01/31/2013 04:38 PM, Ron Hunter wrote:
> >
> >>>> Tiawan now is a provence of China. They have been assimilated,
> >>>> like by the Borg.
> >>>
> >>> Don't know about Tiawan, but I don't think Taiwan is a province of
> >>> China.
> >>>
> >>> Last I heard it was still known as the Republic of China, which is
> >>> separate from the communist People's Republic of China.
> >>
> >> Pretty recent, but they seem to have an agreement now making
> >> Tiawan a commercial zone in which some capitalism is permitted for
> >> international business. Money talks.
> >
> > No. For many years, Taiwan has had a one of the biggest capitalist
> > economies in Asia. They haven't sought or received China's
> > blessings about that.
> >
> > China (PRC) and Taiwan (ROC) do have some relatively recent trade
> > agreements in place, to reduce tariffs and whatnot, but saying that
> > they make Taiwan a province of China is like saying NAFTA made
> > Canada a province of Mexico.
>
> China considers, and always has, Taiwan as a province.
Yep, you and China see it that way. I think North Korea does also, but
> On 1/31/2013 6:31 PM, »Q« wrote:
> > On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 17:43:34 -0600
> > Ron Hunter <rphu...@charter.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 1/31/2013 3:47 PM, WaltS wrote:
> >>> On 01/31/2013 04:38 PM, Ron Hunter wrote:
> >
> >>>> Tiawan now is a provence of China. They have been assimilated,
> >>>> like by the Borg.
> >>>
> >>> Don't know about Tiawan, but I don't think Taiwan is a province of
> >>> China.
> >>>
> >>> Last I heard it was still known as the Republic of China, which is
> >>> separate from the communist People's Republic of China.
> >>
> >> Pretty recent, but they seem to have an agreement now making
> >> Tiawan a commercial zone in which some capitalism is permitted for
> >> international business. Money talks.
> >
> > No. For many years, Taiwan has had a one of the biggest capitalist
> > economies in Asia. They haven't sought or received China's
> > blessings about that.
> >
> > China (PRC) and Taiwan (ROC) do have some relatively recent trade
> > agreements in place, to reduce tariffs and whatnot, but saying that
> > they make Taiwan a province of China is like saying NAFTA made
> > Canada a province of Mexico.
>
> China considers, and always has, Taiwan as a province.
I haven't checked.
And FWIW, Taiwan considers, and has since its inception, the provinces
of the mainland to be its own.
> Lately they have been working pretty much like the Hong Cong area,
> and Shenzhen. This seems to make both happy.
economics, is considerably different than the relationship between
those two cities within the PRC.
Ron Hunter
Feb 1, 2013, 3:27:36 AM2/1/13
to
On 1/31/2013 6:31 PM, »Q« wrote:
PRC. Taiwan has fought this, but lately, they seem to be putting the
disagreement aside in favor of making MONEY.
Ron Hunter
Feb 1, 2013, 3:32:00 AM2/1/13
to
Either way, they seem to have worked out something that works for both
to reduce tensions, and benefit both. Not so in the case of Korea.
They remain 'at war' officially. No end of the condition of war was
worked out, just an indefinite truce. North Korea still 'sabre rattles'
almost daily.
Jay Garcia
Feb 1, 2013, 8:18:42 AM2/1/13
to
On 01.02.2013 02:27, Ron Hunter wrote:
--- Original Message ---
--- Original Message ---
--
Jay Garcia - www.ufaq.org - Netscape - Firefox - SeaMonkey - Thunderbird
Mozilla Contribute Coordinator Team - www.mozilla.org/contribute/
Mozilla Mozillian Member - www.mozillians.org
»Q«
Feb 1, 2013, 10:41:33 AM2/1/13
to
has "always" considered all Chinese territory to be its own. But we've
already covered this; you agree with the PRC that Taiwan is a province
of China, but I'm still wondering why.
> Taiwan has fought this, but lately, they seem to be
> putting the disagreement aside in favor of making MONEY.
position about sovereignty, and they still do. The sovereignty
dispute doesn't prevent them from reaching trade agreements, and
trade agreements don't settle the issue of sovereignty.
»Q«
Feb 1, 2013, 10:54:39 AM2/1/13
to
On Fri, 01 Feb 2013 02:32:00 -0600
No, it doesn't. Note that while each maintains that the other belongs
under its rule, neither of them actually treats the other as if they
were part of the same country, and they never have.
> Either way, they seem to have worked out something that works for
> both to reduce tensions, and benefit both.
reduction of tensions != annexation as a province
> Not so in the case of Korea. They remain 'at war' officially. No end
> of the condition of war was worked out, just an indefinite truce.
> North Korea still 'sabre rattles' almost daily.
China and Taiwan haven't ever been at war with each other. The Chinese
Civil War predates the establishment of both the PRC on the mainland and
the ROC on Taiwan, both in 1949. Also,
they are not at war != one is a province of the other
under its rule, neither of them actually treats the other as if they
were part of the same country, and they never have.
> Either way, they seem to have worked out something that works for
> both to reduce tensions, and benefit both.
> Not so in the case of Korea. They remain 'at war' officially. No end
> of the condition of war was worked out, just an indefinite truce.
> North Korea still 'sabre rattles' almost daily.
Civil War predates the establishment of both the PRC on the mainland and
the ROC on Taiwan, both in 1949. Also,
they are not at war != one is a province of the other
Jay Garcia
Feb 1, 2013, 11:19:46 AM2/1/13
to
On 01.02.2013 09:54, »Q« wrote:
--- Original Message ---
--- Original Message ---
WHAT he is "thinking" .. :o)
--
Jay Garcia - www.ufaq.org - Netscape - Firefox - SeaMonkey - Thunderbird
Mozilla Contribute Coordinator Team - www.mozilla.org/contribute/
Mozilla Mozillian Member - www.mozillians.org
Ron Hunter
Feb 1, 2013, 1:22:41 PM2/1/13
to
They still claim Taiwan is a part of the PRC.
Ron Hunter
Feb 1, 2013, 1:26:09 PM2/1/13
to
PRC considers Taiwan a part of the PRC, not an independent political
entity, but rather an economic area that is allowed capitalistic
operation in order to benefit China. Taiwan may have other ideas, of
course.
Ron Hunter
Feb 1, 2013, 1:27:29 PM2/1/13
to
hostilities many times in the last 50 years.
Ron Hunter
Feb 1, 2013, 1:28:25 PM2/1/13
to
It's just a long, and not very comfortable truce.
Jay Garcia
Feb 1, 2013, 5:24:48 PM2/1/13
to
Ron Hunter
Feb 1, 2013, 5:27:26 PM2/1/13
to
Jay Garcia
Feb 1, 2013, 5:46:48 PM2/1/13
to
According to all the quotes, it appears that you said:
> North and South Korea ARE at war. They had a truce, NOT an treaty. It's
> just a long, and not very comfortable truce.
>
> North and South Korea ARE at war. They had a truce, NOT an treaty. It's
> just a long, and not very comfortable truce.
>
Ron Hunter
Feb 1, 2013, 8:05:50 PM2/1/13
to
look
Ron Hunter
Feb 1, 2013, 8:06:44 PM2/1/13
to
Bob Bainbridge
Feb 1, 2013, 8:30:34 PM2/1/13
to
Jay Garcia wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 1/29/2013 7:17 AM, Daniel wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>><Snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>People don't like to have outside interference in their affairs.
>>>>>>>>Look
>>>>>>>>at the response to the UN trying to mandate anti-gun rules in the
>>>>>>>>US. It
>>>>>>>>contributes to the 'ugly American' thinking. We are seen as
>>>>>>>>bullies.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Sorry, Ron, I've seen no mention anywhere concerning Quote "the UN
>>>>>>>trying to mandate anti-gun rules in the US." End Quote.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Can you please provide a reference??
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/070912-617568-arms-treaty-a-global-gun-grab-grab-treaty.htm?p=full
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks, Ron, interesting read!! Seems, from the date of the article -
>>>>>070912 - Obama may have been planning the (much deserver) weapons ban
>>>>>for much longer than just the recent schools shooting,
>>>>>
>>>>>But then "A paper by the U.N.'s Coordinating Action on Small Arms
>>>>>(CASA)
>>>>>notes that arms have been "misused by lawful owners" and says that the
>>>>>"arms trade therefore be regulated in ways that would ... minimize the
>>>>>misuse of legally owned weapons." " *and then the article asks* "Is
>>>>>defending your home against intruders a "misuse"?"
>>>>>
>>>>>And further down, "The treaty also establishes a bizarre moral
>>>>>equivalence between countries that trade arms to defend freedom and
>>>>>those that do so to suppress and extinguish it. Would such a treaty
>>>>>allow us to sell weapons to Taiwan or Israel?"
>>>>>
>>>>>Maybe, if I bothered to read the article a second time, I might find
>>>>>where Obama wants to stop U.S. citizen arming themselves to the teeth,
>>>>>but, after just one reading, this treaty seems to be mainly to stop the
>>>>>International trade.
>>>>>
>>>>>Oh! Wait! does the U.S. need to import the weapons they use to kill
>>>>>each
>>>>>other??
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Just like other commodities, many of the weapons Americans buy are made
>>>>in other countries. But the issues with the treaty don't stop there.
>>>>Read more about it.
>>>>
>>>
>>>The top 5 guns in America:
>>>
>>>1. Colt M1911
>>>2. Smith & Wesson Model 10 Revolver
>>>3. Bushmaster AR-15 Semiautomatic Rifle
>>>4. Remington Model 870 Pump-Action Shotgun
>>>5. Thompson/Center Arms Encore Muzzleloading Rifle
>>>
>>>Now, how many of those are NOT made in America?
>>>
>>>Also you may be interested among Americans, 58 percent own pistols, 63
>>>percent own shotguns and 59 percent own rifles.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Doesn't matter. ALL of them will be prohibited from sale, or
>>manufacture, except the muzzleloader.
>>
>
>
> It does matter, you made a statement that is not so as well as assuming
> that the first four on the list will be banned .. also not so. If you
> say so then provide concrete evidence to the contrary and remember who
> you are dealing with here. ;-)
>
Here is an interesting perspective on gun control - worth watching!
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/31/legal-immigrants-must-watch-testimony-against-gun-control-in-america/
Bob B.
> On 30.01.2013 16:59, Ron Hunter wrote:
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
>
>>On 1/30/2013 7:29 AM, Jay Garcia wrote:
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
>
>>
>>>On 30.01.2013 04:50, Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>
>>> --- Original Message ---
>>>
>>>
>>>>On 1/30/2013 4:29 AM, Daniel wrote:
>>>On 30.01.2013 04:50, Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>
>>> --- Original Message ---
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 1/29/2013 7:17 AM, Daniel wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>><Snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>People don't like to have outside interference in their affairs.
>>>>>>>>Look
>>>>>>>>at the response to the UN trying to mandate anti-gun rules in the
>>>>>>>>US. It
>>>>>>>>contributes to the 'ugly American' thinking. We are seen as
>>>>>>>>bullies.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Sorry, Ron, I've seen no mention anywhere concerning Quote "the UN
>>>>>>>trying to mandate anti-gun rules in the US." End Quote.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Can you please provide a reference??
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/070912-617568-arms-treaty-a-global-gun-grab-grab-treaty.htm?p=full
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks, Ron, interesting read!! Seems, from the date of the article -
>>>>>070912 - Obama may have been planning the (much deserver) weapons ban
>>>>>for much longer than just the recent schools shooting,
>>>>>
>>>>>But then "A paper by the U.N.'s Coordinating Action on Small Arms
>>>>>(CASA)
>>>>>notes that arms have been "misused by lawful owners" and says that the
>>>>>"arms trade therefore be regulated in ways that would ... minimize the
>>>>>misuse of legally owned weapons." " *and then the article asks* "Is
>>>>>defending your home against intruders a "misuse"?"
>>>>>
>>>>>And further down, "The treaty also establishes a bizarre moral
>>>>>equivalence between countries that trade arms to defend freedom and
>>>>>those that do so to suppress and extinguish it. Would such a treaty
>>>>>allow us to sell weapons to Taiwan or Israel?"
>>>>>
>>>>>Maybe, if I bothered to read the article a second time, I might find
>>>>>where Obama wants to stop U.S. citizen arming themselves to the teeth,
>>>>>but, after just one reading, this treaty seems to be mainly to stop the
>>>>>International trade.
>>>>>
>>>>>Oh! Wait! does the U.S. need to import the weapons they use to kill
>>>>>each
>>>>>other??
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Just like other commodities, many of the weapons Americans buy are made
>>>>in other countries. But the issues with the treaty don't stop there.
>>>>Read more about it.
>>>>
>>>
>>>The top 5 guns in America:
>>>
>>>1. Colt M1911
>>>2. Smith & Wesson Model 10 Revolver
>>>3. Bushmaster AR-15 Semiautomatic Rifle
>>>4. Remington Model 870 Pump-Action Shotgun
>>>5. Thompson/Center Arms Encore Muzzleloading Rifle
>>>
>>>Now, how many of those are NOT made in America?
>>>
>>>Also you may be interested among Americans, 58 percent own pistols, 63
>>>percent own shotguns and 59 percent own rifles.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Doesn't matter. ALL of them will be prohibited from sale, or
>>manufacture, except the muzzleloader.
>>
>
>
> It does matter, you made a statement that is not so as well as assuming
> that the first four on the list will be banned .. also not so. If you
> say so then provide concrete evidence to the contrary and remember who
> you are dealing with here. ;-)
>
Here is an interesting perspective on gun control - worth watching!
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/31/legal-immigrants-must-watch-testimony-against-gun-control-in-america/
Bob B.
»Q«
Feb 1, 2013, 10:01:44 PM2/1/13
to
»Q«
Feb 1, 2013, 10:02:09 PM2/1/13
to
On Fri, 01 Feb 2013 12:26:09 -0600
Ron Hunter <rphu...@charter.net> wrote:
> I agree with the PRC? Where did you get that idea.
You said that Taiwan is a province of China. Later you pointed out
Ron Hunter <rphu...@charter.net> wrote:
> I agree with the PRC? Where did you get that idea.
that the PRC thinks so as well. That's pretty much all we've been
talking about; sorry you missed it. ;)
»Q«
Feb 1, 2013, 10:11:12 PM2/1/13
to
Korean War. But your post wasn't a "response" to what I'd written, was
it? They don't seem at all connected.
»Q«
Feb 1, 2013, 10:13:10 PM2/1/13
to
You did, however, say that one is a province of the other.
Ron Hunter
Feb 2, 2013, 4:23:48 AM2/2/13
to
loudly. Our opinion really doesn't matter.
At the moment, Taiwan operates in a sort of schizophrenic mode with the
PRC, and the rest of the world. If this works for them, and keeps them
from killing each other, I am fine with it.
Jay Garcia
Feb 2, 2013, 8:51:07 AM2/2/13
to
Jay Garcia
Feb 2, 2013, 8:52:27 AM2/2/13
to
confusing as to who was talking about what.
Jay Garcia
Feb 2, 2013, 8:56:00 AM2/2/13
to
On 01.02.2013 21:01, »Q« wrote:
--- Original Message ---
--- Original Message ---
South and North right under the comment about China and Taiwan haven't
been at war, which illicited my response.
Ron Hunter
Feb 2, 2013, 1:26:47 PM2/2/13
to
Ron Hunter
Feb 2, 2013, 1:27:56 PM2/2/13
to
simmer, rather than all out war, so far.
Message has been deleted
»Q«
Feb 2, 2013, 8:28:26 PM2/2/13
to
On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 03:23:48 -0600
the PRC.
> At the moment, Taiwan operates in a sort of schizophrenic mode with
> the PRC, and the rest of the world.
IMO, that's the worst description you've given so far.
Ron Hunter <rphu...@charter.net> wrote:
> On 2/1/2013 9:13 PM, »Q« wrote:
> > On Fri, 01 Feb 2013 12:27:29 -0600
> > Ron Hunter <rphu...@charter.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2/1/2013 9:54 AM, »Q« wrote:
> >
> >>> China and Taiwan haven't ever been at war with each other. The
> >>> Chinese Civil War predates the establishment of both the PRC on
> >>> the mainland and the ROC on Taiwan, both in 1949. Also,
> >>>
> >>> they are not at war != one is a province of the other
> >>
> >> Never said they were at war,
> >
> > I never said you said they were.
> >
> > You did, however, say that one is a province of the other.
>
> As far as the PRC is concerned, Taiwan is a province. Taiwan
> disagrees, loudly. Our opinion really doesn't matter.
I didn't say your opinion mattered; I just said that you agree with
> On 2/1/2013 9:13 PM, »Q« wrote:
> > On Fri, 01 Feb 2013 12:27:29 -0600
> > Ron Hunter <rphu...@charter.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2/1/2013 9:54 AM, »Q« wrote:
> >
> >>> China and Taiwan haven't ever been at war with each other. The
> >>> Chinese Civil War predates the establishment of both the PRC on
> >>> the mainland and the ROC on Taiwan, both in 1949. Also,
> >>>
> >>> they are not at war != one is a province of the other
> >>
> >> Never said they were at war,
> >
> > I never said you said they were.
> >
> > You did, however, say that one is a province of the other.
>
> As far as the PRC is concerned, Taiwan is a province. Taiwan
> disagrees, loudly. Our opinion really doesn't matter.
the PRC.
> At the moment, Taiwan operates in a sort of schizophrenic mode with
> the PRC, and the rest of the world.
Ron Hunter
Feb 2, 2013, 8:47:20 PM2/2/13
to
On 2/2/2013 3:08 PM, Sailfish wrote:
> My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on
> 2/2/2013 1:23 AM:
> only reason the PRC hasn't taken Taiwan by force is because of the US's
> naval fleet protecting it. It's no secret that the ChiComs are building
> up their own naval fleet ostentatiously over territorial disputes on the
> Senkaku Islands and Spratly Islands. However, I doubt very seriously
> that if/when the ChiComs make a move on those islands, they won't also
> include Taiwan in the mix and, just to make it interesting, get their
> buddies, the NorKs, to make a move on the RoKs and probably Japanese at
> the same time.
>
Lest the forget, the US still has enough nukes to depopulate the world.
Or half of it, should someone get crazy.
> My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on
> 2/2/2013 1:23 AM:
>> On 2/1/2013 9:13 PM, »Q« wrote:
>
> [snip /]
>
>>>
>>> You did, however, say that one is a province of the other.
>>>
>>>
>> As far as the PRC is concerned, Taiwan is a province. Taiwan
>> disagrees, loudly. Our opinion really doesn't matter.
>> At the moment, Taiwan operates in a sort of schizophrenic mode with
>> the PRC, and the rest of the world. If this works for them, and keeps
>> them from killing each other, I am fine with it.
>>
> I wouldn't bet the farm that this will remain that way for long. The
>>> You did, however, say that one is a province of the other.
>>>
>>>
>> As far as the PRC is concerned, Taiwan is a province. Taiwan
>> disagrees, loudly. Our opinion really doesn't matter.
>> At the moment, Taiwan operates in a sort of schizophrenic mode with
>> the PRC, and the rest of the world. If this works for them, and keeps
>> them from killing each other, I am fine with it.
>>
> only reason the PRC hasn't taken Taiwan by force is because of the US's
> naval fleet protecting it. It's no secret that the ChiComs are building
> up their own naval fleet ostentatiously over territorial disputes on the
> Senkaku Islands and Spratly Islands. However, I doubt very seriously
> that if/when the ChiComs make a move on those islands, they won't also
> include Taiwan in the mix and, just to make it interesting, get their
> buddies, the NorKs, to make a move on the RoKs and probably Japanese at
> the same time.
>
Lest the forget, the US still has enough nukes to depopulate the world.
Or half of it, should someone get crazy.
Ron Hunter
Feb 2, 2013, 8:51:41 PM2/2/13
to
as a province as long as they continue to have the political and
economic freedom they have become accustomed to. If it works for them,
who are we to tell them they have to fight it out, knowing the the PRC
will win?
Message has been deleted
PhillipJones
Feb 2, 2013, 11:18:05 PM2/2/13
to
Sailfish wrote:
> My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on
> 2/2/2013 5:47 PM:
> My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on
> enough nukes to neuter the threat of a 1st strike.
>
Lest we forget if we get in to an all out Nuke war . Then we might end
up as shown iat the end of the Planet of the Ape movies will end up with
all atmosphere burned off and nothng left but a big space Rock.
--
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. "If it's Fixed, Don't Break it"
http://www.phillipmjones.net mailto:pjon...@comcast.net
Ron Hunter
Feb 3, 2013, 4:01:18 AM2/3/13
to
»Q«
Feb 3, 2013, 12:50:06 PM2/3/13
to
On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 19:51:41 -0600
"THey seem to feel it is ok" is an incredible oversimplification, but
pretending for now that it boils down to that, what made you bring up
schizophrenia?
> If it works for them, who are we to tell them they have to fight it
> out, knowing the the PRC will win?
Where did this come from? AFAIK, no one is advising the ROC to attack
the PRC, let alone telling them they must.
pretending for now that it boils down to that, what made you bring up
schizophrenia?
> If it works for them, who are we to tell them they have to fight it
> out, knowing the the PRC will win?
the PRC, let alone telling them they must.
Ron Hunter
Feb 3, 2013, 5:16:56 PM2/3/13
to
province, and yet they allow this rationalization to exist for political
reasons, as the position of the PRC. As long as it doesn't harm either
country, and prevents full scale war, I am all for it.
Message has been deleted
»Q«
Feb 3, 2013, 10:26:30 PM2/3/13
to
On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 16:16:56 -0600
That's very difficult to parse. You seem to be saying that the ROC
allows the PRC to continue to maintain that Taiwan is a province of the
PRC. But the PRC has held that position since 1949, and the ROC has
never had any way to change that, so there's no question of "allowing"
it.
And where does the alleged schizophrenia come in? Is is simply that
they have a commercial relationship as well as each claiming
sovereignty over the other?
allows the PRC to continue to maintain that Taiwan is a province of the
PRC. But the PRC has held that position since 1949, and the ROC has
never had any way to change that, so there's no question of "allowing"
it.
And where does the alleged schizophrenia come in? Is is simply that
they have a commercial relationship as well as each claiming
sovereignty over the other?
Ron Hunter
Feb 4, 2013, 3:03:41 AM2/4/13
to
On 2/3/2013 6:40 PM, Sailfish wrote:
> My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on
> 2/3/2013 2:16 PM:
> My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on
> the US is capitulating the Chinese because we allow manufacturing in
> their country.
>
Only if they declare the US a province...
Daniel
Feb 4, 2013, 3:31:33 AM2/4/13
to
PhillipJones wrote:
<Snip>
local digital T.V. stations showed "Beneath the Planet of the Apes",
which ends with the detonation of one nuclear missile which stripes the
atmosphere off the planet!!
--
Daniel
<Snip>
>>
> Lest we forget if we get in to an all out Nuke war . Then we might end
> up as shown iat the end of the Planet of the Ape movies will end up with
> all atmosphere burned off and nothng left but a big space Rock.
Funny you should mention Planet of the Apes Over the week-end one of the
> Lest we forget if we get in to an all out Nuke war . Then we might end
> up as shown iat the end of the Planet of the Ape movies will end up with
> all atmosphere burned off and nothng left but a big space Rock.
local digital T.V. stations showed "Beneath the Planet of the Apes",
which ends with the detonation of one nuclear missile which stripes the
atmosphere off the planet!!
--
Daniel
Ron Hunter
Feb 4, 2013, 10:43:00 AM2/4/13
to
Sailfish
Feb 4, 2013, 3:38:47 PM2/4/13
to
My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on
2/4/2013 12:03 AM:
--
Sailfish - Netscape Champion
Mozilla Contributor Member - www.mozilla.org/credits/
Netscape/Mozilla Tips: http://www.ufaq.org/ , http://ilias.ca/
Rare Mozilla Stuff: http://www.projectit.com/
Ron Hunter
Feb 4, 2013, 6:48:13 PM2/4/13
to
it is like some Brits who still call the US 'the colonies'.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages