Durka-Durka-Muhammed-Jihad!!
Somebody please tell me this is a joke:
Mexico furious at tough US law on migrantsIs Fox serious? Lodge a complaint on a multilateral basis? Who's he gonna whine to about this? And would anyone really take his complaint to heart? And it's not like 'Real ID' is legislating that we line up illegalMexico has reacted furiously to a bill signed into law by the US this week that would fund a border wall and prevent illegal Mexican migrants from obtaining US driving licences.
President Vicente Fox said he would lodge a diplomatic complaint, and was considering complaints to multilateral bodies if Mexico could not unable to resolve the problem bilaterally.
In the US, leaders of the Mexican community threatened to strike to send a message to US employers that they could not survive without cheap Mexican labour.
Santiago Creel, Mexico's interior secretary, said the “Real ID” law was “negative, inconvenient, and obstructionist”.
Ummm.....Presidente Fox? Please don't tell us how to legislate in OUR nation. Maybe you should get off your dead ass and possibly address the problem as to why MILLIONS of your citizens are leaving Mexico, huh?
You dipstick....
"""American companies don't make cars as well as Toyota, it's the governments fault?? Or is it th
Read more in Whining - Presidential Style
scroff said:
So... because American companies don't make cars as well as Toyota, it's the governments fault??
Read more in Whining - Presidential Style
Yogimus said:
EXAMPLE: Tariffs on motor vehicles
Short term benefit: Import vehicles cost as much as am
Read more in Whining - Presidential Style
Blackglasses said:
Well, US as a whole is hostile to it's own corporations more often than not. Every time laws a
Read more in Whining - Presidential Style
Yogimus said:
Well, US as a whole is hostile to it's own corporations more often than not. Every time laws are
Read more in Whining - Presidential Style
scroff said:
Good reply, BG. Unless I'm wrong, though, which has happened on rare occasions, there are several
Read more in Whining - Presidential Style
Comments on Whining - Presidential Style
Consider it a hostile invasion and conduct punitive strikes into mexico, leveling every settlement within 50 miles of the border.
Draft the protestors.
|| Posted by Yogimus, May 13, 2005 06:30 PM ||LOL!!
|| Posted by Mad Mikey, May 14, 2005 04:06 PM ||"Please don't tell us how to legislate in OUR nation."
Oh, if only the United States took that advice to heart.
What a world, what a world.
|| Posted by Blackglasses, May 14, 2005 11:03 PM ||We DON'T tell other nations how to legislate themselves. We tell them how to behave if they wish to deal with us.
(Cacophany of IRAQ dies down...)
We would refer to that as a war.
That would be the benefit of being the biggest swinging dick in town.
|| Posted by Yogimus, May 15, 2005 05:00 AM ||I'm sorry, could you clairfy yourself, your post looks likes many other posts collided into one superpost.
|| Posted by Blackglasses, May 15, 2005 09:19 AM ||That would be the benefit of being the biggest swinging dick in town.
Yup, there it is... laws? What laws? Who needs to follow the laws if you're the biggest swinging dick in town.
BTW, I always find it interesting how macho right weiners will always, sooner or later, refer to the male genitalia, and it's always in reference to size...
rofl!!!!!!!!
We DON'T tell other nations how to legislate themselves. We tell them how to behave if they wish to deal with us
That comment alone contradicts itself, but I guess obvious contradictions like that don't matter to the swingin dick crowd.
Soon enough, with the emergence of China and India as world economic forces, the EU, and the centralization of economic power in South America, they won't have to deal with us. We'll be standing all by ourselves, the number one weapons salesmen in the world. Big whoopty doo.
|| Posted by scroff, May 15, 2005 11:03 AM ||On the other hand, I don't know much about Mexican economics, but it would seem that Fox does need to do something to raise the standard of living in Mexico. But at the same time it would seem that it would behoove us to lend a hand.
|| Posted by scroff, May 15, 2005 11:12 AM ||The more powerful of two nations decides on what terms two nations will conduct business.
Sorry. I didn't make the rules.
|| Posted by Yogimus, May 15, 2005 03:31 PM ||Going back to my point, would not actually invading a country, killing its citizens and occupying it count as, oh, i don't know, kinda be the ultimate version of "telling someone else what to do"?
?
|| Posted by Blackglasses, May 15, 2005 08:32 PM ||The more powerful of two nations decides on what terms two nations will conduct business.
Perhaps in the simplistic Bushian world of might makes whatever the fuck you swingin dick types think it makes, but in the real world this is a crock, or at least for the most part, were it not for all the corruption in the WTO.
I suppose the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law doesn't matter either if you happen to have the biggest swinging dick in town.
See, laws are established so that the biggest swinging dick in town can't make all the rules... here in America we like to refer to that as rule of law, and it used to be one of the core values of America.
Sorry. I didn't make the rules.
That's a very good thing... you obviously don't read them, either.
|| Posted by scroff, May 15, 2005 08:36 PM ||Perhaps in the simplistic Bushian world of might makes whatever the fuck you swingin dick types think it makes, but in the real world this is a crock, or at least for the most part, were it not for all the corruption in the WTO.
----------------------------------------------------
It is wrong, therefore it must not exist... riiight. Good philosophy.
I suppose the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law doesn't matter either if you happen to have the biggest swinging dick in town.
---------------------------------------------
Who wrote the laws?
|| Posted by Yogimus, May 15, 2005 10:24 PM ||Tell you what... If you want to pretend that the world is a warm and fuzzy place, go ahead.
Techincally, there are no "laws" at the international level. There is no higher authority to create and enfornce binding legislation (hence, the international system is refered to as "anarchal")
However, treaties, agreements and customs act as guidelines for the system and states in it. However, froma classical IR point of view (realist/neo-realist) each state voluntarly submits to items such as treaties, custom, etc.
The reality of the situation, dumb filters put aside, is that the United States occupies a hegemonic (dominating) role in IR due to its economic and military power, and techincally could act like the "biggest dick in town" but it has not, regardless of what you believe with your "USA USA # 1! EUROPE SUX" point of view for the simple reason that the US has invested so much time and effort into developing and international order that benefits it and its closest allies. If the US was to continusly act in a bellicose and arrogant matter (something Pres. Bush is trying to back away from in his second term, now that he's fooled the "USA USA # 1" crowd) it could find itself in dire straits.
So you are both mistaken. Not wrong, just mistaken.
|| Posted by Blackglasses, May 16, 2005 01:26 PM ||Presidente Fox,
Your country is such a shithole, not even Mexicans want to live there.
|| Posted by Rob@L&R, May 17, 2005 04:40 AM ||Good reply, BG. Unless I'm wrong, though, which has happened on rare occasions, there are several organizations that create and endeavor to enforce, or at least arbitrate, international law... such as the aforementioned UNCITRAL, the Permanent Court of Arbitration, ICSID, International Chamber of Commerce, Bank for International Settlements and the WTO.
Granted, "technically", they do not create "law" as we might understand it, and there is no enforcement such as an international cop showing up at the state's capital arresting the Prime Minister or President, and compliance is voluntary, but as I said, it's rule of law, something the US is supposed to strive for.
As far as the US' hegemonic role, we've seen how effective that is with globalization and the war in Iraq. It worked when Middle Eastern nations tried to nationalize the oil fields, but it is becoming less and less dominant.
Perhaps we have to differentiate between the US and US corporations?
|| Posted by scroff, May 17, 2005 07:08 PM ||Well, US as a whole is hostile to it's own corporations more often than not. Every time laws are passed to "help" our companies, it ends up doing more harm than good.
|| Posted by Yogimus, May 18, 2005 04:46 AM ||Well, US as a whole is hostile to it's own corporations more often than not. Every time laws are passed to "help" our companies, it ends up doing more harm than good.
Whoa.
Let me guess: AM talk radio fan?
Probably.
|| Posted by Blackglasses, May 18, 2005 05:19 PM ||EXAMPLE: Tariffs on motor vehicles
Short term benefit: Import vehicles cost as much as american models, american vehicles are competitive.
Long term negative: Import vehicles increase in quality at a drastic rate to remain competitive, american vehicles stagnate.
Once you factor in the cost of the beurocracy, the whole deal begins to turn sour.
|| Posted by Yogimus, May 18, 2005 06:35 PM ||So... because American companies don't make cars as well as Toyota, it's the governments fault?? Or is it that Toyota made their cars better because of the American Government?
In any event, most foriegn car companies, as far as I know, have found a way to avoid any tarrifs... they moved to the US...
What about corporate welfare? The Cato Institute has a whole site dedicated to this. Find it at the Cato Handbook for Congress.
I also always find Smedley Butler's take on things interesting.
|| Posted by scroff, May 18, 2005 09:17 PM ||"""American companies don't make cars as well as Toyota, it's the governments fault?? Or is it that Toyota made their cars better because of the American Government?"""
The american companies lobbied to be shielded from international markets. They then failed to evolve. The lack of healthy competition prevented the evolution of the market.
|| Posted by Yogimus, May 19, 2005 02:03 AM ||What about corporate welfare? Cease all public funding for ALL companies. End of story. Sink or swim. (But what of the airlines?) the airlines will liquidate their assets, and new companies can form.