Truthers Figuring Out Mid-East Politics

[realitybites]

It's somewhat amusing considering the average age over there is probably close to 16.

But of course... they've got it all figured out (http://http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=16048).

[timhau]

There are a few extra characters in your link...

... and holy jeebus, it's an interesting planet those people live on. It even appears to have some people and places that have namesakes on Earth, but other than that it's a really weird place.

[buka001]

I am banned from there I cannot see!! Can't even view as a guest! :(

[WildCat]

Fixed link: http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=16048

[kevsta]

I am banned from there I cannot see!! Can't even view as a guest! :(.

If it's an IP ban (have you been trolling them? :) ) you could try a proxy server such as hideme.biz or the-cloak.com to just read it

[buka001]

I don't think so. They obviously do.

Read my posts (if they haven't been deleted), tell me what you think. I posted under the name Saffer1. Look under their pentagon, wtc7 and flight 93 topics.

[madurobob]

Looks like there are many saffer1 posts still there. As far as I can tell you were asking logical questions and requesting logical answers. The other posters only rarely obliged.

Wikipedia defines a troll as "someone who intentionally posts controversial or contrary messages in an online community... with the intention of baiting users into an argumentative response"

I don't think that makes you a troll... unless you knew those troofers would have no logical responses and would ultimately respond by banning you :cool:

You must have your IP blocked. My ISP uses dynamic hosting, so when I bump into an IP ban I simply logoff from the ISP, release all IP addresses (IPCONFIG in windows), and log back on. Voila - new IP address!

[Foolmewunz]

Not just politics. They show an incredible understanding for global trade, also.


http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=16048&view=findpost&p=14598697


I'm in shipping as some of you know. My specialty is the container trade, with a major in the Transpacific market. It's rare to find fourteen errors in a single post, so this one made my day.

888LetsRoll Posted: Sep 21 2007, 06:27 AM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 39
Member No.: 7,007
Joined: 12-September 07



no way man, see we went over there and re-engineered their banking systems...
Paulsen did this.. he also fixed the stock markets over there.
or did we put them on a debt benge... /??? what do they have America wants..?
see what I mean... they just bought all of factories that went out of business and we have been buying crap our tools and machines produced and sold them back to us... but the Mexican to Canadian highway - is for China's benefit.. so they can send bigger ships into mexican waters and truck the crap up to Canada.
the Canal is too narrow for the next generation of ships...
hummm....
so why not port of LA or Oakland or Portland or Seatle...????
why do we give up land so that mexicans can off load ships and drive on American Soil..??? it makes no sense...

Lemme see... today, a forty foot container to Vancouver will cost you a maximum of 2300 USD. Rail to Toronto 1300 USD Truck to Deliver 300 USD Total USD 3900.

Forty foot container to Manzanillo? 3400 USD Truck from Manzanillo to Toronto 2500 USD Total USD 5900.

Now someone like Eaton's, The Bay, Canada Tire or The Brick, will be bringing in a mere 10,000 containers a year. Let's see, now? Negative 2,000 times 10,000 is like ..... Oh, well, it's a lot of money. Those evil Chinese! They sure fooled us, again!

"Debt Benge"? Yeah, that's why the Chinese have a trillion dollars in assets lying around.

Oh, and by the way... the Mexican ports can't take the next generation of containerships, either. Only Lax, Sea-Tac, and Vancouver can. And the only way to work those big puppies (think 8000 containers coming off in a single port over 36 hours) is by offloading direct to rail. So unless Brunel is out there with Van Horne and planning to make the Manzanillo-Sudbury line, this is the most ridiculous pot addled theory I've seen in several hours.

I give it three spiders. I like the beat, but my girlfriend doesn't like the lyrics.

:spjimlad::spjimlad::spjimlad:

[Horatius]

but the Mexican to Canadian highway - is for China's benefit.. so they can send bigger ships into mexican waters and truck the crap up to Canada.


....passing through the largest market for consumer goods in the world, to get to a market with about 10% of the population. Brilliant!




Then we'll build a wall along the border so those Yanks can't raid us and take all our Chinese crap. I'm pretty sure the Chinese can sell us one of those, too.

[Foolmewunz]

....passing through the largest market for consumer goods in the world, to get to a market with about 10% of the population. Brilliant!




Then we'll build a wall along the border so those Yanks can't raid us and take all our Chinese crap. I'm pretty sure the Chinese can sell us one of those, too.

Hey, why don't we team up with Wolfman! With him in China and with all those friendly types in the government he knows, and me in Hong Kong to handle the banking, we could probably convince that idjit gentleman who bought the London Bridge (mistaking it for Tower Bridge) to buy the Great Wall of Shriners.

It's gotta be more lucrative than selling the Brooklyn Bridge!

[Corsair 115]

...why do we give up land so that mexicans can off load ships and drive on American Soil... Yeah, let's forget the fact that under NAFTA the U.S. was to have given Mexican trucks the rights to transport goods from Mexico to points inside the United States by the year 2000 (in exhange for U.S. trucks getting the reciprocal right to deliver into Mexico), but the U.S. failed to live up to the agreement by the stated time. Mexico then launched a formal protest under NAFTA's trade dispute mechanism, which it won, but the U.S. refused to abide by that as well. So, finally, in 2007 a pilot program is put together so that Mexico can finally get the transportation rights it was supposed to have had seven years earlier, and then that gets cancelled due to political and public pressure inside the U.S.

All of the above doesn't even cover the fact that Mexican trucks were already allowed to drive through the United States while on their way to delivering goods to Canada, another right stipulated in NAFTA, and one which had already been exercised.

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

Speaking of troofers and their immense knowledge of global trade and economics. What is their WOO concerning the lead painted toys coming from China?

Considering how xenophobic they get, I bet it's a ploy to push the NAU into existence!

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

All of the above doesn't even cover the fact that Mexican trucks were already allowed to drive through the United States while on their way to delivering goods to Canada, another right stipulated in NAFTA, and one which had already been exercised.

On a daily basis I have to dodge friendly and courteous (not being sarcastic) Canadian trucks on the road. I'd really prefer not to dodge Mexican trucks which have no inspection standards (or emissions standards) on the highways. Not to mention, considering how many trucks already seem to stuff a 100 illegal immigrants in the trailer behind the crates of spark plugs, the last thing I want is these trucks to go across the border without being checked!

[Disbelief]

Yeah, let's forget the fact that under NAFTA the U.S. was to have given Mexican trucks the rights to transport goods from Mexico to points inside the United States by the year 2000 (in exhange for U.S. trucks getting the reciprocal right to deliver into Mexico), but the U.S. failed to live up to the agreement by the stated time. Mexico then launched a formal protest under NAFTA's trade dispute mechanism, which it won, but the U.S. refused to abide by that as well. So, finally, in 2007 a pilot program is put together so that Mexico can finally get the transportation rights it was supposed to have had seven years earlier, and then that gets cancelled due to political and public pressure inside the U.S.

All of the above doesn't even cover the fact that Mexican trucks were already allowed to drive through the United States while on their way to delivering goods to Canada, another right stipulated in NAFTA, and one which had already been exercised.

Unfortunately, many of the trucks in Mexico would not be allowed to be driven on the roads in the US. Also, many US truckers do not want to drive in Mexico or would not be allowed if the company is a multinational because of the corrupt police.

[Corsair 115]

On a daily basis I have to dodge friendly and courteous (not being sarcastic) Canadian trucks on the road. I'd really prefer not to dodge Mexican trucks which have no inspection standards (or emissions standards) on the highways. Vehicles operating inside the United States are subject to all relevant American rules and regulations. U.S. authorities have the right to pull over and inspect any vehicle to ensure compliance.

Not to mention, considering how many trucks already seem to stuff a 100 illegal immigrants in the trailer behind the crates of spark plugs, the last thing I want is these trucks to go across the border without being checked!All vehicles crossing the border are subject to the relevant customs checks. Some have claimed that since there aren't enough inspectors, this means that checks will be skipped. In reality the reverse would happen — with insufficient numbers of inspectors, trucks trying to cross the border would encounter long delays as they wait for their turn. Look no further than the U.S.-Canadian border for evidence.

Unfortunately, many of the trucks in Mexico would not be allowed to be driven on the roads in the US. Then that'd be a problem for Mexican trucking companies — they'll either have to get their vehicles and drivers up to the necessary standards or not be able to do business in the U.S.


The U.S. allowed Canadian trucks to deliver into the United States in 1982 in exchange for the reciprocal right of American trucks to deliver to points inside Canada. That right would have been extended to Mexican trucks as well but at that time the Mexican government would not grant the reciprocal right. It wasn't until NAFTA that Mexico finally decided to grant that right.

Another interesting item: while Mexico allows U.S. companies to own Mexican-based trucking firms, the U.S. will not allow a Mexican company to own a U.S.-based trucking company, even though it is supposed to allow such ownership under the terms of NAFTA.

Really, one does wonder what the point is of signing a trade deal with the United States when the U.S. feels free to ignore the terms of such a deal whenever it is expedient to do so because of domestic politics...

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

And it pretty much proves that NAU scaredy cats wrong. The US won't give up it's sovreignty... :)

[Hokulele]

...Oh, and by the way... the Mexican ports can't take the next generation of containerships, either. Only Lax, Sea-Tac, and Vancouver can...


Just curious, is that LAX as in Port of Long Beach, or Port of LA? I've been behind the ropes at Port of LA watching them unload. Impressive!

[GT/CS]

Vehicles operating inside the United States are subject to all relevant American rules and regulations. U.S. authorities have the right to pull over and inspect any vehicle to ensure compliance.


Sadly it isn't working that way. Certain groups are claiming that we are discriminating against the Mexicans by requiring that their trucks meet minimal standards. As of right now it looks like the standards may be lessened or eliminated for the Mexican trucks.

This is a major issue in Texas right now and it is all over the media.

[GreNME]

Really, one does wonder what the point is of signing a trade deal with the United States when the U.S. feels free to ignore the terms of such a deal whenever it is expedient to do so because of domestic politics...
M.O.N.E.Y.

Honestly, even a lot of the bad (or unbalanced) deals with the US are still better than no deals at all. From the Panama Canal up to the post-NAFTA trade deals, Central America has used that as almost a universal rule when dealing with the US (that is, when they would deal with the US).

But you probably expected that and already knew that... :o

[Corsair 115]

Sadly it isn't working that way. Certain groups are claiming that we are discriminating against the Mexicans by requiring that their trucks meet minimal standards. As of right now it looks like the standards may be lessened or eliminated for the Mexican trucks.I would think such an action might be problematic under NAFTA; if the U.S. lowers standards for Mexican trucks, Canada would likely have a legitimate argument that they should be lowered for Canadian trucks entering the U.S.

It all comes down to the rules spelled out in that agreement...

[GreNME]

Sadly it isn't working that way. Certain groups are claiming that we are discriminating against the Mexicans by requiring that their trucks meet minimal standards. As of right now it looks like the standards may be lessened or eliminated for the Mexican trucks.
I would think such an action might be problematic under NAFTA; if the U.S. lowers standards for Mexican trucks, Canada would likely have a legitimate argument that they should be lowered for Canadian trucks entering the U.S.

It all comes down to the rules spelled out in that agreement...

I'm not sure GT/CS has it all the way correct. It is true that there is some disagreement here in Texas (I live in Dallas, unfortunately), but most of the gripes have been coming from the truckers' organizations and trucking companies. Even if, say, Texas were to lower their standards, that wouldn't guarantee that the trucks couldn't be stopped in other states. On a federal level, all automobile standards in the US are pretty low, some of the lowest in the First World. On state levels, though, the standards that have to be met differ from state-to-state. Most of these have more to do with emissions and basic road safety standards, though, so there are still some issues that would have to be altered on a federal level if there are trucks that want to cross that are that bad.

The debate right now in Texas may have more to do with Texas driving than federal regulations. Texas has huge patches of highway that are trucking corridors, with the ability to drive for hours and only see other semis on the road. Having competition bringing stuff back over the border using crappier (and cheaper) trucks stands to cause a lot of truckers (and companies) a lot of money. There is similar resistance to building a Texas rail corridor right now as well, because it poses similar challenges to trucking profits.

[Foolmewunz]

Just curious, is that LAX as in Port of Long Beach, or Port of LA? I've been behind the ropes at Port of LA watching them unload. Impressive!

Sorry - business shorthand. We tend to use LAX as the generic for both Los Angeles and Long Beach. (As we use "New York" to refer to the New York and New Jersey ports.)

For most shipments either Los Angeles or Long Beach (or San Pedro) work just fine because they have great rail connections - assuming they don't run into the horrible congestion they had last year.

[Corsair 115]

Even if, say, Texas were to lower their standards, that wouldn't guarantee that the trucks couldn't be stopped in other states.Most certainly foreign trucks driving within the U.S. can be stopped for a number of reasons.

This article (http://www.todaystrucking.com/news.cfm?intDocID=18258) from July on the Today's Trucking web site (a Canadian-based site on the Canadian trucking industry) mentions how a directive issued from the FMCSA in the U.S. on increasing inspections of foreign trucks to look for vehicles engaged in cabotage.

So vehicles can be stopped by state authorities for reasons having to do just with where a truck is hauling its goods from and where it's heading. If trucks can be stopped for that reason, then most certainly they can be stopped for more serious concerns such as safety violations.

Having competition bringing stuff back over the border using crappier (and cheaper) trucks stands to cause a lot of truckers (and companies) a lot of money. In the NAFTA Arbitration Panel's Final Report (http://www.sice.oas.org/dispute/nafta/english/U98081ae.asp#Contenido) issued in early 2001, Mexico made the argument that safety record comparisons are unfair due to the current system which restricts Mexican trucks to within twenty miles of the U.S. border. From footnote #293 at the end of the report (http://www.sice.oas.org/dispute/nafta/english/U98081de.asp#CONCLUSIONES) (scroll down to near the bottom of the web page):

The United States has argued that the safety record of Mexican drayage haulers is seriously deficient compared to U.S. trucks operating nationwide. USCS at 19-24. Mexico has admitted that the drayage haulers have used equipment in relatively poor condition. MIS at 21. However, Mexico argues that a comparison between Mexican drayage haulers and U.S. long-haul trucking firm safety records is misleading because the short distance drayage haulers do not have a self-interest in maintaining the quality of equipment that they would have if engaged in long-haul freight operations. MRS at 6. There is some logic to Mexico's point. However, the report itself goes on to say:

Neither argument is overly persuasive, nor directly pertinent to the Panel's analysis of the law.


If nothing else, the report is interesting reading in that it goes into considerable detail over the cross-border trucking issue, its background and history, and covers each country's position and arguments quite thoroughly.

[Hokulele]

Sorry - business shorthand. We tend to use LAX as the generic for both Los Angeles and Long Beach. (As we use "New York" to refer to the New York and New Jersey ports.)

For most shipments either Los Angeles or Long Beach (or San Pedro) work just fine because they have great rail connections - assuming they don't run into the horrible congestion they had last year.


Thanks for the clarification. I was mostly curious since I had been to one, but not the other(s). Strange but related side story, my husband is acquaintances with a truther (no worries on my part, I didn't marry someone stupid). This person is convinced that China is buying up all the US ports. Since I had just been to the Port of LA for work, I asked him to specify which ports. When he mentioned that one specifically, I explained the ownership, leasing, and maintenance contracts that I had to work with. Didn't seem to make any difference to him. Oh that's right, I am just another gov't shill. *shrug*

[Alareth]

Oh that's right, I am just another gov't shill. *shrug*

You can't be trusted. You come from a place with funny sounding polynesian words. Admit it, aloha really means "I'm only pretending to be friendly until I figure out the best way to kill you" doesn't it?

[Foolmewunz]

Thanks for the clarification. I was mostly curious since I had been to one, but not the other(s). Strange but related side story, my husband is acquaintances with a truther (no worries on my part, I didn't marry someone stupid). This person is convinced that China is buying up all the US ports. Since I had just been to the Port of LA for work, I asked him to specify which ports. When he mentioned that one specifically, I explained the ownership, leasing, and maintenance contracts that I had to work with. Didn't seem to make any difference to him. Oh that's right, I am just another gov't shill. *shrug*

If you have at 'im again, tell him to learn the difference between "Port" and "Terminal". The Ports in the USA are owned by state and local authorities. The Terminals are tenants of the Ports.

Here's a nice read about those evil Chinese Angeleans trying to take over a precious American asset a valued customer from the neighboring Port of Long Beach. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m5072/is_n8_v20/ai_20568619

Business is business. The Chinese carriers (COSCO and China Shipping) carry a huge volume of business. The terminal operations are far more lucrative than the vessel operations as the local tariffs are fixed, conveniently by the evil Chinese the local governments, and not subject to supply and demand as ocean freight rates are. Ergo, owning your own terminal is a huge profit incentive.

[Hokulele]

You can't be trusted. You come from a place with funny sounding polynesian words. Admit it, aloha really means "I'm only pretending to be friendly until I figure out the best way to kill you" doesn't it?


Close. More like, "I'm only pretending to be friendly until I figure out the best way to eat you." That whole "long pig" thing, you know.

If you have at 'im again, tell him to learn the difference between "Port" and "Terminal". The Ports in the USA are owned by state and local authorities. The Terminals are tenants of the Ports.

Here's a nice read about those evil Chinese Angeleans trying to take over a precious American asset a valued customer from the neighboring Port of Long Beach. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m5072/is_n8_v20/ai_20568619

Business is business. The Chinese carriers (COSCO and China Shipping) carry a huge volume of business. The terminal operations are far more lucrative than the vessel operations as the local tariffs are fixed, conveniently by the evil Chinese the local governments, and not subject to supply and demand as ocean freight rates are. Ergo, owning your own terminal is a huge profit incentive.


Cool article! (ETA: That's pretty much what I had meant by ownership versus leasing.) Anyhow, the only truthers I have personally met are both a little wary of me now, and only talk about fun stuff (surfing). They know that as soon as they say anything conspiracy-related, they will be on the receiving end of the evil, NWO laugh of scorn. And I won't give them any of the long pig pulled-pork sandwiches I bring to cookouts.

[Alareth]

Close. More like, "I'm only pretending to be friendly until I figure out the best way to eat you." That whole "long pig" thing, you know.

You realize of course, this puts your boudin picture in a completely new context right?

[Hokulele]

You realize of course, this puts your boudin picture in a completely new context right?



:eek:

[JamesB]

From the link in the OP:

If I'm not mistaken, Musharaf and the Pakistani ISI under his control have had a very suspicious relationship with Bin Laden, Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Uhh, the big question here though, is how much of the ISI is under his control. If Musharaff were to tell the Army to clear out Waziristan and find bin Laden, the answer would pretty much be, "Yeah, we'll have to get back to you on that one boss."

[GreNME]

Most certainly foreign trucks driving within the U.S. can be stopped for a number of reasons.

This article (http://www.todaystrucking.com/news.cfm?intDocID=18258) from July on the Today's Trucking web site (a Canadian-based site on the Canadian trucking industry) mentions how a directive issued from the FMCSA in the U.S. on increasing inspections of foreign trucks to look for vehicles engaged in cabotage.

So vehicles can be stopped by state authorities for reasons having to do just with where a truck is hauling its goods from and where it's heading. If trucks can be stopped for that reason, then most certainly they can be stopped for more serious concerns such as safety violations.
Yeah, that's what I was saying. Sorry, poor use of a double-negative in my sentence. :)

I was pointing out that the issue in Texas is an argument on the state level, and wouldn't necessarily be applicable in other states unless Texas blocked trucks coming in.


In the NAFTA Arbitration Panel's Final Report (http://www.sice.oas.org/dispute/nafta/english/U98081ae.asp#Contenido) issued in early 2001, Mexico made the argument that safety record comparisons are unfair due to the current system which restricts Mexican trucks to within twenty miles of the U.S. border. From footnote #293 at the end of the report (http://www.sice.oas.org/dispute/nafta/english/U98081de.asp#CONCLUSIONES) (scroll down to near the bottom of the web page):

There is some logic to Mexico's point. However, the report itself goes on to say:
I agree with your opinion that Mexico has a good point.

If nothing else, the report is interesting reading in that it goes into considerable detail over the cross-border trucking issue, its background and history, and covers each country's position and arguments quite thoroughly.

Thanks for the link. I love serendipitously informative reading material! :)