www.ditl.org

Tsukiyumi wrote:
That would be nice, but I think we'd have to amend the Constitution to add anything like that.

Seafort - we're still classed as a Federalist Union. I'd say the fact that we're able to vote in people who then speak for us is irrelevant to whether we're a true democracy. Democratic, yes. Democracy, no.

According to the dictionary, your government is indeed a form of democracy.

Marriam Webster wrote: de·moc·ra·cy


1 a: government by the people ; especially : rule of the majority b:a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections2: a political unit that has a democratic government3capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States <from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy - C. M. Roberts>4: the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority5: the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

Huh. So, even though we only control who gets in office, and not how they vote, it's still considered a democracy.

Doesn't sound like one to me.

Tsukiyumi wrote:Huh. So, even though we only control who gets in office, and not how they vote, it's still considered a democracy.

Doesn't sound like one to me.

A true democracy would be nigh unworkable, having to put every piece of legislation to a popular vote would be massively time consuming, expensive and likely result in either nothing getting done or worse the destruction of the country. Who the hell is going to vote for increasing taxes despite the country being in the shitter? People are very short sighted.

Cpl Kendall wrote:...People are very short sighted.

Assuredly.

Back to the main issue, the point of this is:

A) the projects themselves will help the economy (not to mention saving me money on fucking car maintenance) more than the "backlash" (which is BS) or increased costs will hurt it.

and,

B) we protect a vital part of national security, which is worth a little more cost.

Tsukiyumi wrote:A) the projects themselves will help the economy (not to mention saving me money on f***ing car maintenance) more than the "backlash" (which is BS) or increased costs will hurt it.

How much are you willing to bet on that? How many companies are you willing to see collapse because they've got the good business sense to look for the best deal regardless of which country it comes from? How much of the little remaining goodwill your country has left are you willing to throw away?

B) we protect a vital part of national security, which is worth a little more cost.

As I've already pointed out, the argument over the steel industry is not a binary "keep it all or lose it all" one.

Tsukiyumi wrote:You're mistaken. The US is a Federalist Union. We don't vote directly on anything, at least not on the federal level, therefore, we are not a democracy.

It's an indirect or representative democracy (as Kendall pointed out), but a democracy nonetheless.

Captain Seafort wrote:...How much of the little remaining goodwill your country has left are you willing to throw away?

I fail to see why that would be. If the rest of the world responds to this one instance of us using our own products by hating us, or retaliating, then that is extremely childish.

We want to build a sandcastle using our own sand for once, rather than buying sand from other countries, so now they cant afford to buy an ice cream at the boardwalk. So they're going to throw a tantrum.

If this turns into a trend, I can see the problem. Otherwise, it seems silly.

If Britain decided to rebuild Big Ben, and only allowed UK companies to bid for the job, I doubt we'd throw a hissy-fit.

Lazar - and as I said, that doesn't sound much like a democracy to me. Conceded on the semantics.

Tsukiyumi wrote:
Assuredly.

Back to the main issue, the point of this is:

A) the projects themselves will help the economy (not to mention saving me money on f***ing car maintenance) more than the "backlash" (which is BS) or increased costs will hurt it.

and,

Likely it will help the companies that get the contracts seeing as they'll be paid by the Feds and other companies will lose money, go out of business or get stinking rich depending on how well they adapt to the new climate.

B) we protect a vital part of national security, which is worth a little more cost.

Like I mentioned before this is not an either or thing. You could easily reserve some of the produced steel for defense purposes, whether that is adequate for the needs of the US remains to be seen. It wasn't long ago that the US was cranking out so many AFV's that there was a shortage of armour grade steel world wide.

Cpl Kendall wrote:...It wasn't long ago that the US was cranking out so many AFV's that there was a shortage of armour grade steel world wide.

Yeah, we really should learn to recycle our fighting vehicles.

I'm saying that the mindset is: "We don't want to have to rely on imports if something serious happens". Perhaps this new measure will encourage our plants to modernize, or (god forbid), build new plants.

Tsukiyumi wrote:
I fail to see why that would be. If the rest of the world responds to this one instance of us using our own products by hating us, or retaliating, then that is extremely childish.

I'm sorry Tsu but the world has been burned badly by the policies of the US over the last eight years, it is not unreasonable for us to see this as the symptom of a possible larger problem to come.

We want to build a sandcastle using our own sand for once, rather than buying sand from other countries, so now they cant afford to buy an ice cream at the boardwalk. So they're going to throw a tantrum.

If this turns into a trend, I can see the problem. Otherwise, it seems silly.

That is the problem, based on the last eight years there is no reason for us not to think that it will be. Remember that Obama is only a liberal politician in the US, for the rest of the West he's quite right wing.

If Britain decided to rebuild Big Ben, and only allowed UK companies to bid for the job, I doubt we'd throw a hissy-fit.

Lazar - and as I said, that doesn't sound much like a democracy to me. Conceded on the semantics.

The two situations are hardly comparable. Refurbing Big Ben isn't going to cost anywhere near what this will nor is it anywhere near it in scope.

Yeah, we really should learn to recycle our fighting vehicles.

Well you can recycle the parts that haven't been horribley burned out.

I'm saying that the mindset is: "We don't want to have to rely on imports if something serious happens". Perhaps this new measure will encourage our plants to modernize, or (god forbid), build new plants.

Why not establish a "steel reserve" or better yet, when a plant closes mothball it.

Captain Seafort wrote: There's a difference between retaining a residual steel industry to build warships, etc, as we have, and having vast swathes of the country dependant on it

Tsuki hit it right on. It is a matter of national security. For the United States to stay top dog (I know this isn't an important issue to people living outside the US-- unless there's a war ), we need not just a strong secondary sector. We need the paramount secondary sector. A healthy economy doesn't just live in one sector like England does with the quaternary sector. UK should be more concerned about this imo. A good economy has all four. We're wanting our economy to be able to compete with crappy wages on the other side of the world.

You vote on your Head of State. You vote on members of your legislature. Whether or not each individual law passed goes to a national referendum is irrelevent - you're still a democracy.

Either way that's still called the government. You vote for people to make decisions for you. So yelling "ITS THE TAX PAYERS!" is retarded when the taxpayers vote for the government. We're basically saying the exact same thing. So why even make a point of yelling the taxpayers? Tax payers elected these people. These people are the government. The government can choose just like any other business or person how to spend its funds.

I meant SteveK, not Graham when I said he was right earlier. Was referring to:

edit: I've thought about this a bit more since my response yesterday. The purpose of the goveroulnment laying out these funds is two-fold. The first is to help the economy, the second is to improve the infrastructure. While limiting imports would increase the amount that the infrastructure is improved, it reduces the amount that the economy is improved. Imagine if the government announced that to help the auto industry it was going to replace the entire fleet of mail trucks. It wouldn't really help that much to import them from Korea would it?

What happens when I raid and read at the same time curses to WoW.

Tsukiyumi wrote:
We want to build a sandcastle using our own sand for once, rather than buying sand from other countries, so now they cant afford to buy an ice cream at the boardwalk. So they're going to throw a tantrum.

haha that's great.
Awh boohoo. Canada doesn't get the contract. wah wah. LOL

Monroe wrote:

Tsukiyumi wrote:
We want to build a sandcastle using our own sand for once, rather than buying sand from other countries, so now they cant afford to buy an ice cream at the boardwalk. So they're going to throw a tantrum.

haha that's great.
Awh boohoo. Canada doesn't get the contract. wah wah. LOL

Well, I certainly wasn't singling out Canada. I think working with them is a great idea, seeing as how they're our neighbors, and they back us up frequently.

I'm saying tough titties to China, India, and continental Europe.

I sure don't want my roads and bridges built with French steel.

Monroe wrote: haha that's great.
Awh boohoo. Canada doesn't get the contract. wah wah. LOL

I know I'm going to get penalised for this but it needs to be said. You sir are a fool and exactly why the world despises Americans, you think only of what will benefit yourself, care nothing for what others think as long as you get yours.

Saying that this is about Canada missing out on some steel sales is a massive oversimplification of the issue and frankly leads me to believe that your are unable to think of anything beyond your little world or unable to see anything except in black and white terms.

Tsukiyumi wrote:

Monroe wrote:

Tsukiyumi wrote:
We want to build a sandcastle using our own sand for once, rather than buying sand from other countries, so now they cant afford to buy an ice cream at the boardwalk. So they're going to throw a tantrum.

haha that's great.
Awh boohoo. Canada doesn't get the contract. wah wah. LOL

Well, I certainly wasn't singling out Canada. I think working with them is a great idea, seeing as how they're our neighbors, and they back us up frequently.

I'm saying tough titties to China, India, and continental Europe.

I sure don't want my roads and bridges built with French steel.

Yeah I know. I like Canada too. Just saying them because Kendall is sure to reply
I've always wanted thought for a store to compete with Walmart they would have to go the pro-America route Walmart used to do. First buy American, then Canadian, then western Europe, then a few other choices and lastly China depending on if the former didn't have what the latter could provide.