# Moribund...



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Perhaps a bit of hyperbole, but the case can be made.

Moribund: 
1 : being in the state of dying : approaching death
2 : being in a state of inactivity or obsolescence

Fact: Birth rates for "native" old European countries are generally *negative*

Fact: Many of the large EU economies have extremely high unemployment relative to other Western countries such as Canada and the US.

Fact: Please compare per capita GDP for the EU 15 vs. the US, Japan, Canada, etc.

I think just those three points should start the thesis off nicely.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Fact: Birth rates for "native" old European countries are generally *negative*


What is a negative birth rate? Babies are disappearing all over Europe?


----------



## RJman (Nov 11, 2003)

Étienne said:


> What is a negative birth rate? Babies are disappearing all over Europe?


Gee, and MJ hasn't even moved here yet.


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

Etienne - means that there are more deaths than births. It can thus be reversed if people stop dying or start... Well, you understand.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

Maybe Shawn Kemp can move to France and turn the whole thing around.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Étienne said:


> What is a negative birth rate? Babies are disappearing all over Europe?


I have to say, I am at a loss that a Ph.D. candidate in economics should not know this term, most especially since it is and will become even more, a factor in your economy. The posters above have indicated the meaning of the term, basically not enough babies are being born to replace those dying. Old Europe needs to fuel itself with first generation immigrants, notably muslims at this time, or basically die off over time. There are literally thousands of articles on the 'Net, some from quite reliable sources, concerning the current trends in births, immigration, etc. in Europe. Here is a fast one from a left leaning source, just so it will have merit for all!

A quick quote from the article:



> ....helped boost Sweden's fertility rate from a paltry 1.5 children per woman in 1999 to 1.71 last year - but that's still not enough to keep the Swedish population from declining without immigration. And Sweden is a success story. In much of Europe, fertility rates have plummeted over the past few decades


and another:



> ..."A people that doesn't have children, that grows old, is a people without a future," says Tiziano Treu, a former Italian Minister of Labor and Welfare


Quite nicely fits definition #1 of "moribund", doesn't it?


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

Should those countires require cultural and political assimilation or allow "new Europeans" to live separate lives or ghetto-ize themselves?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Doctor Damage said:


> Should those countires require cultural and political assimilation or allow "new Europeans" to live separate lives or ghetto-ize themselves?


What does that have to do with the thread please? While the question might have merit, in this context it is 100% red herring.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> I have to say, I am at a loss that a Ph.D. candidate in economics should not know this term


That was a joke. What Karl meant, of course, was that the natural growth is negative. The birth rate is nicely positive.

The point of that is the idea that somehow a society cannot be successful unless its numbers are swelling. And of course, they have to be swelling by natural growth, and not by immigration as the US do. Could you please spell out the reasoning behind that ?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Étienne said:


> That was a joke. What Karl meant, of course, was that the natural growth is negative. The birth rate is nicely positive.


The birth rate is nicely positive? Could you please give me some sources on that? All mine indicate otherwise. Further, I do not even see where Karl posted on this thread, I am the OP. Perhaps you have knowledge, yet again, that I lack.



Étienne said:


> The point of that is the idea that somehow a society cannot be successful unless its numbers are swelling. And of course, they have to be swelling by natural growth, and not by immigration as the US do. Could you please spell out the reasoning behind that ?


Now after I explicate this, will you also say it was merely a joke?

Again, for a Ph.D. candidate in economics, I am at a loss that you would ask such a question. Please Steven, explain to me how, for instance, how France will support its ever increasing elderly with government benefits with ever decreasing workers if the numbers do not swell?

Lastly, as to natural growth vs. immigrant growth, this goes directly to being moribund. Current birth trends are negative replacement rates. Your country needs an infusion of new blood to continue or it will begin dying, i.e. become moribund. I fail to see how this cannot be clear to someone such as yourself. If a system is not self-sustaining, it either needs outside injections or is moribund, i.e. in the process of dying.

No arguments on my other points? Very telling.


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

Etienne...

It isn't a criticism, merely an observation. Obviously what is seen in one's own country firsthand is different than you might see on the TV elsewhere but it LOOKED not too long ago as though France's immigrant youth population was largely unemployed and very angry.

Given that it takes 5 workers to pay the retirement benefits of each senior citizen and given that France's entitlement programs are both generous and widely utilized (very high unemployment rate) are you concerned about the math?

For clarity - not knocking France here, just curious as to how the negative growth and what appears from outside to be a very uneasy relationship between new immigrants and the French society is perceived by econ students.

Now that RJMan is in France, I expect that the birthrate will be rocketing skyward.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Moribund:
> 1 : being in the state of dying : approaching death
> 2 : being in a state of inactivity or obsolescence


Ettienne, I don't know why you bother.

Anyone who can post the garbage that we see posted about Europe here clearly has zero first hand knowledge of that continent, its history or the people who populate it, other than maybe what Donny Rumsfeld thinks of it.

As we know, Georgie Bush couldn't find Europe on a map so I think we can confidently discount any opinions he may (or probably doesn't) hold about it.

Having just had three weeks in Provence and a week in Edinburgh I can happily say that the only thing moribund is the intellect of those who make the kind of statements we see here.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

gmac said:


> Ettienne, I don't know why you bother.
> 
> Anyone who can post the garbage that we see posted about Europe here clearly has zero first hand knowledge of that continent, its history or the people who populate it, other than maybe what Donny Rumsfeld thinks of it.
> 
> ...


Ah yes, personal attack vs. factual discussion. We have the old gmac back.

As you mentioned Edinburgh, Scotland is so moribund in regards to birth rate that it has an active campaign to attract immigration. Further, in 2003 Scotland's per capita GDP was in the third quartile in comparison with 31 other nations, placing it clearly in the bottom half. Of course, do not believe me, but please, question them: Keep in mind this is the country my ancestors hail from and a place I am rather fond of. I hope to move there for a few years in the next decade even, however the facts are just that, the facts.

Gmac, your driving need to insult me just makes you look silly. I understand that were I to say the sky was blue, you would need to rush in and say it was grey. I think we can just leave it at that and let those of us wishing to discuss facts carry on.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Wayfarer, if you said the sky was blue I would assume it was raining outside.

I feel no need to insult you, just to correct your assumptions and falsehoods.

As for Scotland being "moribund", you clearly have not got the faintest idea what that country is like. I presume your knowledge is based on GDP reports and re-runs of Braveheart.

Try visiting, see just how "moribund" it is.


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> What does that have to do with the thread please? While the question might have merit, in this context it is 100% red herring.


The decision to bring in new population might be made on more than economic concerns. In Europe, high wages and worker protections might be holding back the ability of economies to generate jobs, etc. It is at least possible that low productivity per capita or high employment might be conincidental to moribund domestic populations, not necessarily an outcome.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Doctor Damage said:


> It is at least possible that low productivity per capita or high employment might be conincidental to moribund domestic populations, not necessarily an outcome.


So now you are agreeing with my OP #1, the native population is moribund? Then you state, as fact, that there is low productivity per capita and high unemployment, #2 and #3 in my OP. Your dissent is in a casual link between the #1 and #2 and 3? If so, I just re-scanned the post and do not see where I posited a causal link. Ergo, if that is your only contention, we are in fact, in 100% agreement.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Etienne,

Are you so invested in the French elite that you can't admit that Europe, and particularly France has a huge demographic crisis? Economic growth is sluggish and defense policy is almost non-existant (other than conducting joint naval operations with the PRC.) Chirac may rightly say "Apres moi le deluge."

As you are an economist I find it hard to believe that you cant see that its impossible to grow an economy as a population begins to rapidly decrease. 

I take no joy in Europe's troubles (though I doubt the same can be said of many Europeans about America's problems) and am sincerely worried that Europe is quickly approaching a crisis. 

Now you can hem and haw about "reckless" American policy but remember your own Paris has as many "no go" areas for the police as Baghdad does. And the inhabitants of those areas are fastest growing segment of the population. And they don't extactly embrace the notions of libertie, egalitie and fraternitie. Nor does post Christian France embrace them - I forget, how many Muslim deputies are there in the National Assembly? Zero, One, Two? Pretty low for 10% of the population. Maybe the are still a bit upset that Le Pen (of the Holocaust is a mere detail of history fame) received 22% of the vote last time. And to think France wanted a boycott of Austria when the FPO entered the Austrian government in late 1999.

And you don't want to make moral judgements about Iran and North Korea.? Thankfully America doesn't dabble in indulgent post-modernism, even more thankfully this policy was the same in 1916 and 1941. Morality is seemingly a quaint concept in Europe, except when it comes to judging Americans.

But why worry about all the troubles in the world, Europe has to take August off. Eight weeks of vacations don't take themselves you know.

Karl


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Thankfully America doesn't dabble in indulgent post-modernism, even more thankfully this policy was the same in 1916 and 1941. Morality is seemingly a quaint concept in Europe, except when it comes to judging Americans.


Shame American policy wasn't the same in 1914 and 1939........


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gmac,

It is a shame. But we came around and saved Europe, well most of it in WW2. And we learned our lesson and stayed in Europe - though the European Left gave us a hard time. Reagan had just as hard a time in Europe as Bush does now. Much of the European Left apologized for the Soviets - even as late as 1981 the French Communist Georges Marchais received over 15%+ of the vote in the Presidential election.

Appease Hitler, Appease the Soviets, Appease Islamo-fascism. One has to admire Europe's consistency.

Karl


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Appease the Soviets? Yeah, you're going to have to do better than that Karl. We were the front line against the Soviets and just because we didn't want a load of pershing missiles on our soil does not make us appeasers.

Reagan? Of course we hated him, he was a moron with a prediliction for central American death squads. Not our cup of tea at all.

Appeasing islamo facsism? If you mean that most of Europe didn't choose to join ill-judged American adventurism, based on palpably false claims about weapons of mass destruction, which has created more terrorists than Osama Bin Laden could have dreamed of, then maybe you're right.

Or maybe you just heard that on a Fox News editorial and thought it sounded good? Because based on any normal interpretation of appeasement it is a load of rubbish.

As for appeasing the nazis, a dark and disastrous chapter in French and British history. Good job the Americans and Russians were there to stand up to him in 1938.

Oh.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

gmac said:


> Reagan? Of course we hated him, he was a moron with a prediliction for central American death squads. Not our cup of tea at all.


"We"? Karl is referencing Europe, so now you are European? Or did you mis-comprehend his statement and construe it to Canada? If that is the case, please remove me from your "we", I am one Canadian that certainly did not hate Reagan. Interesting, yet again, no matter how once slices it, your post if full of errors.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> "We"? Karl is referencing Europe, so now you are European? Or did you mis-comprehend his statement and construe it to Canada? If that is the case, please remove me from your "we", I am one Canadian that certainly did not hate Reagan.


I grew up in Scotland and I am British citizen. I believe, under current interpretation, that makes me a European.

Would you like me to post a map so I can point out your beloved Scotland on it?



Wayfarer said:


> Interesting, yet again, no matter how once slices it, your post if full of errors.


Hee hee hee! :teacha:


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

gmac said:


> I grew up in Scotland and I am British citizen. I believe, under current interpretation, that makes me a European.
> 
> Would you like me to post a map so I can point out your beloved Scotland on it?
> 
> Hee hee hee! :teacha:


So then any talk of you being Canadian is bullshyte? Hmmm, is he going to try and have it both ways?


----------



## Aus_MD (Nov 2, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> The birth rate is nicely positive? Could you please give me some sources on that? All mine indicate otherwise.


Care for a large wager on this?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Aus_MD said:


> Care for a large wager on this?


Aus, just to clarify, you are willing to bet me a large sum of money that the birth rates of native born Europeans in the large Western nations is above replacement rates? Even with me already providing pretty damn credible sources backing my claims?

If so, yes, I am. We can each place 10k USD in an escrow account and winner take all.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Aus, are you sure? I mean, read this first:



> Like Sweden and its Scandinavian neighbors, Britain, Ireland, France and the Netherlands are faring relatively well, with fertility rates above 1.7. Yet nowhere in the European Union does fertility approach 2.1, the level needed to keep the population stable. "A people that doesn't have children, that grows old, is a people without a future," says Tiziano Treu, a former Italian Minister of Labor and Welfare who recently co-authored a bill aimed at boosting Italy's rock-bottom birth rate of 1.29.


From the website I posted above, namely Time Magazine.


----------



## Aus_MD (Nov 2, 2005)

No, I am betting that your assertion, to wit, the birth rate of (any) European nation is negative, is incorrect.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Aus_MD said:


> No, I am betting that your assertion, to wit, the birth rate of (any) European nation is negative, is incorrect.


OHHH, so we're playing semantics then, not arguing over the reality of the situation?

If I mis-spoke and I conveyed anything that meant other than *the population in EU countries is shrinking due to birth rates not being high enough among the native born to replace the dying* I do so apologize. If I made this mistake, it was most egregious and I am thoroughly aghast. The damndest thing though.....it does not negate my point.

I am still up for 10k USD each in an escrow account now that we have our semantics clarified, are you game?


----------



## Aus_MD (Nov 2, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Aus, are you sure? I mean, read this first:
> 
> From the website I posted above, namely Time Magazine.


My post was pedantic and tongue in cheek, but I meant to illustrate what Etienne was posting earlier. Birth rate is defined as number of births/1000 women. It cannot be a negative number. The point you are making is that fertility rates are below replacement rates.

Aus

edit:spelling


----------



## Jill (Sep 11, 2003)

I'm seriously hoping to see an actual response to the numbers. The insults are mildly entertaining for the first - oh - 4 or 5 seconds. But where is the refutation of fact? I too fear for the future of Western Europe, as I love vacationing there, among other reasons! I've always loved the people I've met from there. I hold no ill-will to its peoples. (Their governments are another topic entirely, but not for this thread).

But I think there have been some legitimate points made thusfar. French are dying faster than they're being born. Any net growth rate as of late is largely from recent Muslim immigrants, no? I think the difference, Et, regarding your comparison to America's largely immigrant population, is that until very recently, immigrants to the US have sought to integrate themselves as quickly as possibly. Recent events in Paris, to which another poster alluded, would suggest that recent immigrants there seem to be striving for segregation.

I've only been there once in the past 2 years, so I'd be curious to hear the perspective of someone who lives there, or has a more intimate knowledge of reality in France. I think we can objectively analyze a situation without creating an us vs. them debate, which inevitably spirals into name-calling.

Any other grown-ups wanna play?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Aus_MD said:


> My post was pedantic and tongue in cheek, but I meant to illustrate what Ettiene was posting earlier. Birth rate is defined as number of births/1000 women. It cannot be a negative number. The point you are making is that fertility rates are below replacement rates.
> 
> Aus


You are quite right....well almost actually. It would be a ratio, not a rate, but it is a common misnomer. A rate is actually a certain type of ratio indicating a relationship between to different measurements. I am sorry, I'm being equally pedantic back now.....

Edit: Damn, now that I am re-reading this, one would think that qualifies as a rate. I do not know what to think, my Epi III prof always went on about this but he might well have been wrong.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*I tried for awhile....*



Jill said:


> I'm seriously hoping to see an actual response to the numbers. The insults are mildly entertaining for the first - oh - 4 or 5 seconds. But where is the refutation of fact?
> 
> Any other grown-ups wanna play?


Sorry, I am as guilty as any. I tried for awhile but never actually had anyone even attempt to refute me factually; my detractors went straight to ad hom.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> So then any talk of you being Canadian is bullshyte? Hmmm, is he going to try and have it both ways?


Well, I'm a Permanent Resident of Canada (or landed immigrant if you prefer that terminology). I even have a little card to prove it.

I meet the eligibility requirements to apply for Canadian citizenship but haven't taken it yet. With Stephen Harper's attitude toward Canadian civillians being killed by Israel in the Lebanon, I'm not sure that I feel the need to have the protection of the Canadian government at this time (for those of you unaware, an Israeli rocket killed a family of 8 Canadians, including 4 children in Lebanon - Harper seems to think this is part of a "measured response").

I will retain my UK citizenship though and my son, born in Canada, will have a UK passport shortly. My wife holds both Irish and Canadian citizenship.

As such, I will be Scottish, British or European as it suits me. I just live in Canada for now.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gmac,

Ummm.......I don't know if you know anything about American strategy during the Cold War but America put its cities at risk in defense of Europe. There was more at risk then the Fulda Gap. America outspent its NATO allies proportionally in defense and lets be honest - without the US presence in West Germany, Katarina Witt (that old Stasi who**) might very well be the Peoples Sports Komissar in Berlin today. Yes I know you will deny it, but you owe post-war peace in Europe to the US. If you and Mrs. Gmac have another son may I suggest you name him Pershing?

If you study the issue at all, you will realize that along with Lord Carrington's and NATO's dual track strategy, the Pershings are what turned the tide. Why even the Socialist Mitterand realized this when he spoke to the West Germans. Funny that in the early 80s the European Left was burning Reagan in effigy ( I bet you where even protesting at Greenham Common Gmac) while Andropov, Honnecker (sic?), Zhikov and all the rest got a free pass. While the Komitet was busy oppressing dissidents and refusniks, the DDR funding terrorism in West Germany, the Czechoslovaks proving Semtex to the IRA, Bucharest running guns for the PLO, Poland murdering priests and imposing martial law, Hoxha starving his people and building bunker after bunker in Albania and the Bulgarians murdering dissdents with umbrellas and trying to kill the Pope, your cohorts were busy with self indulgent rage at Ronald Reagan, whose only crime in my book was appointing David Stockman Budget director but then again I was a precocious 7 year old.

For the second time I will tell you that I don't watch Fox. I think the Danish cartoon flap is a good example of of Europe's appeasement of Islamo-fascism. Maybe you aren't as wedded to the idea of free speech as I am.

America was a very different country in 1938 and as I recall Europe didn't ask for our help, not even Czechoslovakia though France abandonned her security guarantees to Prague. But to lump the US and the USSR together regarding respective entries into WW2 is absurd.

Do you recall the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact? And that the USSR also invaded Poland along with the Nazis and massacred over 15000 Polish officers. And the USSR was shipping Germany oil and iron ore while the Luftwaffe was busy with the Blitz. I am sure Grandpa Gmac did not appreciate Russian oil fueling the Junkers trying to bomb his country. And don't forget what the Soviets did to the Baltics. I don't get as teary eyed over the Soviet war effort as most Leftists do, considering that the USSR was the second aggressor in the war. And we haven't even mentioned dear old Finland.

Contrast that with American behavior towards the Allies during the war. The US provided the Allies with intelligence and covert aid. Lend Lease gave the UK both moral and material support. Even had America choosen to enter the war in 1939 it is dubious whether it could have made a timely difference. The American military was small and outdated in 1939. Please note that after Pearl Harbor it was uncertain if the US could even defend the West Coast from Japanese invasion.

Gmac, I would be more than happy to get you up to speed about World War Two. Perhaps if you had a firmer grasp of the past the present wouldn't confuse you as much.

All the best,

Karl


----------



## Dr James Ryan (Feb 8, 2006)

I really hope Western Europe finds a way to escape from being being buried under the weight of their entitlements. Nations like France will not find the will to reform until they reach a crisis point, though, and find themselves totally uncompetitive in the global economy. The student protests this winter made that quite clear to me. They are the General Motors of nations. 

What bothers me is that the US isnt learning from the European situation at all. In the last 3 years we've added a huge drug entitlement to Medicare, and politicians derailed a perfectly reasonable fix to Social Security. These inter-generational transfers of wealth work fine in times of economic and population growth (though they are unnecessary.) They are extremely hard to curtail or reverse, though, and when the numbers go negative the increased tax-burden hurts every subsequent generation. Our future generations are going to have enough problems of their own competing with India and China, they dont need to inherrit this mess. 

Term limits for legislators would be a good first step in remedying the problem. We might elect some people who actually care about this country's future instead of people who will deliver pork to seniors to stay in office.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Dr James Ryan said:


> I really hope Western Europe finds a way to escape from being being buried under the weight of their entitlements. Nations like France will not find the will to reform until they reach a crisis point, though, and find themselves totally uncompetitive in the global economy. The student protests this winter made that quite clear to me. They are the General Motors of nations.
> 
> What bothers me is that the US isnt learning from the European situation at all. In the last 3 years we've added a huge drug entitlement to Medicare, and politicians derailed a perfectly reasonable fix to Social Security. These inter-generational transfers of wealth work fine in times of economic and population growth (though they are unnecessary.) They are extremely hard to curtail or reverse, though, and when the numbers go negative the increased tax-burden hurts every subsequent generation. Our future generations are going to have enough problems of their own competing with India and China, they dont need to inherrit this mess.
> 
> Term limits for legislators would be a good first step in remedying the problem. We might elect some people who actually care about this country's future instead of people who will deliver pork to seniors to stay in office.


Welcome to the fray Dr. and by judging by this post I think I shall enjoy reading your thoughts


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Karl,

I'm intrigued as to how you find a European publication printing the anti Islam cartoons as an example of European "appeasement".

Maybe it was a bit much to compare US and USSR behaviour prior to their respective joinoing of the war against the Nazis. While the Soviets were actively on the wrong side, the Americans simply did nothing except extend British credit - except for those young men with the _moral clarity_ to ignore US foriegn policy and join the fight with British or Canadian units.

As you may have heard Karl, the history of WWII does not start on December 7, 1941.


----------



## EL72 (May 25, 2005)

gmac said:


> I meet the eligibility requirements to apply for Canadian citizenship but haven't taken it yet. With Stephen Harper's attitude toward Canadian civillians being killed by Israel in the Lebanon, I'm not sure that I feel the need to have the protection of the Canadian government at this time...


On behalf of all Canadians and their democratically elected government, I thank you for this decision - :icon_cheers:



gmac said:


> (for those of you unaware, an Israeli rocket killed a family of 8 Canadians, including 4 children in Lebanon - Harper seems to think this is part of a "measured response").


Your comment is very misleading. For one, his "measured response" comment was made before the unfortunate death of this particular Lebanese-Canadian family. Notwithstanding the timing, your comment still makes no sense. Do you expect that Harper chastising the Israelis will somehow help Canadian citizens who find themselves in a war zone? What about Canadian civilians in Israel who are in harm's way? I have many family members there (including my mother and sister) and I don't see the Canadian government rushing to help them. In case you hadn't noticed, civilians are also being killed in Israel - in fact they are being targeted.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gmac,

I am part Czech so I know quite well when WW2 began. If you want to blame America for not entering the war sooner than fair enough (but please note my earlier post that it probably would not have altered the course of the war that much) but I wonder where the UK's moral clarity was when Chamberlain comdemned Czechoslovakia to Nazi oppression when he said that they were "a faraway people we know little about." Ironically enough it was Polish and Czech pilots that kept the RAF afloat during the Blitz - my Czech grandfather even served in the RAF though not during the Blitz.

If you don't understand the appeasement in the cartoon episode than I can't help you. But then again you don't seem to worry that Dutch filmaker and politcian were murdered for their views either. 

And the US did far more than extend the British credit before it entered the war but I don't expect you to be the grateful type.

And it was more than "a bit much" to compare the US to the USSR regarding World War Two. I would implore you to look into the Soviet Occupation of Eastern Poland and the Baltics prior to the Nazi invasion. Terrible stuff that the Left chooses to gloss over.

I keep hoping Gmac that you will be on the right side of something. But as Chesterton said "Hope makes a fine supper but a poor breakfast."

Karl


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Ironically enough it was Polish and Czech pilots that kept the RAF afloat during the Blitz - my Czech grandfather even served in the RAF though not during the Blitz.


I suppose you mean during the Battle of Britain - pilot shortage was way less severe by the time the Blitz got underway and the RAF did not play a significant role in combatting the Luftwaffe anyway due to a lack of effective night fighters.

Of course the Poles and Czechs were an important part of the Battle but I think most would recognize it to be a gross exaggeration to say they kept the RAF afloat. The RAF survived due to superior tactics and leadership, German strategic misdirection, the invention of radar, the quality of the British planes and the extraordinary endurance and courage of the fighter pilots of all nations who flew in the RAF.

Or maybe you did mean the Blitz and you genuinely don't know what you are talking about.



Karl89 said:


> If you don't understand the appeasement in the cartoon episode than I can't help you. But then again you don't seem to worry that Dutch filmaker and politcian were murdered for their views either.


You're right - you can't help me. Your lame attempts to toss the appeasement word around are chilldish and ineffective. You don't even seem to get the point that those you accuse of not opposing what you so quaintly describe as Islamo fascism (not Fox News? Maybe a Christopher Hitchens piece in the Weekly Standard?) are a part of the group you wish to paint as appeasers.

It is really stupid point which you are making very badly. Please either do better or desist as it is boring.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

EL72 said:


> On behalf of all Canadians and their democratically elected government, I thank you for this decision - :icon_cheers:


Very droll. No, really.



EL72 said:


> Your comment is very misleading. For one, his "measured response" comment was made before the unfortunate death of this particular Lebanese-Canadian family. Notwithstanding the timing, your comment still makes no sense. Do you expect that Harper chastising the Israelis will somehow help Canadian citizens who find themselves in a war zone? What about Canadian civilians in Israel who are in harm's way? I have many family members there (including my mother and sister) and I don't see the Canadian government rushing to help them. In case you hadn't noticed, civilians are also being killed in Israel - in fact they are being targeted.


Harpers insane refusal to withdraw or modify his idiotic "measured response" comment, as the bodies of Canadian children are cleared from the road, goes beyond his usual crassness to be almost unbelievable.

Yes, I fully expect him to chastise Israel, demand answers regarding the circumstances of these deaths and to find out how many Israeli soldiers we can expect to see facing disciplinary actions as a consequence of these deaths..

Amend that - I would fully expect him to do these things if he had an ounce of decency or self respect.

You are worried about your mother and sister? Tell them to go to Tel Aviv and jump on a plane to London, New York, Toronto, wherever. Not so easy to get out of Lebanon.

Harper's unqualified support for Israel _*as they kill citizens of the country he is supposed to lead*_ is a national disgrace and I'm pretty glad that I'm not Canadian today.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*Every day is a party for me now!*



gmac said:


> I'm pretty glad that I'm not Canadian today.


Damn son, I am rip roaring happy you're not every day from here on out!


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gmac,

I did mean the Battle of Britian, you are correct in pointing out my error. I would dare say I know more about World War Two than you. I would happily wager a fair sum on the matter, too. Can we get Alex Trebek to host a WW2 Jeopardy for us? And it is not an exaggeration to say that during the BoB the Czechs and Poles kept the RAF and the UK from collapsing. Among the top ten of RAF's aces were a Czech and a Pole. Maybe you should read some Keegan and Gilbert and what they have to say about the Czech and Polish contribution. But again, considering how you view the US war effort I don't expect you to appreciate the Czechs or the Poles.

Gmac I am not a neo-conservative and while I agree with much of what Hitchens (I thought he wrote for Slate.com) has said about the struggle against Islamo-fascism, I find most of his views on other topics utterly ridiculous. I do get the point, and I agree with you. If one doesn't oppose Islamo-fascism they are appeasers, why is this so difficult to understand? Gmac, we live in liberal democracies, its perfectably within your rights to favor appeasement and, unfortunately, you are not without support. The war we face will be even longer and bloodier if your view wins the day, but I have full confidence that even your ilk will come around if things get truly desperate.

Karl


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Son?

Is that what you are reduced to? Maybe I'll lay off you for a while......

I guess you are pretty pleased that Harper is so fulsome in his support of a government that indiscriminately kills Canadian citizens, including small children. You should probably stay in Arizona, I don't think many people here agree with you on that one.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gmac,

I am sure North Korea would have you. They are notorious for their love of all things Socialist. If you decide to go the DPRK route, let me know as I am sure we could raise the funds for your move to Pyongyang on Ask Andy. 

Getting Gmac to move to North Korea - and someone was silly enough to say we couldn't solve the world's problems on Ask Andy!

Karl


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

gmac said:


> Maybe I'll lay off you for a while......


"Lay off"? Is that code for a bloody rout? Full surrender? I mean, if it was not you, I would feel guilty for the 97 ways I have rhetorically pimp slapped you today.



gmac said:


> I guess you are pretty pleased that Harper is so fulsome in his support of a government that indiscriminately kills Canadian citizens, including small children. You should probably stay in Arizona, I don't think many people here agree with you on that one.


The amazing thing about you, is apparently you and I are having conversations in your head, as I really do not see where I have said anything on this topic.

Sleep tight and do not listen to the voices gmac, maybe things will be better in the light of morning.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> I did mean the Battle of Britian, you are correct in pointing out my error. I would dare say I know more about World War Two than you.


Of course you do! You just demonstrated it didn't you?



Karl89 said:


> And it is not an exaggeration to say that during the BoB the Czechs and Poles kept the RAF and the UK from collapsing. Among the top ten of RAF's aces were a Czech and a Pole. Maybe you should read some Keegan and Gilbert and what they have to say about the Czech and Polish contribution. But again, considering how you view the US war effort I don't expect you to appreciate the Czechs or the Poles.


My only problem with the US war effort is that they arrived two years too late. My problem is with amateur historians mistaking the US war effort as _the_ war effort.

As for the Czechs and Poles, their bravery and individual skills are not in doubt. However, their effectiveness as fighting units was compromised by a lack of discipline and organisation. See Len Deighton's book, _Fighter_, the definitive work on the Battle of Britain.

Also note that while Poles made up the largest foriegn contingent in the RAF during the Battle, there were greater numbers of Canadians and New Zealanders than Czechs.



Karl89 said:


> If one doesn't oppose Islamo-fascism they are appeasers, why is this so difficult to understand?


It is extremely simple Karl, let me spell it out for you. I don't believe in Islamo fascism as any kind of demonstrable movement therefore it is impossible for me to appease or have any other kind of interaction with it except to laugh when excitable pundits (and posters) start to rant about it

Simple, eh?


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> "Lay off"? Is that code for a bloody rout? Full surrender? I mean, if it was not you, I would feel guilty for the 97 ways I have rhetorically pimp slapped you today.


Well, when you put it like that.........

Wayfarer employs the classic tactic of the internet loser - declare victory in the face of all evidence then slink off to bed.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gmac,

Come on take me up on my bet - it would be easy money for you! Though the dollar aint what it used to be against the Canadian Dollar.

Secondly, you are correct that many Americans view WW2 through a parochial lens. But it is clear that the Allies and the USSR could not have won the war without the US. The Soviets received huge amounts of US aid and were totally reliant on Packard trucks for transport capacity. But we must remember it is the UK that made it all possible, bc she alone stood against the Nazis for almost a year. Yes, UK policy was partly to blame for not checking Hitler earlier but Churchill's leadership and the courage of the UK from the Fall of France until the Soviets were invaded made the Allied victory possible. I don't forget that so don't lump me in with all those who do.

Gmac why dont you ask the families of the two homosexual men executed in Iran a year ago today if Islamo-fascism exists. Why don't you ask the widow of Daniel Pearl if Islamo-fascism exists. Why not go to the Pentagon or Ground Zero and ask if Islamo-fascism exists. Christianity during the Middle Ages had a totalitarian streak so their is hope for Islam but to deny it exists, well Denial aint just a river in Egypt, where you can ask Coptic Christians there if Islamo-fascism exists.

Karl


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Gmac,
> 
> Come on take me up on my bet - it would be easy money for you!


No doubt - I mean, getting the Blitz and the Battle of Britain mixed up? But no, I'll save my gambling pennies for my bookie. I mean, he has a cigar and Jaguar habit to pay for.....

Why not ask Wayfarer, he was tossing around 10k bets today.



Karl89 said:


> Gmac why dont you ask the families of the two homosexual men executed in Iran a year ago today if Islamo-fascism exists. Why don't you ask the widow of Daniel Pearl if Islamo-fascism exists. Why not go to the Pentagon or Ground Zero and ask if Islamo-fascism exists. Christianity during the Middle Ages had a totalitarian streak so their is hope for Islam but to deny it exists, well Denial aint just a river in Egypt, where you can ask Coptic Christians there if Islamo-fascism exists.
> 
> Karl


All terrible events, no doubt about that - but there is no masterplan behind all of this, no unifying fascist theory, Just a lot of very angry young men who think the west is their enemy. There is no theory, no leader, no identifiable unifying movement, no discernible goal (unless you are one of those excitable types who think there is some masterplan to extend the caliphate to, I don't know, Spokane or somewhere).

I also don't think it helps when the US plus a few pals attack a random Arab country for no apparent reason thereby inviting every angry young arab to come down and take a shot at our soldiers.

Without a policy of engagement with the muslim world the we spend the next couple of centuries watching our back. This engagement does not include accusing all muslims of being part of a huge plan to kill or convert us, make our women wear burkhas or make us all give up the booze. Why? Because that would be stupid and counter productive.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gmac,

There is a unifying theory - the impostion of Sharia law and the reestablishment of the Caliphate. Don't ask me, ask bin Laden, who has repeatedly called for this along with the reconquest of the Balkans and Andalusia. But why worry about OBL, its not as if he has killed anybody, right?

You keep your bookie happy, enjoy your month in Provence and try and stay out of the way of those of us who oppose Islamo-fascism. Deal?

Karl


----------



## EL72 (May 25, 2005)

gmac said:


> Yes, I fully expect him to chastise Israel, demand answers regarding the circumstances of these deaths and to find out how many Israeli soldiers we can expect to see facing disciplinary actions as a consequence of these deaths..


Are you really that naive or have you not noticed that there is a war (albeit a low-grade one by Israel's standards) going on? What kind of answers do you expect regarding civilian deaths - as regrettable as they are - from the Israeli government? Let's see... Lebanese Canadians travel to visit family in Lebanon; war breaks out; Israeli planes drop leaflets warning civilians to get out of certain areas they will bomb and which towns will be spared; family stays and unfortunately perishes in bombing. Why would soldiers face disciplinary actions? Are you implying they intentionally targeted this Canadian family?



gmac said:


> You are worried about your mother and sister? Tell them to go to Tel Aviv and jump on a plane to London, New York, Toronto, wherever. Not so easy to get out of Lebanon.


Who said I am worried? In fact my sister left for Israel just yesterday.



gmac said:


> Harper's unqualified support for Israel _*as they kill citizens of the country he is supposed to lead*_ is a national disgrace and I'm pretty glad that I'm not Canadian today.


Far from being a national disgrace, I applaud his principled stand. While you (and others) may not like his policies, at least Harper is not playing politics by pandering to certain groups of the electorate and changing his stance to suit the flavour of the day. He stands by his beliefs however disagreable they are to you. If enough people feel like you (which, although you may find it difficult to believe, is not the case), he will not get re-elected.

It's interesting how when Israelis are killed by their enemies, the media report on Israelis dying from a missile or bomb. When Lebanese or Palestinians die, the media invariably report that they were killed by Israeli warplanes or bombs. It's a subtle difference that highlights the bias in the media's reporting of the middle east events. I point this out because your emphasis implies yet again that Israelis are somehow targeting Canadian civilians and therefore Stephen Harper should take them to task. Wake up gmac, there is war going on! Innocent people on both sides will die, it's unfortunate, but let's relax the hyperbole of Israelis killing Canadian citizens.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> The birth rate is nicely positive? Could you please give me some sources on that? All mine indicate otherwise.


It took a couple more messages but it seems you finally got my message. You meant that the natural growth is negative (more deaths than births) and not what you actually said ("birth rate negative" means a negative number of birth). That is actually false, by the way, for most countries in Europe, though it seems EU-15 has about an equal number of births and deaths nowadays.

You also mention what you call the "fertility rate". I suppose what you really refer to is the "synthetic fertility index". You might not know that a SFI below the replacement rate of 2.1 does not mean that there is no replacement. We are in a transition period with a change in maternity behaviours (i.e. women are having children later and later in life - something that biologically cannot continue forever BTW). For example, France has currently a SFI around 1.7, yet more births than deaths and the actual number of children per woman (for the women for whom we have definitive figures, i.e ages 45 and older) is still always above 2.1.



> Again, for a Ph.D. candidate in economics, I am at a loss that you would ask such a question. Please Steven, explain to me how, for instance, how France will support its ever increasing elderly with government benefits with ever decreasing workers if the numbers do not swell?


I actually don't really see the problem. As far as I've seen, the problem is purely a matter of transition (you do know that the number of old people is not swelling forever). The lowest point for our retirement system is expected to be around 2030, I think, which means further painful adjustments will have to be made, since the current system is expected to remain afloat until 2015-2020.

But let's go back to the question at hand. I am not ignoring your two other points, nor is my lack of answer a sign that I have nothing to say about them. I merely started by the most obviously problematic in my opinion. Let's stop arguing about details in demographics, and imagine, for the sake of argument, a country with a diminishing population. I still do not see how it makes its civilization "moribund". Do you mean to say that the only way a society can be dynamic is to have an ever-expanding population ?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

gmac said:


> Well, when you put it like that.........
> 
> Wayfarer employs the classic tactic of the internet loser - declare victory in the face of all evidence then slink off to bed.


Gmac, it would seem your cage is more than a little rattled....

I do offer my sincerest apologies that I had to leave for band practice and to hit the gym. I shall try to be more accomodating to you in the future.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> I do offer my sincerest apologies that I had to leave for band practice and to hit the gym. I shall try to be more accomodating to you in the future.


So, like, this one time at band camp.......


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

EL72 said:


> Innocent people on both sides will die, it's unfortunate, but let's relax the hyperbole of Israelis killing Canadian citizens.


Hyperbole? I don't think that family who are now buried with their 4 children in lebanon would consider it hyperbole, do you?

I realize that _Lebanese_-Canadians don't have much value to likes of you or Harper but he is suposed to be the prime minister of all of Canada. As such, one would imagine he might refrain from congratulating Israel on their "measured response" as Canadian civilians are blown to bits by Israeli rockets.

And please spare us your right wing ramblings about a biased media, it is _soooo_ lame!


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

Steve-O is a snake and will eventually need his stomach pumped (you know what I mean!). All will be revealed in time, dear friends. Ho ho ho.

Anyway, seriously, I was amazed to learn that there are some 40,000 Canadian citizens living in Lebanon. Huh? Why leave Canada in the first place? Or do some folks just come here, get citizenship, then go back, knowing that with dual-citizenship they have an exit strategy in place, plus access to whatever other benefits are available?


----------



## EL72 (May 25, 2005)

Doctor Damage said:


> Or do some folks just come here, get citizenship, then go back, knowing that with dual-citizenship they have an exit strategy in place, plus access to whatever other benefits are available?


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Because Canada tosses citizenship out to anyone who shows up, right?

Wrong.

This family killed by the Israelis - the father was a pharmacist educated in Montreal. His kids were born here. He was visiting family when he got trapped and killed in Lebabnon.


----------



## EL72 (May 25, 2005)

gmac said:


> Because Canada tosses citizenship out to anyone who shows up, right?


The fact that you are eligible for Canadian citizenship certainly supports that theory.



gmac said:


> This family killed by the Israelis - the father was a pharmacist educated in Montreal. His kids were born here. He was visiting family when he got trapped and killed in Lebabnon.


According to the government's figures, less than 5,000 out the 40,000 Canadian citizens who are in Lebanon are there on vacation (like that poor family). The other 35,000+ are basically Canadians living in Lebanon.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

gmac said:


> Because Canada tosses citizenship out to anyone who shows up, right?


Well, they do have some pretty strict criteria, such as you cannot count time in a Canadian jail towards your residency requirement...so that seems pretty firm to me.



> Basic residence taking into account time spent serving a sentence (or basic residence less time served) is calculated by subtracting time spent serving a sentence in Canada (i.e. time spent in a prison, penitentiary, jail, reformatory, under a conditional sentence, on probation, and/or parole) from basic residence.


Glad to know that at least while you're serving time, on the tax payer's dime, you cannot also be wracking up time on your path to citizenship. Then again, does that not seem overly judgemental? Who are we to deem just because you are in jail you cannot be fulfilling residency requirements? The nerve!


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

EL72 said:


> The fact that you are eligible for Canadian citizenship certainly supports that theory.


Nicely done.


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

Étienne said:


> Let's stop arguing about details in demographics, and imagine, for the sake of argument, a country with a diminishing population. I still do not see how it makes its civilization "moribund". Do you mean to say that the only way a society can be dynamic is to have an ever-expanding population ?


Intergenerational transfers of wealth work fine as long as you have more workers than elderly. The idea is that each worker will garnish a small amount of thier wages to support the elderly. There are always enough workers to support the unemployment system as well as the retirement system. The more people who are drawing retirement benefits, the more workers you need to support them (or the more each worker has to pay, or the less benefits each senior citizen gets).

If the trend continued, each worker would have to support a retiree each month from thier paycheck.

Or you can boost your population with lax immigration, which means more workers having thier wages garnished and supporting the elderly.

The US and many other countires have the same problem, but not as bad.

-------------

There are something like 25k American citizens in Lebanon, many dual citizens.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Nicely done.


It amuses me how our little right wing friends like to pat each other on the back and encourage each other. It really is very sweet. Strength in numbers, eh boys?

As for my eligibility to become a Canadian, yet to be tested by applying so I guess that remains to be seen. With the current administration in Ottawa and Harper's current disgusting desertion of his duties as prime minister, I am particularly glad not to be Canadian this week.

Why so many Lebanese-Canadians in Lebanon? Did you ever think that perhaps some of those who left Lebanon during the long civil war and invasion by Israel (no, the last one) and took citizenship in Canada decided to return and help rebuild their homeland over the last decade or so?

More fool them says Stephen Harper and if an Israeli rocket lands on their kid's head, well, they weren't _real_ Canadians anyway, right? And if Israel did it, well, it must be OK, right?

Wrong.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

gmac said:


> I am particularly glad not to be Canadian this week.


And to date, we have two Canadians agreeing with you we are glad you are not Canadian either. Although, one must wonder why, if you apparently hate Canada so much, you live there? I do not really want to know gmac, please do not bother answering, but it does seem incongruous. Maybe nipple clamps are cheap there on the left coast?


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> And to date, we have two Canadians agreeing with you we are glad you are not Canadian either. Although, one must wonder why, if you apparently hate Canada so much, you live there? I do not really want to know gmac, please do not bother answering, but it does seem incongruous. Maybe nipple clamps are cheap there on the left coast?


You either must wonder or not want to know, I don't think you can do both simultaneously.

I'll tell you anyway. I obviously have not voiced a hatred for Canada anywhere on this board or anywhere else, though I'm not too impressed by its education system judging by the comprehension difficulties you and your pal seem to have.

No, its Harper who I dislike quite intensely and who has raised the ire of every right thinking Canadian this week with his refusal to condemn the killing of Canadians, including children, by Israel. Only those who don't like _Lebanese_-Canadians, like you, EL72 and Harper, are happy to see them dead, so much the better if an Israeli gets them.

Nipple clamps are only cheap if bought in bulk. There seems to be some sort of obsession regarding them today - is this something to do with band camp?


----------



## EL72 (May 25, 2005)

gmac said:


> Only those who don't like _Lebanese_-Canadians, like you, EL72 and Harper, are happy to see them dead, so much the better if an Israeli gets them.


Wow, Wow - wait a minute! That is totally unjustified and uncalled for. _I_ don't like Lebanese-Canadians! _I_ am happy to see them dead! How dare you? I am from Montreal and have many close friends in the Lebanese community and one of my best friends is Lebanese. Irrespective, I am never happy to see innocent people die. I expressed much regret over the deaths of the Lebanese family (as did the Israeli government). There is a big difference between refusing to blame Israel for the death of civilians and rejoicing in their deaths (as Hezbollah and Hamas love to do).

At any rate, this was fun while it lasted gmac but I'll leave you to your bitterness, frustrations and delusions. I have no desire to debate with someone who could make such incredibly wild accusations. Something is definitely not right with you if you can claim that I am happy to see them dead.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

It's too bad that nobody wants to talk about the original premise that started this thread because I thought it was an interesting one. Gmac and Karl have descended into some kind of conversation that has to do with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and Sharia Law. Etienne insists on continuing his semantic debate over what Wayfarer, when he understands full well what Wayfarer meant, but refuses to address the problem. I like the attitude of the French, "problem, what problem? Zer is no problem?" Any attempt by anyone to discuss the original premise of the thread has been lost in a flood of complete and utter bullshit.

No wonder the Interchange is losing the posters that once made this place so lively. I declare the Interchange as moribund.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

EL72, 

Do not be surprised. This is his constant MO. If you do not agree with him, indeed march in lock step with his leftist lunancy, he breaks out the mantra of "racist, bigot, homophobe". Without fail. Every time. Look on it as a badge of honour my friend, everyone here knows his ploys inside and out.

One of my favorite times was the first time he called me a bigot and I shared that I am in a bi-racial marriage. Goes to show how blind his ilk really is.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> EL72,
> 
> Do not be surprised. This is his constant MO. If you do not agree with him, indeed march in lock step with his leftist lunancy, he breaks out the mantra of "racist, bigot, homophobe". Without fail. Every time. Look on it as a badge of honour my friend, everyone here knows his ploys inside and out.


You guys are so sweet! Its like a right wing Canadian support group - with badges of honour!



Wayfarer said:


> One of my favorite times was the first time he called me a bigot and I shared that I am in a bi-racial marriage.


I don't remember you "sharing" that little nugget with us. A touching story of love across the barricades I'll wager.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Odoreater,

How boring it would be if we kept on topic. Don't be so pedantic! Btw have you taken the Bar exam yet?

Karl


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Odoreater,
> 
> How boring it would be if we kept on topic. Don't be so pedantic! Btw have you taken the Bar exam yet?
> 
> Karl


I'm sorry, I usually don't mind and am often the culprit myself. But in this case, I thought the original topic was actually really interesting and it seemed like nobody was talking about it.

Bar exam is next week. I've been studying like hell the past few weeks, so...


----------



## EL72 (May 25, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> EL72,
> 
> Do not be surprised. This is his constant MO. If you do not agree with him, indeed march in lock step with his leftist lunancy, he breaks out the mantra of "racist, bigot, homophobe". Without fail. Every time. Look on it as a badge of honour my friend, everyone here knows his ploys inside and out.


I'm not really surprised. It's been a while since I had posted on the interchange. gmac's absurd comment and insult has simply reminded me why I stopped.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gents,

Maybe Odoreater is right.

So what about it? How serious is Europe's demographic crisis? And I would love to hear from our European friends - do you think their is a crisis? If no, why not and if there is one then what do you think should be done to address it?

Karl


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Gents,
> 
> Maybe Odoreater is right.
> 
> ...


To borrow from the law school message board, I've always thought that Europe was a rancid TTT (third tier toilet) in decline.

***Puts on flame retardant suit***

Sure, it has it's moments of brilliance and there are some items that are done very well only in Europe; but, for the most part, as a whole, I don't see Europe as ever having much power or influence. In fact, I predict that in the coming decades Europe will come under attack from an encroaching Middle East and we are going to have to bail them out again.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Let's try this first.

How many of you have ever been to Europe? Which parts? How often? When?

I might be interested in this discussion if it gets beyond GDP figures and Pat Robertson quotes about how Europe is being engulfed by the Muslim hordes.

And who is this "we" who is going to have to bail "them" out again? I guess history of the 20th century isn't part of the bar exam - or you'd be in for some tough sledding......


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

odoreater said:


> To borrow from the law school message board, I've always thought that Europe was a rancid TTT (third tier toilet) in decline.


Interesting. I believe many people in Paris and Rome consider almost the entire United States to be an uncultured wasteland full of obese, uneducated and poorly dressed people and ugly cars which never had anywhere to decline from, rescued from itself by a few cities on either coast.

Not that I would agree with that of course.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

gmac said:


> Let's try this first.
> 
> How many of you have ever been to Europe? Which parts? How often? When?
> 
> ...


(1) I was born in (Eastern) Europe.
(2) I've been to many parts of Europe many times.
(3) I despise men like Pat Robertson, but the truth is the truth.
(4) "We" are the United States of America - the same people that have been bailing Europe out ever since we took over as the world superpower. I don't know what kind of commie history books you've been reading, but this is the truth, like it or not.
(5) No, history of the 20th century is not part of the bar exam. 
(6) What people in Paris in Rome think of the US is irrelevant. We may be a cultural wasteland, but as soon as the **** hits the fan they come running to us. Culture can't save you from economic or military decline. In fact, this is the argument Europeans always raise. "But look, we have castles and aquaducts..." Like I said, irrelevant.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Hhhmmm, a well considered response there - you're bound to do well in the bar exam.

Just keep writing "BECAUSE I SAY SO!!!!!!", it works really well!

Seriously, is this the best you can do?



Odoreater said:


> I don't know what kind of commie history books you've been reading, but this is the truth, like it or not.


That is truly one of the most awesomely stupid comments I've seen on AAAC in, oh I don't know, the last three hours. Closely followed by this one:



Odoreater said:


> What people in Paris in Rome think of the US is irrelevant. We may be a cultural wasteland, but as soon as the **** hits the fan they come running to us. Culture can't save you from economic or military decline.


Brilliant! You've absolutely made my evening!

And now I am going to go and watch some Entourage and remind myself that most Americans are clever, funny, nice people living in cool cities who don't spout ridiculous crap about things they know nothing about. Okay, maybe Turtle is a bad example.... And Drama. But you know what I mean.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

Yeah, I guess things I post on an anonymous internet message board reflect how I'm going to do on the bar exam. Now that's truly brilliant. You know what I find funny about you, your abrasive "know it all" attitude turns off even people who might otherwise be sympathetic to some of your viewpoints.

It's also kind of funny that instead of answering anything I said you engaged in a barrage of _ad hominem_ attacks. But, everybody on this message board already has you figured out and can see how easy it is to push your buttons and get you to erupt in an angry tirade.

Let me tell you something though, your abrasive attitude does a great disservice to your cause. The reason that many Americans have consistently rejected liberalism is because of the abrasive, "know it all" elitist attitude of people with the same beliefs as yourself. If you presented your arguments in a rational and well-thought out manner without personally attacking the people making opposing argument, then people might not be so quick to dismiss you. As long as you continue with the attitude that you have, you will be irrelevant on this message board and, may I be so bold as to venture, in life.

Now you can go one being smarter than the rest of us.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

odoreater said:


> Now you can go one being smarter than the rest of us.


Slick, in your case, I'm pretty sure its more than one.....


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

gmac said:


> Slick, in your case, I'm pretty sure its more than one.....


That was a typo. Meant to write "on." But I'm sure you already figured that out.

Funny how you claim that you're so smart, yet you have this amazing inability to respond to any argument that anyone puts against you with anything other than _ad hominem_ (that means "personal") attacks.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

odoreater said:


> anything other than _ad hominem_ (that means "personal") attacks.


There you go sport, maybe there's hope for you after all!

Those commie history books I read probably didn't equip me to refute such basic facts as:



odoreater said:


> "We" are the United States of America - the same people that have been bailing Europe out ever since we took over as the world superpower. I don't know what kind of commie history books you've been reading, but this is the truth, like it or not.


Those dumb commie books were full of things about, oh, I don't know, British and Canadians fighting their way across Europe in 1944/45 after standing alone against the Nazis while America twiddled her collective thumbs until forced into the war, or how the decisive battles of WWI were fought before any doughboys arrived.

Dumb commies thought that the global conflicts of the last century were collective efforts by what are known as the Allies.

Do you think those commies were liars or just to stupid to realise that the USA did it all alone?


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

gmac said:


> Do you think those commies were liars or just to stupid to realise that the USA did it all alone?


Woah there chief. When did I say that the US did it alone? I said that the US bailed them out. Let's think about what that means for a second. Here's a good dictionary definition: "to rescue someone from an emergancy." Are you denying that the US rescued Europe from an emergancy? Are you denying the fact that if the United States did not get involved in World War II that Europe would have fallen, or if not fallen, been completely devestated and blown back to the Middle Ages?

My grandfather fought as one of Marshall Tito's Partisans - probably one of the only groups in Europe to eject the Nazis from their lands without any outside help. And even I admit that if the United States did not bail Europe out that Europe would still be suffering from the ramifications of WWII.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gmac,

I am sure you have the delusion that those who disagree with you are primitive rubes but alas, once again you are wrong.

I have been to Europe.
Everywhere except Estonia, Sweden and Portugal.
I lived in Sofia, Bulgaria from 1999 until 2002.
I am confident I have seen more of Europe than you have the United States.

And if you don't realize what Europe owed and still owes to the US, well you are one sorry fellow.

And please never forget that it was the Foreign Office and the Quai D'Orsay that refused to stand up to Hitler until it was too late. While Poland was being dismembered in September of 1939 the UK War Cabinet was debating whether the RAF could bomb "private property" in the US. 

Why don't you be honest with us - just admit that you hate the US (bc if you can't even acknowledge the US role in WW2 you must hate us) - I think we could at least give you credit for honesty.

Gmac, you are right the US is the worst country in the world (except for all the rest)and a clumsy superpower - now get down on knees and thank your lucky stars that is the case, you owe more to the US than you can ever repay. Don't worry the American taxpayer will pick up the tab, as usual.

Karl


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

odoreater said:


> Here's a good dictionary definition: "to rescue someone from an emergancy."


Do I really need to say anything?


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Karl comes out swinging - I like it!

Two different debates going on here Karl - I don't doubt that you have seen plenty of Europe. Do you think it is, what did he say, a third tier toilet? Are the muslim hordes at the gates? Over the gates! Is it over for Europe.

Of course it is, my mum and sister will be in burquas by Christmas and the caliphate will extend to the Shetland Islands. Osama bin Laden said so, right Karl?

Secondly, I don't discount the US role in WWII in the same way that many Americans, as you have acknowledged elsewhere, discount the role of the other Allies in defeating fascism.

Again, you mistake correcting poorly informed Americans for anti-Americanism, a very basic error.

I hate to doubt your encyclopedic knowledge of that conflict but I am pretty certain that in September of 1939 the UK War Cabinet was _*not*_ "debating whether the RAF could bomb "private property" in the US. "

As for the American taxpayer picking up the tab, I'm _sure_ you are aware that the British taxpayer is still repaying loans granted to the UK by the US during WWII. But you knew that right? You're the WWII expert.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

gmac said:


> Do I really need to say anything?


???

Very effective way to respond to arguments. I still don't know what your argument is that the US did not bail Europe out during WWII. Oh, that's right, it's because you don't have one, so you continue with your childish and assinine comments. But, someone of your superior knowledge and intelligence could never just admit that you misread what I said and in your zealousness to respond you ended up looking like an idiot.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gmac,

I am too hasty in my typing sometimes - so yes they were not debating whether or not they could bomb private property in the US but rather in Germany. 

The US taxpayer essentially has subsidized European security since World War Two and continues to do so. And if you think Britain paid the total cost of all the aid it received during WW2 then you are sadly mistaken - but then again we didn't ask you too. I don't claim to be a WW2 expert but I do think I have a more complete understanding about it than you do.

And Europe does face a serious demographic issue in that it has a declining native population and an increasing Muslim population, which is by and large, less committed to secular, liberal democracy. That is without question. If you choose to ignore that problem, fine but that won't make it go away. My advice to all those Europeans who love liberal democracy is have more kids. The Turks are not only at the gates of Vienna but I think they make up the majority of that city's Tenth District.

Karl


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

You may wish to check with your "good dictionary" about the spelling of the word _emergency._

It's one thing not being able to read, but not being able to spell - with a "good dictionary" in front of you?

How is the state of the American legal profession these days? Maybe not fair to judge on one who has yet to join it I guess.....


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Gmac,
> 
> I am too hasty in my typing sometimes - so yes they were not debating whether or not they could bomb private property in the US but rather in Germany.


Uh-huh. That's a couple of hasty typing errors I have had to correct for you in the last day or so. I'm sure glad you're not my secretary.

To a man less forgiving of typos than myself it might just sound like you don't know what you are talking about, what with the Poles saving Britain from the Blitz and the British planning to bomb the USA and all.

Good job I know better than that, eh?


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

gmac said:


> You may wish to check with your "good dictionary" about the spelling of the word _emergency._
> 
> It's one thing not being able to read, but not being able to spell - with a "good dictionary" in front of you?
> 
> How is the state of the American legal profession these days? Maybe not fair to judge on one who has yet to join it I guess.....


I see, when you can't attack someone's argument, you attack their spelling at 2 o'clock in the morning. That's a pretty good strategy.

EDIT: By the way, a simple spell checker could fix my problem, but nothing can fix an inability to make a coherent and intelligent argument.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gmac,

Do you really think I don't know the difference between the Blitz and BoB? I am sure publically you will in your inevitable, how to make friends and influence people way continue to insult me and make hay over a typo but privately you know better.

My contention that Czech and Polish pilots kept the RAF afloat still stands. Why not be gracious and pay proper respect to men who risked their lives for a nation which effectively abandoned them. Better yet, next time you meet a Czech or a Pole buy them a drink.

And I am glad I am not your secretary as well. I bet your secretary will be glad when she isn't your secretary........kidding, perhaps you are a wonderful boss. No one could be so foul in real life as you are on Ask Andy.

Karl


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

Inre Canadian citizenship. One of my closest friends from uni days married an American girl about 5 years ago. She holds an MA in physics, they live in Canada, have a baby daughter. She works for a university, and has received several gov't grants to produce poetry and other writings about war veterens. She is a published author some note. I haven't spoken to him in about a year, but as of that date she still had NOT gotten her Canadian citizenship. That is insane. After 4+ years living, working, and contributing to Canada, they still hadn't given her citizenship.

Why? I hate to be cynical, but I can only guess that it is because her assets, when she married my friend and moved to Canada, were little more than pocket change.

Does anyone remember those Hong Kong residents who were allowed to get Canadian citizenship back in the early 90s, not long before the handover to China? Remember how there was a sliding payment scale, depending on which province they agreed to reside in? It was something like $500G for BC, and $250G for Sask. and Manitoba (places where no Asian would want to live). Maybe I'm wrong, my memory can be spotty on certain things, but money does seem to talk.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Doctor Damage said:


> Inre Canadian citizenship. One of my closest friends from uni days married an American girl about 5 years ago. She holds an MA in physics, they live in Canada, have a baby daughter. She works for a university, and has received several gov't grants to produce poetry and other writings about war veterens. She is a published author some note. I haven't spoken to him in about a year, but as of that date she still had NOT gotten her Canadian citizenship. That is insane. After 4+ years living, working, and contributing to Canada, they still hadn't given her citizenship.


Doesn't sound right DD, unless she neglected to become a Permanent Resident

Off the top of my head, anyone who has three years as a PermananenResident is eligible for citizenship, even if you arived as a penniless layabout like me.

No-one gives you citizenship, you have to go out and get it. I haven't done so, maybe your friend is as lazy as me?


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

odoreater said:


> I see, when you can't attack someone's argument, you attack their spelling at 2 o'clock in the morning. That's a pretty good strategy.
> 
> EDIT: By the way, a simple spell checker could fix my problem, but nothing can fix an inability to make a coherent and intelligent argument.


I guess you're screwed then.

And if you can't see the humour in someone making the same spelling mistake twice in the same sentence as they talk about consulting their "good dictionary" then, well, maybe you'll actually make a decent lawyer after all.....


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

gmac said:


> I guess you're screwed then.
> 
> And if you can't see the humour in someone making the same spelling mistake twice in the same sentence as they talk about consulting their "good dictionary" then, well, maybe you'll actually make a decent lawyer after all.....


And he continues to not answer the argument...


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*Original Intent....*

So back to the OP.....

It seems gmac and Steven think I am totally incorrect in my characterization of the old line European democracies as somewhat moribund. No one else has disagreed that this is an incorrect assertion.

Steven's main criticism seems to be he feels that a) an influx of immigrants to maintain population does not indicate a moribund replacement ratio in the domestic population and that b) the inversion of the population pyramid and expensive social programs can exist together with no problems and that in fact, 2030 or so and things start to get better (he did not say how, I would assume from the influx of immigrants).

Gmac's main criticism is we are all idiots, racists, and just generally bad people for disagreeing with him, that odoreater will surely score poorly on the bar exam, and that the US had a fairly peripheral role in the two World Wars, although what that has to do with the OP, is surely beyond me. Gmac has stated GDP and birth rates have nothing to do with the line of reasoning in the OP.

I would ask, from other than gmac, does this sum up the thread fairly well?


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

odoreater said:


> (1) I was born in (Eastern) Europe.
> (2) I've been to many parts of Europe many times.
> (3) I despise men like Pat Robertson, but the truth is the truth.
> (4) "We" are the United States of America - the same people that have been bailing Europe out ever since we took over as the world superpower. I don't know what kind of commie history books you've been reading, but this is the truth, like it or not.
> ...


Uhhh, yeah, I'm not sure what you spewed out above constitutes an argument as such.

Your inane point about the US bailing out Europe has been adequately responded to here and elsewhere. The rest of it is just some kind of random word association game you seem to be playing - hard to respond to that slick.....


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Gmac's main criticism is we are all idiots, racists, and just generally bad people


Not everyone, just you. Oh, and that Canadian doofus who was so thrilled at Israel's "measured response" in lebanon.



Wayfarer said:


> that odoreater will surely score poorly on the bar exam,


Based on what he has shown here, I think "poorly" would be ambitious.



Wayfarer said:


> and that the US had a fairly peripheral role in the two World Wars, although what that has to do with the OP, is surely beyond me.


Way, way beyond you.



Wayfarer said:


> Gmac has stated GDP and birth rates have nothing to do with the line of reasoning in the OP.


Did you work out what kind of birth rates you are talking about yet? Did you pay that guy his $10k?



Wayfarer said:


> I would ask, from other than gmac, does this sum up the thread fairly well?


Hey sport, you don't want to see my responses, hit the ignore button. Go on, I dare ya!


----------



## EL72 (May 25, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> I would ask, from other than gmac, does this sum up the thread fairly well?


You forgot about how he accused us and Stephen Harper of disliking Lebanese-Canadians and rejoicing in their deaths.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

EL72 said:


> You forgot about how he accused us and Stephen Harper of disliking Lebanese-Canadians and rejoicing in their deaths.


I lost track....was that bit of poison in this thread or the other one on Iran?

Edit: Ah yes, sorry I forgot that part, it is indeed in the thread. Speaking of Lebanese, now I am jonesing for some shawarma


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*Incorrect as Usual....*



gmac said:


> Hey sport, you don't want to see my responses, hit the ignore button. Go on, I dare ya!


Ahh gmac, incorrect as usual. It is not that I did not wish to see your response per se, I just knew it would be full of your usual bile and lack any meaningful content. Thanks for once again living down to your track record.

So is "sport" my new nickname from you as "slick" is for odor? Another tactic of diminuation vs. reason and facts.

Odor, you sir are not working hard enough, you were just exempted from his "racist, bigot, homophobe" ad hom and non sequitor, you are just merely slow in the head it seems


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

Amazing how I've managed to get by in this world being as stupid as I am. I must have gotten lucky to score in the 97th percentile on the LSAT, make it on to the law review of my top 25 law school, graduate near the top of my class, and get a job at one of the top couple of firms in my state (turning down some of the top firms in the country in the process), where I've happily played a role in representing American companies being sued by Europeans because, in our land of plenty, they can recover millions for their damages, but in their own wastelands they can't recover more than a few grand. When it comes to tying up our court systems so that they can collect a buck Europeans love America. All this from the grandson of a communist guerilla and the son of a plumber.









Then again, this shouldn't really suprise gmac. I mean, I live in a country full of the biggest idiots and morons on earth right, so it makes sense that even an ignoramus such as myself can succeed. Funny how a country full of such idiots and morons can go on to be the most successful and powerful country in the world.









Of course, anyone who judges how smart people are based on their postings on an internet message board dedicated to clothing must truly be a brilliant man. Bravo, you have us all figured out.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*It Is About Time*

Odor:

The important thing is, at least you have come to realize your idiocy 

Impressive performance there though, for real bud. Good work


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Gmac,
> 
> Do you really think I don't know the difference between the Blitz and BoB? I am sure publically you will in your inevitable, how to make friends and influence people way continue to insult me and make hay over a typo but privately you know better.


Writing _emergancy_ instead of _emergency_ is a typo, writing the Blitz instead of the Battle of Britain and US instead of Germany are not typos. They are errors. Big ones. Huge in fact.



Karl89 said:


> My contention that Czech and Polish pilots kept the RAF afloat still stands. Why not be gracious and pay proper respect to men who risked their lives for a nation which effectively abandoned them. Better yet, next time you meet a Czech or a Pole buy them a drink.


Your contention about Pole and Czech pilots saving the RAF and Great Britain is wrong as I have already told you. Not only that, it does a huge disservice to the fliers of Britain, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Lebanon and, of course, the USA who fought with the RAF as Britain stood alone in 1940.

But I am happy to acknowledge the contribution of the Poles and Czechs as brave and skillful fliers



karl89 said:


> And I am glad I am not your secretary as well. I bet your secretary will be glad when she isn't your secretary........kidding, perhaps you are a wonderful boss. No one could be so foul in real life as you are on Ask Andy.
> 
> Karl


I'm worse, much worse. But she doesn't talk back as much as you guys so we get along just fine.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Lads, its been fun over the last couple of days but I think I will return to my self imposed exile. I actually do have other things to do than correct you fellows all day and make jokes.

You guys play nice now. Good luck on your bar exam Odoreater. Drop me a line anytime Karl.

Gmac out!


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

gmac said:


> Lads, its been fun over the last couple of days but I think I will return to my self imposed exile. I actually do have other things to do than correct you fellows all day and make jokes.
> 
> You guys play nice now. Good luck on your bar exam Odoreater. Drop me a line anytime Karl.
> 
> Gmac out!


Just when the interchange was getting fun again?!?


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

odoreater said:


> Etienne insists on continuing his semantic debate over what Wayfarer, when he understands full well what Wayfarer meant


No. I suggest you re-read my post. I merely made a joke. Then, since he did not get it the first time, I explained again. But I did not stop there.



> but refuses to address the problem.


Would you care to discuss the few questions I have made about it? It seems you have missed them.

Just to make things clear. I am not particularly interested in discussing your broad and unbased statement that Europe is "rancid TTT (third tier toilet) in decline". Even if you do start to give arguments and a rational basis to such a claim, any discussion beginning with an insult is very unlikely to yield any result of interest. I am interested if you have any argument to add to the subject at hand, though.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

crazyquik said:


> Intergenerational transfers of wealth work fine as long as you have more workers than elderly.


Yes, they do. And actually it's a little-known fact that this applies whatever the system used (capitalization or not). But as far as I've seen, there is no fundamental crisis for the systems in question. At least for France, the system I know best, it remains basically afloat, needing only a few adjustments (painful ones though).


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

Étienne said:


> No. I suggest you re-read my post. I merely made a joke. Then, since he did not get it the first time, I explained again. But I did not stop there.
> 
> Would you care to discuss the few questions I have made about it? It seems you have missed them.
> 
> Just to make things clear. I am not particularly interested in discussing your broad and unbased statement that Europe is "rancid TTT (third tier toilet) in decline". Even if you do start to give arguments and a rational basis to such a claim, any discussion beginning with an insult is very unlikely to yield any result of interest. I am interested if you have any argument to add to the subject at hand, though.


I was just being facetious and inflammatory - trying to get everyone worked up. The internet is not a good medium for a person of my humor. I did not mean to insult (though I see how I said was insulting). Accept my apologies.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

odoreater said:


> Accept my apologies.


Apology accepted, captain Odoreater.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Etienne,

I knowi t seems that there is sometimes an Anglo-Saxon conspiracy on Ask Andy against France but I assure you its not true. I think even the most critical posters of France wish it only well and don't critique it to prop up the US or any other country, but rather bc of a genuine concern about the future of France and Europe.

This week's Economist wrote a damning article saying that Chirac's 11 year tenure has largely been a waste and that France isn't serious about facing its problems. You seem if not non chalant about the problems your nation faces than not too worried, either. I would ask if you and perhaps Rich, could write not an Apologia pro Gaul but rather your candid assessment of the situation. Do you think there is a problem? If so, do you think something will be done about it? And what do you think about the short to medium term prospects of France? Specific focus on next year's elections and its implications would be appreciated. Forgive me if this sounds too much like homework.

I value your opinion as I know others do, even though we often disagree and I would love to hear what you have to say.

So looking forward to hearing from the French contingent.

And RJMan if you are reading -the thoughts of an American in Paris are welcome too!

Karl


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> I knowi t seems that there is sometimes an Anglo-Saxon conspiracy on Ask Andy against France but I assure you its not true.


Karl, I would not speak of a "conspiracy", but I think everybody agress that we have seen francophobic feelings emerge from time to time. That does not mean that I take every criticism as an example of such feelings.



> This week's Economist wrote a damning article saying that Chirac's 11 year tenure has largely been a waste


Now, that's really not true, but in no part thanks to him. There have been many important reforms in the governments of Juppé (right, 95-97) and Jospin (left, 97-2002).



> You seem if not non chalant about the problems your nation faces than not too worried, either.


The analysis you are asking does sound like a lot of work. Maybe we could start with some inkling on the "problems" you are speaking of?


----------

