patrick.net

edvard2 says

http://www.usatoday.com/story/driveon/2014/01/28/honda-exports/4956205/

There you go. That's just Honda alone and represents over 100,000 cars in one year.

Here's another link: Our exports in terms of Japanese branded cars has almost doubled in a very short time period: http://www.nbcnews.com/business/autos/detroits-rivals-using-america-base-car-exports-f8C11266338

I was able to find info on exports that are a bit more definitive:
http://www.autoevolution.com/news/us-car-exports-reach-record-high-73947.html

Last year’s exports numbered about 1.8 million cars and trucks and brought back $132.7 billion. Most exports go to Mexico and Canada (about 49 percent), while one in nine vehicles exported from the United States go to China, where the market has expanded nearly six times compared to 2009.

“The growing number of exports has everything to do with plant retooling and this new product onslaught, with an eye toward meeting global demand,” Mike Jackson, manager at IHS Automotive, told Detroit News.

Recent export growth is expected to drop, however, as US automakers continue to build assembly plants in Asia and South America.

http://trade.gov/wcm/groups/internet/@trade/@mas/@man/@aai/documents/web_content/auto_stats_mv_qfacts_pdf.pdf
Shows 23% (or 2.7 Million) being imports, but that does not include imports from Canada and Mexico. I have not found those statistics yet, but exports to Mexico are tiny, when compared to our imports. Exports to Canada also lag imports. I am still looking for exact numbers, but I bet they are substantial (in the millions).

zzyzzx says

I was able to find info on exports that are a bit more definitive:

Thank you for further reinforcing what I just said above.socal2 says

I think marriage is different as it is primarily about the propogation of the species.

That's a really narrow definition. There's actually very few people I know who got married distinctly just to have babies. There's wayyyy more to it then that. Like love, companionship, and many others. We are like many Americans in that we chose not to have children either. Yet we pay our taxes, work at jobs, buy things, and pretty much everything else that comes with being an American citizen. So if you take our example, we aren't any different from any other couple- gay or straight- when it comes to what our marriage has to do with this country.

edvard2 says

That's a really narrow definition. There's actually very few people I know
who got married distinctly just to have babies. There's wayyyy more to it then
that. Like love, companionship, and many others. We are like many Americans in
that we chose not to have children either. Yet we pay our taxes, work at jobs,
buy things, and pretty much everything else that comes with being an American
citizen. So if you take our example, we aren't any different from any other
couple- gay or straight- when it comes to what our marriage has to do with this
country.

Again - the vast majority of marriages in the US result in procreation.

Just because a small percentage of hetero couples can't/don't procreate and an even smaller percentage of gay couples can't procreate - doesn't mean we need to change the entire definition or meaning of marriage.

I'm sure you and your spouse feel like you are doing some heavy lifting paying taxes for services you won't use (schools etc for children). But we have no future as a country or group of people if there is no future citizens to contribute to our economy and pay taxes. Why does anyone need the government to "certify" 2 person's love for each other or living arrangements if there are no children involved where finances may need to be split up to support the children in the event of divorce?

Raising kids is hard and nearly impossible to do with just one parent who needs to earn all of the income in addition to raising the children. So it is a no brainer that most cultures recognized long before America was founded that a two parent family is ideal and that the State should offer some financial incentives to support family formation instead of dumping children on welfare or orphanages.

edvard2 says

Thank you for further reinforcing what I just said above

No I showed how imports from only 3 countries, exceed all of the exports from the USA. if you add in Canadian and Mexican imported cars to the US, it's probably more like 2-3 imported cars for every one ex export.

socal2 says

Again - the vast majority of marriages in the US result in procreation.

Just because a small percentage of hetero couples can't/don't procreate and an even smaller percentage of gay couples can't procreate - doesn't mean we need to change the entire definition or meaning of marriage.

And there is the entire problem with this side of the argument- that there is/was a set definition of marriage and that its based all on one thing: Procreation. That's a total bunch of crap. Plain and simple. NONE of that matters. Its nobody's business what goes on in any family or their marriage and its equally ridiculous to suggest that all marriages are based on one highly idealized definition. Like I said before, this is a very simple, cut and dry debate, or actually not even a debate.

But since this seems to be going down that silly "definitions" tangent, how about using some defined areas that actually have real facts attached versus a bunch of hooey? I will mention this one more time because so far NONE of those on the right have answered my assertion: This is about constitutional guarantees instilled within that document, and the rights it provides to all Americans. THATS IT.zzyzzx says

No I showed how imports from only 3 countries, exceed all of the exports from the USA. if you add in Canadian and Mexican imported cars to the US, it's probably more like 2-3 imported cars for every one ex export.

I suggest going back and re-reading my previous statement. My statement originated with the fact that we're actually exporting more Japanese cars than we import. You're making it a more generalized statement from ALL imports.

edvard2 says

Procreation. That's a total bunch of crap. Plain and simple. NONE of that
matters. Its nobody's business what goes on in any family or their marriage and
its equally ridiculous to suggest

Hey - I totally agree it is nobody's business what 2 (even 3, 4 or 5) adults want to do sexually in their private lives or if these folks want to legally pool their wealth to support each other. It only matters to our government (and our society) if these adults bring new humans into this world (via procreation) that could either be a burden or a benefit to our society in terms of being a contributor or drain to our entitlement systems.

That's why "marriage" is different than other non-procreative relationships as the majority hetero marriages are responsible for creating and raising the next generation of humanity which is absolutely vital to the continuation of our nation. There is also ample research that suggest monogamous 2 parent hetero relationships are the best at raising productive and balanced children.

I don't want to discriminate against gay, polygamous, polyamorous people who aren't hurting anyone. But there is simply no "constitutional right" that the government has to formally accept or sanction a person's sexual or co-habitation preferences.

socal2 says

But there is simply no "constitutional right" that the government has to formally accept or sanction a person's sexual or co-habitation preferences.

yes there is. 14th amendment, Equal Protection Clause.

Not allowing Gays and Lesbians to have the same rights and status as everyone else is wrong. Any and all suggestions or assertions otherwise is incorrect and out of alignment with the Constitution.

Anything else?

edvard2 says

yes there is. 14th amendment, Equal Protection Clause.

Not allowing Gays and Lesbians to have the same rights and status as everyone
else is wrong. Any and all suggestions or assertions otherwise is incorrect and
out of alignment with the Constitution.

Anything else?

Equal protection of what? Exactly what rights are they being denied if Civil Unions allows alternative lifestyles to pool and share their resources?

Gay couples can't create kids (without going to massive extremes using a 3rd person's eggs or surrogacy). These are simply different types of relationships. So at the very least, you are now comparing a 3 person relationship with a 2 person relationship and I don't see many gay marriage advocates arguing that current law is discriminating against polygomy or polyandry. Or is that the next step in the slippery slope?

socal2 says

Equal protection of what? Exactly what rights are they being denied if Civil Unions allows alternative lifestyles to pool and share their resources?

Gay couples can't create kids (without going to massive extremes using a 3rd person's eggs or surrogacy). These are simply different types of relationships. So at the very least, you are now comparing a 3 person relationship with a 2 person relationship and I don't see many gay marriage advocates arguing that current law is discriminating against polygomy or polyandry. Or is that the next step in the slippery slope?

Sounds like you are unfamiliar with the 14th amendment. The text is as follows:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

This is super cut and dry. The rest of your text is rambling nonsense. The lame "slippery slope" argument is used as a wet noodle excuse to try and suggest that ohhhhh.... if we do that.... then this will happen.... oh no! What a bunch of utter crap. Its crap because its totally ignores the fact that humans use logic to make decisions on a case-by-case basis and just because one thing happens does not mean other things will automatically occur as a result simply because each are separate issues with their own sets of dialog and decisions to be had.

You lost this argument a very long time ago.

Recently read in Montesquieue of strange behaviour by the Patricians and Legal Staff that was a major cause of Roman woes:

Monthesquieu: SPIRIT OF LAWS:

Of the State of the World after the Destruction of the Romans.

The regulations made by the Romans to increase the number of their citizens had their effect while the republic, in the full vigour of her constitution, had nothing to repair but the losses she sustained by her courage, by her intrepidity, by her firmness, her love of glory and of virtue. But soon the wisest laws could not re-establish what a dying republic, what a general anarchy, what a military government, what a rigid empire, what a proud despotic power, what a feeble monarchy, what a stupid, weak, and superstitious court had successively pulled down. It might, indeed, be said that they conquered the world only to weaken it, and to deliver it up defenceless to barbarians. The Gothic nations, the Getes, the Saracens and Tartars by turns harassed them; and soon the barbarians had none to destroy but barbarians. Thus, in fabulous times, after the inundations and the deluge, there arose out of the earth armed men, who exterminated one another.

FortWayne says

Liberals are more concerned about gays in Russia, than about economy, well being, or stability of an American economy.

Absolutely stunning.

This would be like me saying, "Conservatives" are more interested in guaranteeing criminals and murderers their right to have automatic weapons with huge clips and also in murdering doctors that perform abortions than they are in preserving the environment or allowing low income people to receive health care.

marcus says

FortWayne says

Liberals are more concerned about gays in Russia, than about economy, well being, or stability of an American economy.

Absolutely stunning.

This would be like me saying, "Conservatives" are more interested in guaranteeing criminals and murderers their right to have automatic weapons with huge clips and also in murdering doctors that perform abortions than they are in preserving the environment or allowing low income people to receive health care.

That's nowhere near accurate, not even in a ballpark of comparisons. If liberals were not so hell bent on focusing on some unrelated foreign affairs like Gays in Russia, or terrible treatment of stray dogs in Venezuela, we'd not have this topic. But it's just gone too far. Normal people, unlike the left, want government to fix economy. But since your liar in the white house is too asshole, he is too busy playing politics instead.

Liberal media has only 2 topics given to them to their leader and fuhrer: Fictitious war on women, need some stupid vote for Hillary to be ready. And of course gays in random foreign countries, not really sure what market segment they are aiming for here. In summary, nothing but clowns and jokers. And as such they belong in a circus, not in government.

marcus says

Absolutely stunning.

The only thing stunning here is incompetence on the left. They can't even roll out a website, not even after astronomical costs to their buddy buddy.

And what's even more astonishing is that voters on the left, are ok with that. Corruption, theft, bribery, right in front of their eyes.... move along folks... nothing to see here.

FortWayne says

And of course gays in random foreign countries

It is a world superpower; no, one of THE superpowers, and all eyes are upon it because of the olympics. Like all of the redneck hick towns across the USA that drive out their gay people (who flock to places like Los Angeles where I live, and their gayness is no big deal FFS) Russia needs to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century in social matters.

It actually plays quite well in the states for human rights activists, for it puts leading anti-gay Republicans into the position of having to out-Russian the Russians before their contradiction-riddled base. Cognitive dissonance can be amusing sometimes.

Dan8267 says

Check the spreadsheet. It includes interest on the debt based on empirical data.

I don't completely disagree but 0 defense will not work. The debt at 1.75% interest will not work either and that could balloon into 6.5% and 1 trillion very easily.

And that estimates a spartan budget for 70 years yea that will happen...

This whole damned conversation is yet more proof of why the GOP and its followers are light years behind everyone one else and so far removed from anything resembling reality that its sad. Lucky for us the opinions expressed by some here are only those held by a very teeny percentage of the populace who don't know anything other than what their precious cable news networks tells them. The majority of the US population is actually sensible and use their brains to think instead of letting someone else do it for them.

FortWayne says

If liberals were not so hell bent on focusing on some unrelated foreign affairs like Gays in Russia

You're such a simpleton. You really think that that story was because of liberals ?

If so, only indirectly. The fact that we (the US and many other modern countries) don't actually care about whether people are gay or not, might have something to do with liberals.

But,...given that we are tolerant, and Russia is not, and that our media is critical of Putin and Russia for that, you blame liberals ? After Putin just last year wrote essays that were published in US papers critical of Obama and his Syria policy ?

OF course the corporations that control American media are going to find things to criticize Putin and Russia for. Their lack of tolerance compared to our more advanced perspective is a perfect topic for them.

You think it's about liberals ?

You are very deeply confused.

Automan Empire says

Russia needs to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century in social matters.

Why should they not be allowed to evolve at their own rate?

zzyzzx says

Automan Empire says

Russia needs to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century in social matters.

Why should they not be allowed to evolve at their own rate?

For the same reason Nazi Germany was not allowed to "evolve at its own rate". Human rights trumps the laziness of bigots. No one should suffer crimes against their person in order to give the criminal "time to change".

The Russians should pick on the Obese gay people, then that way they'll get the American Liberal support they so desperately crave.

Automan Empire says

It is a world superpower; no, one of THE superpowers, and all eyes are upon it because of the olympics. ... gay people (who flock to places like Los Angeles where I live, and their gayness is no big deal FFS) Russia needs to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century in social matters.

Now I see just the kind of voters these silly issues become priorities...

marcus says

You're such a simpleton. You really think that that story was because of liberals ?

Of course because of liberals. Mr. EmptySuit isn't talking to an empty room out there when he is addressing the nation. He is catering to his liberal left, that got screws loose in their heads.

It's your "Democratic" political party that gave up on trying to fix the economy, and just refocused itself on political BS. Just wait till the drums of your ficticious war on women start up again, we get that at least every other day on CNN.

FortWayne says

Now I see just the kind of voters these silly issues become priorities...

Funny the way conservatives tell "voters like me" to go to Russia if I don't like it here.

FortWayne says

Now I see just the kind of voters these silly issues become priorities...

And therein lies the fault with your entire argument- if you had any to start with. You are calling one group of American's access to equal treatment as "Silly". Is that really what you think? You think that if someone is denied the same rights as other that its a "Silly" issue?

You keep posting this absurd and ridiculous posts about this same topic and are wrong as soon as its posted. What if I were to come on here and make a post that everyone deserved access to free speech except for conservatives? What if I called that issue "silly"? I ask because what you are calling silly is the same thing.

Your entire little debate here is in itself assassin.

FortWayne says

It's your "Democratic" political party that gave up on trying to fix the economy, and just refocused itself on political BS.

Your party was responsible for the economy Obama inherited and considering how royally they messed things up, the success Obama has had at turning things around is nothing short of a miracle especially considering he had to deal with a bunch of whining, immature Republicans who decided to waste taxpayer dollars by not doing their jobs and sitting on their hands from day one.

edvard2 says

sitting on their hands from day one.

It's not that they were doing nothing, it's that they were spending most of their day running their thoughts/ideas by mark levine to make sure that he don't drop the stalinist purge on them....

edvard2 says

You think that if someone is denied the same rights as other that its a "Silly" issue?

Yes I think you liberals are very "silly", and I'm being polite. What kind of people prioritize stray cats, or random crap in foreign nations over their nations internal needs. Economy... silence. Unemployment... silence. Growing welfare state... silence. But stray dogs in Sochi, and homeless cats in LA, or Gays in Russia.... IMMEDIATE ATTENTION EVERYONE!

You people are something. Priorities of a 15 year old.

FortWayne says

Yes I think you liberals are very "silly", and I'm being polite. What kind of people prioritize stray cats, or random crap in foreign nations over their nations internal needs. Economy... silence. Unemployment... silence. Growing welfare state... silence. But stray dogs in Sochi, and homeless cats in LA, or Gays in Russia.... IMMEDIATE ATTENTION EVERYONE!

You people are something. Priorities of a 15 year old.

This whole post was based on some bullshit assertion made that has no bearing in reality, and yet somehow being passed off as fact. So we can stop right there. The comment about Democrats not paying attention to the economy and unemployment is ridiculous. I NEVER remember Bush EVER going on tour to talk to people in factories, schools, and job fairs. He was sooooo busy telling us the " the economy was strong" or some other nonsense. Meanwhile the US deficit grew at the fastest rate under his admin than at any other tiem in US history because of his admin's decision to enact irresponsible tax initiatives.

Obama is on a plane practically every week doing those things, visiting with real people, and making real progress. But in regards to what the the GOP has done, well they succeeded in shutting down the government which in effect cost the US over 5.5 billion dollars and caused 100's of thousands of people to be furloughed.

Liberal doublespeak explained.

Bringing gay rights into the 21st century costs nothing and brings immeasurable happiness to a measurable percentage of the population.

There is no reason for this to be conditional upon ANYTHING happening first. Especially when it's really down to waiting for an old intolerant generation to die off.

If the economy was as easy to fix as this issue, what a wonderful world it would be.

FortWayne says

Yes I think you liberals are very "silly", and I'm being polite. What kind of people prioritize stray cats, or random crap in foreign nations over their nations internal needs.

If Russia was still cracking down on Christianity rather than cracking down on gays because of Christianity, I suspect that FortWayne wouldn't consider the outrage to be so "silly".

Furthermore, there is no competition between U.S. citizens being outraged and vocal about Putin's human rights violations and being outraged and vocal about all the economic problems caused by our government, primarily Republicans.

By the way, we all know exactly how the hell to fix the economy. It's not rocket science. We have to undo all the policies implemented by Reagan and his successors. We need to
1. Enforce anti-trust laws. Without them there is no competition, including competition for workers.
2. Stop taxing the rich, owner class less than the wealth-producing middle class. In fact, don't tax productivity; tax rent-collection. Tax money created by owning things.
3. Support the middle class worker (and that means UNIONS) because they key to economic prosperity is the virtuous cycle of increasing wages causing increasing consumption causing increasing production causing increasing wages. This has always been and will always be the ONLY path to economic prosperity.
4. And that means higher wages including a living minimum wage.
5. Eliminate H1B Visas, outsourcing, and shipping industries to third world nations.

So, if you want to bitch and moan about the economy all day, don't forget that Reaganomics is exactly what got us into this position.

And contrary to all Republican philosophy, a strong, prosperous economy and a safe, healthy society requires a large degree of equality.

http://new.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson

http://www.youtube.com/embed/cZ7LzE3u7Bw

Russia has morphed from a left wing dictatorship to a right wing dictatorship. It is interesting that now they have orthodox crosses on their uniforms while not too long in soviet union the churches were essentially banned.

I guess I haven't been paying attention, but what exactly are the rights not afforded to homosexuals? How are they being discriminated against?

Dan8267 says

1. Enforce anti-trust laws. Without them there is no competition, including competition for workers.

2. Stop taxing the rich, owner class less than the wealth-producing middle class. In fact, don't tax productivity; tax rent-collection. Tax money created by owning things.

3. Support the middle class worker (and that means UNIONS) because they key to economic prosperity is the virtuous cycle of increasing wages causing increasing consumption causing increasing production causing increasing wages. This has always been and will always be the ONLY path to economic prosperity.

4. And that means higher wages including a living minimum wage.

5. Eliminate H1B Visas, outsourcing, and shipping industries to third world nations.

1) Whats stopping Obama now? He is in completely charge of enforcement. But I guess he is no Teddy Roosevelt.

2) But Obama is just too busy sending IRS against 501C's to actually worry about real tax changes.

3) Whats stopping Obama here?

4) Wishing higher wages doesn't make them happen, just increases entry barrier, since most people will still hire Mexicans and pay under the table anyway.

5) What's stopping Obama here?

FortWayne says

What kind of people prioritize stray cats, or random crap in foreign nations over their nations internal needs.

Just how stupid does one have to be to equate a story in the paper (not even a liberal paper - but sure also that commie rag the NYT) about Putin making some shocking statements about gays in the olympics,...

TO IT BEING A LIBERAL PRIORITY ?

Pardon my yelling, but dude, you are outdoing yourself here.

How can a human be as stupid as you ?

Please back up your statement with a shred of evidence, or throw us a tiny indication that you have an IQ above 75.

Liberals don't hate homes, and they say live and let live when it comes to sexual preference. Therefore in your sorry excuse for a mind, gay rights are a liberal priority ??

Wtf ?

For each single bill having to do with gay rights introduced by democrats that has been rejected by the right wing of congress or which has not been allowed to even brought up for a vote, there have to be at least 100 having to do with economics.

What the hell are you even talking about ? Presumably you think that if you say gay rights are a liberal priority above things like jobs that it will become a new RW talking point or something ?

Sorry, but even most of the normal republicans reading this think you are a moron. That's all you have proven. Not that it's the first time.

I can hardly believe this thread has got so many comments. I saw it as another misplaced rant by the OP, and thought it would go away, but no, it keeps coming up on the home page.

First of all, the OP premise is false, and merely a projection of his complaint that he is frightened by too many black people on his TV - and now too many gay people. The media aren't even really liberal, but the OP calls them that because some of the TV shows are integrated.

Second, if you look at what the media are actually reporting about Russia, the place is a possibly collapsing superpower with nuclear weapons that is allegedly controlled by organized crime. Since his divorce, Putin has forged an unholy alliance with the Russian Orthodox church, and is becoming more like Henry VIII. Remember that Ivan the Terrible became terrible after gaining too much power; previously, he had been Ivan the Great. Putin is becoming potentially a Napoleonic figure, and that causes concerns around the world, in particular his manipulation of Ukraine and Europe.

In answer to errc's question, Russia discriminates against homosexuals in several ways. Most obvious is discrimination in the marriage laws, i.e. homosexual couples are denied the same legal rights that heterosexual couples take for granted. The most recent legislation prohibits "propaganda" but is written so broadly that anyone could potentially be arrested (see the 60 Minutes report about alleged corruption in the police) for holding hands or wearing a T-shirt; even Madonna was fined and threatened with arrest for saying something nice on stage about marriage equality. There is also violence, because Putin has installed mayors who allow (maybe even encourage) violence directed against gay people, although that isn't codified in legislation (yet). Putin's comments about protecting children seemed to be code going back to Russian pogroms against Jews who were also scapegoated as a threat to children. The Putin network is based on the KGB and organized crime, and their tactics reflect that context; people get killed, even a Russian in London was poisoned with polonium (and the poisoners spilled radioactive polonium all over town) and a president of Ukraine was also poisoned. Because gay Russians tend to be associated with the political opposition to Putin's junta, they can become targets as well. Forthood sounds like a coal miner complaining that "liberals" are paying too much attention to the canary being asphyxiated, claiming they should concentrate solely on the coal.

BTW, unlike Larry Craig, Putin doesn't seem to be secretly homosexual. He's left his wife, reportedly for another woman, but Putin likes horses. He's even been photographed half naked with one, returning from the woods together after one of their trysts. She's a mare of course; nothing queer about Vladimir.

curious2 says

Putin likes horses. He's even been photographed half naked with one

Yeah, that picture of a shirtless Putin on a horse in a raging river was passed around from conservative to conservative, who breathlessly said, now THERE'S a LEADER! I think he gave each and every one of them wood, and they probably fap to it before going online to bash 'the liberals."

Dan8267 says

zzyzzx says

Automan Empire says

Russia needs to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century in social matters.

Why should they not be allowed to evolve at their own rate?

For the same reason Nazi Germany was not allowed to "evolve at its own rate". Human rights trumps the laziness of bigots. No one should suffer crimes against their person in order to give the criminal "time to change".

I take it you were a big fan of Bush and his foreign policies for trying to drag the 1000X worse Muslim/Arab world into the 21st century on "social matters" by beating the love of Jesus into them?

Iran openly hangs gay children and the US under Obama is currently relaxing sanctions and negotiating with the Iranian nutters on nukes.

Looks like some social issues get trumped depending on circumstances - right?

I think Putin was just mad that the two chicks on the side picked the chick in the middle over him.

socal2 says

Bush and his foreign policies for trying to drag the 1000X worse Muslim/Arab
world into the 21st century on "social matters"

I've heard many justifications for those wars, but this is a new one on me.