Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General Polls
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Is the USA a big bully these days?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedIs the USA a big bully these days?
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 9>
Poll Question: A simple yes or no, foriegn opinions valued most.
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
38 [64.41%]
21 [35.59%]
This topic is closed, no new votes accepted

Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
StyLaZyn View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 22 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4079 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 26 2007 at 13:57
For anyone who might care (in the USA for this comment):
 
Send something to your representative to let them know about your displeasure in the Vice-Tyrant.
Back to Top
Voidonaut View Drop Down
Forum Newbie
Forum Newbie
Avatar

Joined: June 19 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 11 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 22 2007 at 13:21
so far i think this thread has been pretty pompous and pretentious, a real prog thread if you ask me ahahah
I have become aware of all matter and life and i can vibrate the universe with my mind.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 22 2007 at 13:10
Originally posted by Drew Drew wrote:

Originally posted by Chicapah Chicapah wrote:

Sorry, but "bullies" don't send billions of donated dollars, supplies and aid to Tsunami victims.  Say or think what you want but the USA is more generous than any other country on earth.  Check out how much aid the huge China sent to their needy neighbors.

Thumbs%20Up
 
No country donated "billions"
 
In pure monitary value Australia, Germany, the EU and Japan pledged more than the USA.
 
In terms of a percentage of GDP (i.e. how rich a country is), 29 other countries pledged more of their national wealth than the USA.
 
However, China does have an attrocious record, but then only a mere fraction of it's 1.3billion population can afford to.
What?
Back to Top
Drew View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 20 2005
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 12600 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 22 2007 at 12:39
Originally posted by Chicapah Chicapah wrote:

Sorry, but "bullies" don't send billions of donated dollars, supplies and aid to Tsunami victims.  Say or think what you want but the USA is more generous than any other country on earth.  Check out how much aid the huge China sent to their needy neighbors.

Thumbs%20Up



Back to Top
IVNORD View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 22 2007 at 09:18
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:

 
THe US is the main pillar of global economy. Excluding ourselves from it is ridiculous. Blaming it for the loss of manufacturing jobs is even more ridiculous. Global economy is a self-regulating mechanism. THe process of globalisation is at leas 100 years old, they just  didn't call it that way back then. Migration of jobs and entire industries began probably with the debasing of the steel manufacturing if not earlier. When it became economically profitable to produce steel closer to the sources of iron ore at much cheaper labor cost while the shipping costs declined. Textile, chemicals, agriculture and many more followed suit. 20 years ago engineering began its displacement. Nobody said a word. All this latest crap is pure politics. Manufacturing will not be spared. But eventually new jobs will be created as new technology will appear. And some old jobs will return to the US when the world salaries level off thanks to global economy. Right now we are simply priced out of some industries.
 
Right now manufacturers are able to enjoy the booming American market without the burden of paying American taxes or labor. Correct. Capitalism always strives to maximize profits. 
To say globalization is not the cause of the loss of manufacturing jobs is ridiculous. Of course the global economy is the cause of the job loss, my entire post attests to that. BLAIMING it for the job loss is ridiculous. It's like blaiming the wind for blowing your hat off your head. The capital will always seek cheaper labor markets. Prohibiting it will result in ultimate demise of capitalism.
Capitalism can exist perfectly fine confined to a country's borders. Prohibiting these actions wouldn't be a leash on capitalism; it would just be a recognition of borders. I understand why jobs go overseas. I even support jobs going overseas, but I don't see how you can say globalization doesn't cause them to go to cheaper labor markets. Sorry for the confusion. We're saying the same thing here. Blaiming the loss of jobs on the global economy is correct. Blaiming (castigating) it for the loss of jobs is silly as it's a natural process. Fighting it is pissing against the wind.  If we codified anti-globalization policies capitalism wouldn't be compromised but manufacturing jobs wouldn't be lost. Can you imagine how complex the code should be? Capitalism is based on free markets. Stiff regulations are a threat to it. Protectionism is one of them. Actually, the latest debate is triggered more by the loss of white-collar jobs (manufacturing jobs migration is going on for years, see my original message), so most of it is political. Politicians don't do anything about it as nothing can be done, but they talk a lot as talk is cheap and people like it.
 
If we were to put protectionist policies in place producers would be forced to move their factories back to American to sell to the market that they depend on.  And prices would rise immediately causing a recession; foreign govenments would respond in kind closing international markets for us, not to mention we would be out-priced first; the global economy would collapse, etc.
Real Wages and employment would also rise though. Then you would have to raise wages across the board or risk pricing a huge segment of the population out of the market. In the former case you would face horrendous inflation, in the latter - a recession. I don't think a recession would necessarily follow. I largely agree with your second point which is a large reason I'm for globalization.
I don't see how you can say otherwise.
Back to Top
StyLaZyn View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 22 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4079 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 21 2007 at 12:19
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

^
"Water vapour was responsible for 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect, an effect which was vital to keep the world warm, he explained.

"If we didn't have the greenhouse effect the planet would be at minus 18 deg C but because we do have the greenhouse effect it is plus 15 deg C, all the time."

The other greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and various others including CFCs, contributed only five per cent of the effect, carbon dioxide being by far the greatest contributor at 3.6 per cent.

However, carbon dioxide as a result of man's activities was only 3.2 per cent of that, hence only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in total. Human-related methane, nitrogen dioxide and CFCs etc made similarly minuscule contributions to the effect: 0.066, 0.047 and 0.046 per cent respectively. " -http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaruherald/4064691a6571.html

 
OK, I'm no meterologist, and have no idea who this Augie guy is, but I found this interesting when I googled his name.
 
 

Let us look at the situation a bit more carefully: 

It is true that by comparison of quantity there is a hell of a lot more water vapour in the atmosphere than CO2. Water vapour is a perfect absorber of infrared radiation and thus the main contributor to the so called 'greenhouse' effect. So far Augie is right.

And he is also right, that the Earth would be covered in ice, if it was not for the warming blanket of that water vapour.

However Augie omits to say this: Water vapour is not absorbing (shielding against radiation heat loss) in the entire infrared spectrum. In fact there are, thankfully, a few relatively clear 'open windows' in the absorption spectrum of water vapour because of the physical properties of the water molecule. If it was not for these 'windows' in the absorption spectrum of water vapour, our earth would find it more difficult to radiate heat away to space. And radiating in the infrared spectrum, a bit like the glow from your hot potbelly stove in winter, is the only way that Earth can loose thermal energy to space!  If these remaining open windows in the infrared spectrum between the various bands in which water vapour absorbs were not there, then Earth would a much warmer place, and probably not very conducive to the current forms of life.

Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 21 2007 at 11:51
^
"Water vapour was responsible for 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect, an effect which was vital to keep the world warm, he explained.

"If we didn't have the greenhouse effect the planet would be at minus 18 deg C but because we do have the greenhouse effect it is plus 15 deg C, all the time."

The other greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and various others including CFCs, contributed only five per cent of the effect, carbon dioxide being by far the greatest contributor at 3.6 per cent.

However, carbon dioxide as a result of man's activities was only 3.2 per cent of that, hence only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in total. Human-related methane, nitrogen dioxide and CFCs etc made similarly minuscule contributions to the effect: 0.066, 0.047 and 0.046 per cent respectively. " -http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaruherald/4064691a6571.html
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
StyLaZyn View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 22 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4079 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 21 2007 at 11:43
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by StyLaZyn StyLaZyn wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

 
Nobody is denying the existance of smog. However, I'm not sure what that has to do with global warming. A causes B, so A must also cause C?
 
I agree wholeheartedly with that logic. The existence of smog  is an indicator showing that ability of the atmosphere to trap and not readily release emissions on a very small (comparitively) scale. Imagine the effects globally.
 
What does that have to do with those emissions trapping heat?
 
If I understand correctly, CO2 emissions trap heat like a blanket covering the earth. CO2 emissions are more prevalent than smog. Use smog as a better visual for the behavoir of CO2.  It takes quite a while for the smog to disperse but it can because it travels from higher concentration to lesser concentration. CO2 behaves similarly. The global concentration rises because it has no place to further dilute. Like people urinating in the drinking water resevoir, at first, the toxicity is minimal, but over time becomes hazardous.
 
 
Back to Top
darksinger View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 29 2006
Location: Durham, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 1091 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 21 2007 at 11:29
when the rest of the world can make burgers in 3000 different ways that will drive other nations to want them served in their borders, then we will stop ruling the world. until then, just enjoy your big mac before i tell bush to lay the smackdown on ya...

Edited by darksinger - June 21 2007 at 11:29
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 21 2007 at 11:15
Originally posted by Kid-A Kid-A wrote:

ConfusedLook mate, you can find links to say ANYTHING on the internet. If every link you found was true, then everything would be true, even things which condradict each other are true. I didn't just dismiss them arbritrarily, I looked at them, looked at who did them. That enables you to make a judgement, not just accepting everything which is given to you.

 Lets talk about scientists working for the US government. What affect would going 'green' have on the US economy? Huge. Would scientists working for the US government twist data try and twist data to try and make it seem like there is not a problem? I wouldn't bet against it, especially seeing as what they say seems to contradict what is said by many scientists across the world. I'm not just going to take any findings they find as a given fact. Otherwise both ends of this argument would be a given fact, global warming both wouldn't be due to humans, and would be due to humans. But that's not possible is it?
 
And things have moved on a lot since 10 years ago haven't they? A lot of research has been done into this topic as it is such a highly charged political issue. So 10 year old sources are really useless in this.
 
But OK, if you're willing to just take things at face value because 'you don't know the scientists personally' (what difference does that make anyway?) here are some links for you, just from the BBC web site.
 
 
But look there's argument going the other way too.
 
 
Oh, that 2000 scientists thing was on the news a few months ago, can't be bothered to find a link.
 
Look I found links of findings made by scientists!
 
Well some of them must be wrong, so we can ANALYSE THE SOURCE. And don't criticise people for not accepting sources you find on the internet at face value. Confused. I saw something on the internet once saying the difference between a whale and a dolphin is no whales have teeth Confused.
 
What have you done above except prove there's arguement on both sides? Which is my entire arguement.
 
Also, there's a remarkable difference between providing random internet sources for you and respectable news agencies I have done.
 
You're not analyzing the source. You're making judgement because you don't trust the messanger bringing your the data from the source. If you had reasonable speculations about the scientists or instituion's credentials doing the research I can understand, but since you know nothing about them I don't see how you can make an objection.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 21 2007 at 11:11
Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:

 
THe US is the main pillar of global economy. Excluding ourselves from it is ridiculous. Blaming it for the loss of manufacturing jobs is even more ridiculous. Global economy is a self-regulating mechanism. THe process of globalisation is at leas 100 years old, they just  didn't call it that way back then. Migration of jobs and entire industries began probably with the debasing of the steel manufacturing if not earlier. When it became economically profitable to produce steel closer to the sources of iron ore at much cheaper labor cost while the shipping costs declined. Textile, chemicals, agriculture and many more followed suit. 20 years ago engineering began its displacement. Nobody said a word. All this latest crap is pure politics. Manufacturing will not be spared. But eventually new jobs will be created as new technology will appear. And some old jobs will return to the US when the world salaries level off thanks to global economy. Right now we are simply priced out of some industries.
 
Right now manufacturers are able to enjoy the booming American market without the burden of paying American taxes or labor. Correct. Capitalism always strives to maximize profits. 
To say globalization is not the cause of the loss of manufacturing jobs is ridiculous. Of course the global economy is the cause of the job loss, my entire post attests to that. BLAIMING it for the job loss is ridiculous. It's like blaiming the wind for blowing your hat off your head. The capital will always seek cheaper labor markets. Prohibiting it will result in ultimate demise of capitalism.
Capitalism can exist perfectly fine confined to a country's borders. Prohibiting these actions wouldn't be a leash on capitalism; it would just be a recognition of borders. I understand why jobs go overseas. I even support jobs going overseas, but I don't see how you can say globalization doesn't cause them to go to cheaper labor markets. If we codified anti-globalization policies capitalism wouldn't be compromised but manufacturing jobs wouldn't be lost.
If we were to put protectionist policies in place producers would be forced to move their factories back to American to sell to the market that they depend on.  And prices would rise immediately causing a recession; foreign govenments would respond in kind closing international markets for us, not to mention we would be out-priced first; the global economy would collapse, etc.
Real Wages and employment would also rise though. I don't think a recession would necessarily follow. I largely agree with your second point which is a large reason I'm for globalization.
I don't see how you can say otherwise.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 21 2007 at 11:03
Originally posted by StyLaZyn StyLaZyn wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

 
Nobody is denying the existance of smog. However, I'm not sure what that has to do with global warming. A causes B, so A must also cause C?
 
I agree wholeheartedly with that logic. The existence of smog  is an indicator showing that ability of the atmosphere to trap and not readily release emissions on a very small (comparitively) scale. Imagine the effects globally.
 
What does that have to do with those emissions trapping heat?
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 21 2007 at 11:02
Originally posted by stonebeard stonebeard wrote:

Equality:

there are ample amounts of scientists that support both sides of the issue. To look at the issue and deny that global warming could absolutely not be caused by the burning of fossil fuels displays ignorance of the nature of the issue. People know the earth is warming but I don't think anyone knows exactly why.
 
And it's equally ignorant to look at the issue and deny that humans could have no effect on climate change. However, I have never stated either of those opinions; I've only said that there's no scientific consensus so we cannot try to pass one side off as fact.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
rileydog22 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: August 24 2005
Location: New Jersey
Status: Offline
Points: 8844 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 20 2007 at 17:51
The Earth's temperature is cyclic.  If we happened to be going into an ice age right now, everybody would be freaking out that fossil fuels were causing Global Cooling.  

Back to Top
stonebeard View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 20 2007 at 17:42
Equality:

there are ample amounts of scientists that support both sides of the issue. To look at the issue and deny that global warming could absolutely not be caused by the burning of fossil fuels displays ignorance of the nature of the issue. People know the earth is warming but I don't think anyone knows exactly why.
My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!
Back to Top
rileydog22 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: August 24 2005
Location: New Jersey
Status: Offline
Points: 8844 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 20 2007 at 17:29
I'm not conservative at all.  I just get really, really annoyed (to say the least!) when I see people present something as fact when there is no conclusive data either way. 

Back to Top
StyLaZyn View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 22 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4079 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 20 2007 at 12:06
Originally posted by bhikkhu bhikkhu wrote:

What amazes me is the fervor to disprove global warming statistics. Isn't it a good thing that more people care about the environment now?
 
Disproving global warming tends to have a conservative bend to it. Nothing like politicking science.
 
It is a very good thing the awareness is moving towards preservation of our children and our children's children. Unfortunately, when it stands in the way of profit, it becomes the enemy of industry and all those who have a vested interest in industry.
 
 
Back to Top
bhikkhu View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 06 2006
Location: AČ Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 5109 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 20 2007 at 11:29
What amazes me is the fervor to disprove global warming statistics. Isn't it a good thing that more people care about the environment now?
a.k.a. H.T.

http://riekels.wordpress.com
Back to Top
StyLaZyn View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 22 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4079 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 20 2007 at 08:18
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

 
Nobody is denying the existance of smog. However, I'm not sure what that has to do with global warming. A causes B, so A must also cause C?
 
I agree wholeheartedly with that logic. The existence of smog  is an indicator showing that ability of the atmosphere to trap and not readily release emissions on a very small (comparitively) scale. Imagine the effects globally.


Edited by StyLaZyn - June 20 2007 at 12:03
Back to Top
Kid-A View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: October 02 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 613 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 20 2007 at 07:41
^I don't know about hundreds of thousands, but certainly we do have data for tens of thousands of years from ice sheets in Greenland.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 9>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.172 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.