Is the USA a big bully these days?

rileydog22 wrote: StyLaZyn wrote: For anyone who might care (in the USA for this comment): http://www.usalone.com/cheney_impeachment.php   Send something to your representative to let them know about your displeasure in the Vice-Tyrant. Alright!  We're gonna try to impeach the VP for acting on the information that was avaliable at the time!  That b*****d should have used a time-machine to see what would would happen in the future and act upon that!

The problem with Cheney is he has covered up his wrongdoings and has tried to abolish agencies that were created to have oversight over his office. Now he's saying he's not part of the excecutive office of government, but rather the legislative because he is the "president of the Senate," a largely superfluous position with only matters in breaking tie votes, basically. He's a spinster and a flat-out criminal. But do we have enough evidence to boot him from office? Probably not, but I'm sure we could get a "no confidence" vote for him from Congress, as long as not too many balls are squeezed behind the scenes.

stonebeard wrote: rileydog22 wrote: StyLaZyn wrote: For anyone who might care (in the USA for this comment): http://www.usalone.com/cheney_impeachment.php   Send something to your representative to let them know about your displeasure in the Vice-Tyrant. Alright!  We're gonna try to impeach the VP for acting on the information that was avaliable at the time!  That b*****d should have used a time-machine to see what would would happen in the future and act upon that!  The problem with Cheney is he has covered up his wrongdoings and has tried to abolish agencies that were created to have oversight over his office. Now he's saying he's not part of the excecutive office of government, but rather the legislative because he is the "president of the Senate," a largely superfluous position with only matters in breaking tie votes, basically. He's a spinster and a flat-out criminal. But do we have enough evidence to boot him from office? Probably not, but I'm sure we could get a "no confidence" vote for him from Congress, as long as not too many balls are squeezed behind the scenes.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: IVNORD wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: IVNORD wrote:  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. ^ I agree. I think many people are against globalism because of nothing more than a romanticizing of the past.     People tend to romanticize the past, they turn extremely nostalgic when the times get rough. So they liked Reagan during the recession of 1990, now they remember Clinton not realizing he was greatly responsible for the present state of affairs. The same goes for globalization - people don't understand the nature of the process. Th ebest example is Lou Dobbs of CNN. The man had it for quite a while when at the end of his program he listed US companies outsourcing jobs (now he's on a crusade against illegal aliens)   Which is why I think that introductory Macro should be a standard high school level course.

IVNORD wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: IVNORD wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: IVNORD wrote:  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. ^ I agree. I think many people are against globalism because of nothing more than a romanticizing of the past.     People tend to romanticize the past, they turn extremely nostalgic when the times get rough. So they liked Reagan during the recession of 1990, now they remember Clinton not realizing he was greatly responsible for the present state of affairs. The same goes for globalization - people don't understand the nature of the process. Th ebest example is Lou Dobbs of CNN. The man had it for quite a while when at the end of his program he listed US companies outsourcing jobs (now he's on a crusade against illegal aliens)   Which is why I think that introductory Macro should be a standard high school level course.   Are you referring to macro-economics? That won't happen in the near future. THe system of public education is conceived in such a way that the population is given  minimal necessary education. It makes it easier to govern.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: StyLaZyn wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote:   Which is why I think that introductory Macro should be a standard high school level course.   I think one of the biggest problems with US society, and related to politics, is that schools don't educate on how its economy actually works.  If you notice, aren't the majority of US politicians finacially secure? And they represent the common man? There is a serious disconnect.       I don't know how those two statements relate to each other but if a disparity of the sizes of two men's bankaccounts amounts to there being an unbridgeable disconnect between them, then we have much deeper issues as a society than representatives not representing their constituents.

Edited by StyLaZyn - June 28 2007 at 11:29

StyLaZyn wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: StyLaZyn wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote:   Which is why I think that introductory Macro should be a standard high school level course.   I think one of the biggest problems with US society, and related to politics, is that schools don't educate on how its economy actually works.  If you notice, aren't the majority of US politicians finacially secure? And they represent the common man? There is a serious disconnect.       I don't know how those two statements relate to each other but if a disparity of the sizes of two men's bankaccounts amounts to there being an unbridgeable disconnect between them, then we have much deeper issues as a society than representatives not representing their constituents.   Getting off topic, but...   You are correct. The statements don't relate as so much make an observation.  Perhaps it would be better to say that US politicians exhibit a more solid understanding of capitalism than that of the common man if one derives that through observing their bank accounts.   However, I also believe that preservation of their bank accounts may interfere with other decisions.  In other words, it would be foolish to believe they would vote in favor of tax increases based on higher incomes. Currently, the American middle class is most effected by being taxed. The rich continue to get richer and the poor get poorer. The majority of the middle class moves in the direction of the poorer.

O.K. Exactly how is this thread being allowed to be continued? What happened to threads not being allowed if they are insulting? Im very insulted by this thread right now. If your going to do a thread like this, i believe there should be three more saying...

SoundsofSeasons wrote: O.K. Exactly how is this thread being allowed to be continued? What happened to threads not being allowed if they are insulting? Im very insulted by this thread right now. If your going to do a thread like this, i believe there should be three more saying...   1. Is Japan a big bully? 2. Is Mexico a big bully? 3. Is ___ a big bully?   Seriously, this is like the take a shot at Bush thread or something. If not, it could also be the take a shot at the American people for allowing things to happen thread. Seriously, give me a freikin break. .

SoundsofSeasons wrote: "I don't have faith in faith, I don't believe in beliefs." - NP   ^Obviously... why don't you run our country.

SoundsofSeasons wrote: StyLaZyn wrote: SoundsofSeasons wrote: "I don't have faith in faith, I don't believe in beliefs." - NP   ^Obviously... why don't you run our country.   I hope you are not trying to bring religious values into this.    The faith part... as in other people. No i would not do that to you.