Global Empires

[tynan88]

It is 2 o'clock in the morning here at the moment, and I have been thinking. I would consider the current America a global empire, empires rise and fall what will happen to the American empire as it currently stands do you think?

The way I see it the American voting system is fatally flawed, as is with all forms of democracy, democracy gives the impression to citizens of a nation they they have the power to make change. I personally think that this is pie-in-the-sky and that realistically few individuals can make a difference.

Now this begs the question of what happens when everyone finds out this and becomes dissatisfied enough with the current system ? Do they protest? Probably, probably the government and establishment falls, and the creation of a new order is necessary.

What is the next step? After democracy where do you go? It is the most representative form of government that has been instituted recenty, and it must be asked...do people want to influence the government? OR Do people just want to know the truth? I tend towards the first option, however democracy is a situation where people expect the first but don't realise they get the latter, that is the fatal flaw in democracy.

So what are your thoughts? If you can be bothered reading this.

Tynan

[ShangriLaTroubl]

First off I really think u should get some sleep..lol

[amber]

What is the next step? After democracy where do you go? It is the most representative form of government that has been instituted recenty, and it must be asked...do people want to influence the government? OR Do people just want to know the truth? I tend towards the first option, however democracy is a situation where people expect the first but don't realise they get the latter, that is the fatal flaw in democracy.

So what are your thoughts? If you can be bothered reading this.

Tynan
I didn't understand this part. Do people want to influence the gov't OR know the truth? :shrug: don't people want both? and i don't understand "expect the first but get the latter" Are you saying we expect to influence the gov't, but really we get the truth? I don't think we get either one. But maybe i didn't understand what you meant correctly? :confused:
:wavey: Nice to know you're thinking about it, though. :)

[strandinthewind]

It is 2 o'clock in the morning here at the moment, and I have been thinking. I would consider the current America a global empire, empires rise and fall what will happen to the American empire as it currently stands do you think?

The way I see it the American voting system is fatally flawed, as is with all forms of democracy, democracy gives the impression to citizens of a nation they they have the power to make change. I personally think that this is pie-in-the-sky and that realistically few individuals can make a difference.

Now this begs the question of what happens when everyone finds out this and becomes dissatisfied enough with the current system ? Do they protest? Probably, probably the government and establishment falls, and the creation of a new order is necessary.

What is the next step? After democracy where do you go? It is the most representative form of government that has been instituted recenty, and it must be asked...do people want to influence the government? OR Do people just want to know the truth? I tend towards the first option, however democracy is a situation where people expect the first but don't realise they get the latter, that is the fatal flaw in democracy.

So what are your thoughts? If you can be bothered reading this.

Tynan

First of all America is not a democracy, it is a republic, which in a nutshell means a representative form of govt. It is this way to assure the smaller states that they will not be over run by the larger states :cool:

I submit that with 50 million people voting in any country, there is going to be a margin of error :shrug: To think that 100% accuracy (which would be great and is a worthy goal) is an obtainable goal at this level of participants is specious thinking and mathematically unsupportable. Thus, voting by 50 some million people must contain a margain of error. Sadly, America was so divided in 2000 that that less than 1% magain of error mattered. usually, it is not that way. Also, in 2000, everyone concentrated on Florida's results. But, I submit if recounts had occurred in other much closer states, the results of those state could have been altered (at least the numbers - possibly the outcome).

As for the way we vote, the only way to get more accurate results is electronically as paper counting is inherently flawed because a very very small percentage of people cannot properly mark a ballot and reading a dimpled chad is subjective and ridiculous (the voter could have mistakenly dimpled it, changed their minds, etc. ) So, the question is how can we safeguard electronic voting. I think the govt. is currently working on that. I also think the system worked well in the last election from a percentage standpoint. I know there were allegations of fraud and electronic glitches and other problems, but all of those combined were probably not enough to change the outcome of the election. I think these allegations should be investigated and any malfeasance prosecuted. But, I am concerned with your allegation that the way America votes is "fatally flawed." I just do not see it as such. Rather, I think the system statistically works very well for the reasons set forth above.

Also, please inform me how America is an empire. We do not govern any countries. Yes, we are in Afganistan, but the former regime gave a safe haven to the world's most feard terrorist. Yes, we are in Iraq (and worngly so IMO) - but all pointers suggest we are trying to release control of Iraq as soon as is possible. It could be argues that America uses its economic clout to get its way, but I am unsure that is 100% true in all cases and even if it is, the world depends of Amercian money and its economy - just as America greatly depends on the same from the world. So, I just get a little huffy when people use the word empire, esp. considering the traditional use of that word a la the Romans, the Greeks, the British, etc. America is not doing that. So, the use of that word is just historically and factually incorrect. I think people euphamize (sp.?) this becuase they hate America.

Finally, I know of no alternative that a govt. such as democracy, a republic, etc. Communism looks great on paper, but I think human beings cannot abide being equal in every way. I think we like rewards for our work, etc. So, what is the alternative to this. I do not know and I submit we never will.

Finally, I think it is often overlooked that America provides relief and aid to many countries in the world. I think that is a feather in our hat. Yet, the bashing continues.

I am sure this post will draw flames. So be it.

[amber]

I think America is an "empire" (perhaps a better, more accurate word could be found) to the extent that we still plunder other countries' resources and try to also globalize capitalism while we do so. We set up puppet gov'ts to have control over countries' resources. We export the idea of our "way of life" ie, rampant consumerism, so that there will always be someone to buy our crap and make our corporations richer...that's the nutshell version. Perhaps "Capitalist Imperialists?" :lol: "Earth Strippers"? "Wasteful Plunderers"? :)

[madformac]

America is a republic, as is Britain and many other so called "democratic" countries too. Yeah we can vote who to give the power to, but once they have it we have very little say on matters anyway..

But you have the odd country that does do things differently.. Now I myself have issues with the French, I can honestly say I've never met a nice Frenchman, although I'm sure there are many of them around. The country is lovely but the general attitude of the French to other countries and visitors is less than admirable.. However, if they don't like something then the government will know about it.. A few years back there was a stink about British food being imported and the French farmers got upset about lost trade.. So they blocked the roads and ports, beat up any drivers that tried to get through, burned the produce, vandalised the trucks and made such a fuss that the government backed down..

Every year French air traffic control strike at peak holiday season which makes the French unpopular with every other European nation (The Germans seem to like them for some reason and vice versa, I'm guessing it's because the French didn't really stand up to the Germans in WWII as they should have when they were invaded, but they have found some guts now because they stand up to their own government when they want to and always seem to get their own way).

So the French have a kind of democracy regardless of who runs the country..



I think it is often overlooked that America provides relief and aid to many countries in the world. I think that is a feather in our hat. Yet, the bashing continues.

I am sure this post will draw flames. So be it.

Yes America provides aid to many countries I agree and it's a great thing in some cases..

However it is in many cases blackmail. Thoses countries need the money, America lends it to them in aid and expects a return of some kind in the future, usually political.. If they just agreed to write off third world debt for instance then it would solve a lot of problems.. Many African countries cannot even afford to pay the interest rates the western banks are charging them and the debts and suffering of those places are spiralling out of control..

[madformac]

I think America is an "empire" (perhaps a better, more accurate word could be found) to the extent that we still plunder other countries' resources and try to also globalize capitalism while we do so. We set up puppet gov'ts to have control over countries' resources. We export the idea of our "way of life" ie, rampant consumerism, so that there will always be someone to buy our crap and make our corporations richer...that's the nutshell version. Perhaps "Capitalist Imperialists?" :lol: "Earth Strippers"? "Wasteful Plunderers"? :)


All sounds about right to me.. :nod:

[SuzeQuze]

I think America is an "empire" (perhaps a better, more accurate word could be found) to the extent that we still plunder other countries' resources and try to also globalize capitalism while we do so. We set up puppet gov'ts to have control over countries' resources. We export the idea of our "way of life" ie, rampant consumerism, so that there will always be someone to buy our crap and make our corporations richer...that's the nutshell version. Perhaps "Capitalist Imperialists?" :lol: "Earth Strippers"? "Wasteful Plunderers"? :)

And we make sure that poor countries are forever indebted to us by "helping" them put in infrastructure and such that really only benefits the rich. Check this out, it's rather chilling if true http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/09/1526251

[amber]

And we make sure that poor countries are forever indebted to us by "helping" them put in infrastructure and such that really only benefits the rich. Check this out, it's rather chilling if true http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/09/1526251
Excellente, Suze! Thanks for posting! Right outta the horses mouth, eh?

"Basically what we were trained to do and what our job is to do is to build up the American empire. To bring -- to create situations where as many resources as possible flow into this country, to our corporations, and our government, and in fact we’ve been very successful. We’ve built the largest empire in the history of the world. It's been done over the last 50 years since World War II with very little military might, actually. It's only in rare instances like Iraq where the military comes in as a last resort. This empire, unlike any other in the history of the world, has been built primarily through economic manipulation, through cheating, through fraud, through seducing people into our way of life, through the economic hit men. I was very much a part of that. "

[strandinthewind]

I think America is an "empire" (perhaps a better, more accurate word could be found) to the extent that we still plunder other countries' resources and try to also globalize capitalism while we do so. We set up puppet gov'ts to have control over countries' resources. We export the idea of our "way of life" ie, rampant consumerism, so that there will always be someone to buy our crap and make our corporations richer...that's the nutshell version. Perhaps "Capitalist Imperialists?" :lol: "Earth Strippers"? "Wasteful Plunderers"? :)

While I agree we exert control in the world because we are the strongest enonomy on the world, what is the alternative? If America were suddenly to withdraw from the Global markets, withdraw from administering global aid, withdraw from participating in places like Afganistan, Somalia, etc. What would happen? Would anarchy take over? Who knows for sure - I certainly do not :cool:

While that is an illogical argument because there is no way to sep. the current global economy (which has existed in one form of another since America was founded and exploited and plundered by the Europeans :laugh: ) - I submit it is true in its intent. The world needs America as much as she needs the world - and America's participation in global events is necessary.

I really think that if we all do not nuke ourselves out of religious rage (scary thought :eek:) - the world will see one economy or a facsimilie thereof in the latter part of this century. I mean look at the EU - will Russia ever join that - how about China or, even, America. I just look at the advances and dependancy made in the last 20 years and think one global enconomy is the only path apparent.

As for consumerism, I submit the Japanese and most of the Europeans (at least after the fall of the USSR) fit that def. as well. Interestingly, China is becoming the largest consumer nation. So, I think most of the larger countries of the world are rabid consumers and to single America out is a tad bit unfair. Also, is consumerism a bad thing. Why is it wrong to want things? Other than pollution of the environment, which I submit will change for the better and drastically so, in the next 20 years (see hybrid cars) - I cannot attach anything other than a religious exception to being a rabid consumer :shrug:

[SuzeQuze]

Excellente, Suze! Thanks for posting! Right outta the horses mouth, eh?

"Basically what we were trained to do and what our job is to do is to build up the American empire. To bring -- to create situations where as many resources as possible flow into this country, to our corporations, and our government, and in fact we’ve been very successful. We’ve built the largest empire in the history of the world. It's been done over the last 50 years since World War II with very little military might, actually. It's only in rare instances like Iraq where the military comes in as a last resort. This empire, unlike any other in the history of the world, has been built primarily through economic manipulation, through cheating, through fraud, through seducing people into our way of life, through the economic hit men. I was very much a part of that. "

Yup, it's such an insidious form of empire building that many are not aware of it. I was actually shocked myself at first.

For context this man was an "economist" for the World Bank. He worked for private firms and had a slew of genuine accountants/economists working for him. He would put together "deals" for countries over seas, wooing "clients" with money, women, and booze and these deals would benefit only the rich in that country. But the plan would be written to look like it benefits everyone. So people lower in the firm didn't suspect anything and thought they were doing legitimate work. Once the work was done, the country would be indebted to the American companies who did the work and would owe money and political favors, if we wanted them. This is why he (John Perkins) called himself an "economic hit man".

[strandinthewind]

America is a republic, as is Britain and many other so called "democratic" countries too. Yeah we can vote who to give the power to, but once they have it we have very little say on matters anyway..

But you have the odd country that does do things differently.. Now I myself have issues with the French, I can honestly say I've never met a nice Frenchman, although I'm sure there are many of them around. The country is lovely but the general attitude of the French to other countries and visitors is less than admirable.. However, if they don't like something then the government will know about it.. A few years back there was a stink about British food being imported and the French farmers got upset about lost trade.. So they blocked the roads and ports, beat up any drivers that tried to get through, burned the produce, vandalised the trucks and made such a fuss that the government backed down..

Every year French air traffic control strike at peak holiday season which makes the French unpopular with every other European nation (The Germans seem to like them for some reason and vice versa, I'm guessing it's because the French didn't really stand up to the Germans in WWII as they should have when they were invaded, but they have found some guts now because they stand up to their own government when they want to and always seem to get their own way).

So the French have a kind of democracy regardless of who runs the country..




Yes America provides aid to many countries I agree and it's a great thing in some cases..

However it is in many cases blackmail. Thoses countries need the money, America lends it to them in aid and expects a return of some kind in the future, usually political.. If they just agreed to write off third world debt for instance then it would solve a lot of problems.. Many African countries cannot even afford to pay the interest rates the western banks are charging them and the debts and suffering of those places are spiralling out of control..

LOL - the French - I LOVED it when the public transportation workers went of strike because they did not like the new color of the stations :laugh:

As for American aid - America gives, not loans, billions of dollars. We also loan money as well. And - when money is loaned it must be paid back. Should we forgive the debt in the third world - probably. Will we, who knows, but we have forgiven alot already a la four billion in Iraq and also

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/06/clinton.debtrelief.ap/

Interestingly, many other countries have debt they are not forgiving as well. So, while two wrongs may not make a right :cool: - America is not alone in that boat and I think America forgives alot more than most other countries.

Interestingly, I know of no one who personally gives to any degree of it hurting them in any significant way. Yet, they all expect America to do it and do it without reservation or strings attached. That, to me, is just an unrealistic goal. But, people will differ in their opinions.

[amber]

While I agree we exert control in the world because we are the strongest enonomy on the world, what is the alternative? If America were suddenly to withdraw from the Global markets, withdraw from administering global aid, withdraw from participating in places like Afganistan, Somalia, etc. What would happen? Would anarchy take over? Who knows for sure - I certainly do not :cool:

While that is an illogical argument because there is no way to sep. the current global economy (which has existed in one form of another since America was founded and exploited and plundered by the Europeans :laugh: ) - I submit it is true in its intent. The world needs America as much as she needs the world - and America's participation in global events is necessary.

I really think that if we all do not nuke ourselves out of religious rage (scary thought :eek:) - the world will see one economy or a facsimilie thereof in the latter part of this century. I mean look at the EU - will Russia ever join that - how about China or, even, America. I just look at the advances and dependancy made in the last 20 years and think one global enconomy is the only path apparent.

As for consumerism, I submit the Japanese and most of the Europeans (at least after the fall of the USSR) fit that def. as well. Interestingly, China is becoming the largest consumer nation. So, I think most of the larger countries of the world are rabid consumers and to single America out is a tad bit unfair. Also, is consumerism a bad thing. Why is it wrong to want things? Other than pollution of the environment, which I submit will change for the better and drastically so, in the next 20 years (see hybrid cars) - I cannot attach anything other than a religious exception to being a rabid consumer :shrug:
If that's how you feel about Consumerism, and you don't know why it's bad, especially at the wasteful level we do it at, then i don't really know what to say to you. :shrug: Yes, other countries are huge consumers. so what? And in some cases, we had a big hand in that. And America is the most wasteful, consumptive, and polluting. yes, China is doing their part.
Again, if that's how you think about resources, and consuming, and wastefulness, and the necessity of it...i'm at a loss for words. :confused:
but i certainly thank goodness every day the whole world doesn't consume like we do, there'd be nothing left. And "global economy" doesn't have to mean global conspicous consumption.
Interesting to read your argument, though.. :wavey:

[amber]

Yup, it's such an insidious form of empire building that many are not aware of it. I was actually shocked myself at first.

For context this man was an "economist" for the World Bank. He worked for private firms and had a slew of genuine accountants/economists working for him. He would put together "deals" for countries over seas, wooing "clients" with money, women, and booze and these deals would benefit only the rich in that country. But the plan would be written to look like it benefits everyone. So people lower in the firm didn't suspect anything and thought they were doing legitimate work. Once the work was done, the country would be indebted to the American companies who did the work and would owe money and political favors, if we wanted them. This is why he (John Perkins) called himself an "economic hit man".
sweet. thanks again. My favorite illustration of a direct form of the insidiousness of American capitalism is...I watched a show about natives working for our country, cutting down the amazon (where they live), and talking about how they are saving up from the pittance we pay them, so they can buy TV's. TV's allow us to advertise to them. so they'll buy our crap. which we make by plundering their country...

[strandinthewind]

So the US causes or assists in inflicting political and economic strains and often desperation onto many regions, and then expects gratitude for when it gives back? If you steal from me, do you really expect a thank you if you return a portion? Oh how thoughtful, I'll just ignore the fact that you destroyed my livelihood in order to steal it from me originally, and will thankyou for your generosity in obliging to return some of it.

That is a gross generalization. The US has supplied aid, esp, disaster relief, countless times with no strings attached. Moreover, in the case of overthrowing a govt., of course there will be strings attached.

In any event, there is no winning argument here. People are going to see what they want. They are never going to see the other side's point of voew and accept it. It seemingly is either "America is a jerk who cannot do anything but want to control and it has never done one lick of good EVER" or "America is the best." :laugh:

My line of thinking is that as the strongest economy in the world, America has a duty to poor nations. Needed aid should be given without reservation. Is America acheiving that goal? I think for the most part yes. Are there horrible things that happen. Yes.

Anyway food for thought - and the band will play on!!!! :cool:

[madformac]

Powell: U.S. is not 'stingy' when it comes to aid


http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/12/28/powell.aid/index.html



WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell responded to criticism from a U.N. official Tuesday, saying the United States is "not stingy" when it comes to providing aid to countries in distress.

On Monday, Jan Egeland, under secretary-general for humanitarian affairs and emergency relief for the U.N., criticized the United States and other countries, saying the amount of foreign aid they gave was "stingy."

Powell said the United States has already responded with help for countries devastated by the weekend's tsunamis and will continue to assess the situation with an eye toward providing more aid. "The United States is not stingy. We are the greatest contributor to international relief efforts in the world," Powell said.

Powell told CNN's "American Morning" that the catastrophe was "unprecedented in scope and scale." He said the United States had responded to an appeal by the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent by providing $4 million of the $7 million requested. On Monday, U.S. officials said the total package of aid so far was $15 million. In addition, Powell said, nine patrol planes and 12 C-130 cargo planes packed with relief supplies were on their way to South Asia.

In a news conference at U.N. headquarters in New York Monday, Egeland called for a major international response -- and went so far as to call the U.S. government and others "stingy" on foreign aid in general. "If, actually, the foreign assistance of many countries now is 0.1 or 0.2 percent of the gross national income, I think that is stingy, really," he said. "I don't think that is very generous."

In an interview Monday night with CNN, Egeland reiterated his view: "It bothers me that we -- the rich nations -- are not becoming more generous the more rich we become."

The average rich country gives just 0.2 percent of its national income to international solidarity and international assistance, he said. "We keep 99.8 percent to ourselves, on average. I don't think that's very generous," he said.

[SuzeQuze]

sweet. thanks again. My favorite illustration of a direct form of the insidiousness of American capitalism is...I watched a show about natives working for our country, cutting down the amazon (where they live), and talking about how they are saving up from the pittance we pay them, so they can buy TV's. TV's allow us to advertise to them. so they'll buy our crap. which we make by plundering their country...

Oy oy oy! :distress: :rolleyes:

[strandinthewind]

Powell: U.S. is not 'stingy' when it comes to aid


http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/12/28/powell.aid/index.html



WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell responded to criticism from a U.N. official Tuesday, saying the United States is "not stingy" when it comes to providing aid to countries in distress.

On Monday, Jan Egeland, under secretary-general for humanitarian affairs and emergency relief for the U.N., criticized the United States and other countries, saying the amount of foreign aid they gave was "stingy."

Powell said the United States has already responded with help for countries devastated by the weekend's tsunamis and will continue to assess the situation with an eye toward providing more aid.

"The United States is not stingy. We are the greatest contributor to international relief efforts in the world," Powell said.

Powell told CNN's "American Morning" that the catastrophe was "unprecedented in scope and scale."

He said the United States had responded to an appeal by the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent by providing $4 million of the $7 million requested.

On Monday, U.S. officials said the total package of aid so far was $15 million.

In addition, Powell said, nine patrol planes and 12 C-130 cargo planes packed with relief supplies were on their way to South Asia.

In a news conference at U.N. headquarters in New York Monday, Egeland called for a major international response -- and went so far as to call the U.S. government and others "stingy" on foreign aid in general.

"If, actually, the foreign assistance of many countries now is 0.1 or 0.2 percent of the gross national income, I think that is stingy, really," he said. "I don't think that is very generous."

In an interview Monday night with CNN, Egeland reiterated his view: "It bothers me that we -- the rich nations -- are not becoming more generous the more rich we become."

The average rich country gives just 0.2 percent of its national income to international solidarity and international assistance, he said.

"We keep 99.8 percent to ourselves, on average. I don't think that's very generous," he said.

I think it is unfair to use that percentage argument. I think you have to look at it in terms of the actual dollars given, which in the U.S.' case is billions. Also, the U.S. has major problems at home, which we have trouble paying for. Yet, we, and other countries, give aid to foreign countries. I mean that is something that is somewhat altruistic if you ask me :cool:

[amber]

My line of thinking is that as the strongest economy in the world, America has a duty to poor nations. Needed aid should be given without reservation. Is America acheiving that goal? I think for the most part yes. Are there horrible things that happen. Yes.

Anyway food for thought - and the band will play on!!!! :cool:
We got that way by plundering our own and the poor countries' stuff!
By puppet govt's! by any number of shady, dishonest, even downright evil dealings! I don't think America is "all bad" by the way, but i do think you are sweetly naive when it comes to what America actually does, and how they do it, and the real consequences of it. :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

And there's only one way this became. America wasn't rewarded by God for being the most deserving nation, yada yada. My point is that money doesn't just appear.

Well, I know that :laugh: But, my point is America and other countries now all depend on each other for their economies. There is no one big country anymore. Thus, to lay all of this "you are horrible" on America is incorrect. Other countries could not survive without the revenue generated from the sale of American products there and vice versa.

[strandinthewind]

We got that way by plundering our own and the poor countries' stuff!
By puppet govt's! by any number of shady, dishonest, even downright evil dealings! I don't think America is "all bad" by the way, but i do think you are sweetly naive when it comes to what America actually does, and how they do it, and the real consequences of it. :shrug:

Naive is not a term I would ever use to describe myself :laugh: - but i am impressed you called me sweet :cool:

I never said we did not set up puppet govt.'s I never really commented on that. I think we do and in some cases out of necessity - see Afganistan :shrug: and, to a much lesser degree - Iraq (yes no WMD or cause for the war (unforgiveable IMO), but Iraq will be better of with SH and SH was hurting the world by using the UN to fence his oil)

Again, what is the solution? How do we remedy it? What is America withdrew from the world and became isolationist? That can never happen.
It is impossible.

Interestingly (and this is a little heady :laugh: ) - why not America? Does anyone really think any other country would have done any difrerently given the chance. the Romans did not, the French did not, the Spanish did not, the English did not, etc. Food for thought :cool:

[amber]

Well, I know that :laugh: But, my point is America and other countries now all depend on each other for their economies. There is no one big country anymore. Thus, to lay all of this "you are horrible" on America is incorrect. Other countries could not survive without the revenue generated from the sale of American products there and vice versa.
I wonder how some countries survived before we were America?

[amber]

Naive is not a term I would ever use to describe myself :laugh: - but i am impressed you called me sweet :cool:

I never said we did not set up puppet govt.'s I never really commented on that. I think we do and in some cases out of necessity - see Afganistan :shrug: and, to a much lesser degree - Iraq (yes no WMD or cause for the war (unforgiveable IMO), but Iraq will be better of with SH and SH was hurting the world by using the UN to fence his oil)

Again, what is the solution? How do we remedy it? What is America withdrew from the world and became isolationist? That can never happen.
It is impossible.

Interestingly (and this is a little heady :laugh: ) - why not America? Does anyone really think any other country would have done any difrerently given the chance. the Romans did not, the French did not, the Spanish did not, the English did not, etc. Food for thought :cool:
Yes, you are right. Rampant greed and materialism and capitalist colonialism is historically not only America's domain. :D

[madformac]

No but many are forced into this global economy by those who run it, therefore relying on trade deals to survive. I just don't accept the argument that America is necessary in relation to something seperate from 'America' itself. The cause and the solution.

Go to some deadbeat rundown ****hole town in a poverty ridden country and I bet you'll find a Coke or Pepsi logo somewhere thereabouts....

[strandinthewind]

I wonder how some countries survived before we were America?

Most were ruled by England :shrug: or some other country.

Also, prior to let's say 1850 (perhaps earlier) - there was no real instant global economy to any significant degree. I mean if Ford and GM withdrew from the European market (where they make and sell a huge amount of cars), it would devestate both Europe and America. That would not have happened 150 or so years ago or at least not to the degree it would not. Back then, maybe 100 or so jobs might be lost. Now, we are talking will into the millions.

So, I think the world economy is emerging (or has emerged) and it will continue to head in that direction. I think America (and other countries mind you) fight that trend because control will be lost. Look at how our trade agreements are fought over. Each country wants to protect its own. I think that will diminish as time moves on and each country's affairs are more and more intertwined. But, only time will tell.

[amber]

No but many are forced into this global economy by those who run it, therefore relying on trade deals to survive. I just don't accept the argument that America is necessary in relation to something seperate from 'America' itself. The cause and the solution.
HUZZAH!!! :nod:

[strandinthewind]

No but many are forced into this global economy by those who run it, therefore relying on trade deals to survive. I just don't accept the argument that America is necessary in relation to something seperate from 'America' itself. The cause and the solution.

I get that and not really arguing against it. But, once again, what is the workable solution. I cannot think of one - can you?

[amber]

Most were ruled by England :shrug: or some other country.

Also, prior to let's say 1850 (perhaps earlier) - there was no real instant global economy to any significant degree. I mean if Ford and GM withdrew from the European market (where they make and sell a huge amount of cars), it would devestate both Europe and America. That would not have happened 150 or so years ago or at least not to the degree it would not. Back then, maybe 100 or so jobs might be lost. Now, we are talking will into the millions.

So, I think the world economy is emerging (or has emerged) and it will continue to head in that direction. I think America (and other countries mind you) fight that trend because control will be lost. Look at how our trade agreements are fought over. Each country wants to protect its own. I think that will diminish as time moves on and each country's affairs are more and more intertwined. But, only time will tell.
Yes, but like Lux said, I think we are only to some degree the solution because we were the cause. Same goes with other countries who did the same thing as we did.

[strandinthewind]

Did you just admit to the fact that America should be considered an empire?

No - although I think America does force its way, mostly out of necessity, on the world. That is different to me from conquering a country and governing it, thus having an empire and an emporer :shrug: Perhaps it is a distinction without a difference to you, but it is not to me :cool:

[strandinthewind]

Yes, but like Lux said, I think we are only to some degree the solution because we were the cause. Same goes with other countries who did the same thing as we did.

and most of those countries still do :shrug: Yet, no one lambasts them. It is only America who bears the brunt of it.

[amber]

No - although I think America does force its way, mostly out of necessity, on the world. That is different to me from conquering a country and governing it, thus having an empire and an emporer :shrug: Perhaps it is a distinction without a difference to you, but it is not to me :cool:
your idea of "necessity" is vastly different from mine, I think. :) :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

Go to some deadbeat rundown ****hole town in a poverty ridden country and I bet you'll find a Coke or Pepsi logo somewhere thereabouts....

I just do not understand why that is a bad thing? These people are poor because Coke and Pepsi advertise there :shrug:

[amber]

and most of those countries still do :shrug: Yet, no one lambasts them. It is only America who bears the brunt of it.
We are the most consumptive and polluting, thus far. And seemingly, the ones who care the least about being so. :shrug: IMO. Also the ones with greater capacity to not be that way, if we so chose. But we don't. :D

[strandinthewind]

America could be a more workable solution if it were actually intent on being the solution, not the temporary fix.

Well, what is that solution. It is easy to complain (and warranted here I agree) - but let's hear a solution. I think one solution is America should freely give to other countries in need. However, I think those countires should listen to America when we advise them how to alleviate the cause of that need and that cause is not, as I think you asserted, America.

[amber]

I just do not understand why that is a bad thing? These people are poor because Coke and Pepsi advertise there :shrug:
Indirectly, yes. :o It's all a big, evil web... :D
(where is GDW when i need her? :laugh: )

[madformac]

Most were ruled by England :shrug: or some other country.

Also, prior to let's say 1850 (perhaps earlier) - there was no real instant global economy to any significant degree. I mean if Ford and GM withdrew from the European market (where they make and sell a huge amount of cars), it would devestate both Europe and America.


Oh come on, there's always Volvo! :] :blob1:

The Swedes are quiet unassuming people that make good reliable cars... :)

Saab, Skoda, Citroen, Peugeot, Fiat, BMW and Mercedes would rise to the challenge I'm sure... I won't buy another Ford anyway, the interior fittings kept coming off in my hands in the last one.. It was built in the UK which probably figures... :laugh: :laugh:

[madformac]

I just do not understand why that is a bad thing? These people are poor because Coke and Pepsi advertise there :shrug:

Not directly but it's a global symptom of the American package deal...

[strandinthewind]

We are the most consumptive and polluting, thus far. And seemingly, the ones who care the least about being so. :shrug: IMO. Also the ones with greater capacity to not be that way, if we so chose. But we don't. :D

China is pretty close and has suprassed us on many fronts. Moreover, our size makes it easier for us to do so. In other words, Belgium could never pollute as much as the U.S. :shrug: Also, the world demand for our products also makes us "larger" if you will. But, I agree, we all pollute too much.

Again, how can we not be that way. It is easy to complain, but complaints are meaningless without solution :shrug:

[SuzeQuze]

China is pretty close and has suprassed us on many fronts. Moreover, our size makes it easier for us to do so. In other words, Belgium could never pollute as much as the U.S. :shrug: Also, the world demand for our products also makes us "larger" if you will. But, I agree, we all pollute too much.

Again, how can we not be that way. It is easy to complain, but complaints are meaningless without solution :shrug:

Conserve! Be reasonable with consumption. Recycle. Don't waste money. Real in greed. Live by principles that all men are created equal. Use the Golden Rule. God I guess I'm an idealist but to me the answers are right in front of your face.

[strandinthewind]

your idea of "necessity" is vastly different from mine, I think. :) :wavey:

Well, take Afganistan - what should we have done there - let the Taliban exist? Another example is Hitler or the Kaiser before him - should we have just let Germany appoint another Kaiser or another Hitler - of course not. I think the problem comes when we chose the people to supplant the overthrown govt. A good example of this is SH.

But, to say the U.S. should never help overthrow a horrible dictator and then control his replacement so that another is not in the job is just wrong.

[amber]

China is pretty close and has suprassed us on many fronts. Moreover, our size makes it easier for us to do so. In other words, Belgium could never pollute as much as the U.S. :shrug: Also, the world demand for our products also makes us "larger" if you will. But, I agree, we all pollute too much.

Again, how can we not be that way. It is easy to complain, but complaints are meaningless without solution :shrug:
The solution is not to be greedy resource grubbing humans. :shrug: Another solution is to demand from our politicians and corporations that they function as clean as technology allows for, which we do not even come close to doing. And people want our products because our global capitalism campaign has been so very successful. Not because they need everything. Do indiginous amazonians need TV's? Or soda? Or video games? No, no one needs those things. :shrug: But advertising makes them think they do...

[SuzeQuze]

Well, take Afganistan - what should we have done there - let the Taliban exist? Another example is Hitler or the Kaiser before him - should we have just let Germany appoint another Kaiser or another Hitler - of course not. I think the problem comes when we chose the people to supplant the overthrown govt. A good example of this is SH.

But, to say the U.S. should never help overthrow a horrible dictator and then control his replacement so that another is not in the job is just wrong.

Who said this? :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

Oh come on, there's always Volvo! :] :blob1:

The Swedes are quiet unassuming people that make good reliable cars... :)

Saab, Skoda, Citroen, Peugeot, Fiat, BMW and Mercedes would rise to the challenge I'm sure... I won't buy another Ford anyway, the interior fittings kept coming off in my hands in the last one.. It was built in the UK which probably figures... :laugh: :laugh:

A HA!!!!! I AGREEE!!!!!!!!! :laugh: :laugh:

[madformac]

We are the most consumptive and polluting, thus far. And seemingly, the ones who care the least about being so. :shrug: IMO. Also the ones with greater capacity to not be that way, if we so chose. But we don't. :D

After 9/11 when all air traffic was banned from American airspace for 3 days the climate actually changed... It became 1-2 degrees colder in the day and a degree warmer at night....

[strandinthewind]

Of course they do. Do you really think America is the only country being 'lambasted'? You live in America so that's what you hear. There are issues being dealt with that don't directly concern America and they exist just because they're not in the mainstream American news......even when they do concern America it's not in the mainstream news. I mean, it's kind of patronising to assume that the world does not go on when it is not revolving around America, even if when it is it's in a negative light.

I was talking about on this board - sorry for the confusion and the misinterpretation of patronising - did you understand that dear?

Now that last sentence was patronising :laugh: (and meant as a joke :cool: )

[amber]

Well, take Afganistan - what should we have done there - let the Taliban exist? Another example is Hitler or the Kaiser before him - should we have just let Germany appoint another Kaiser or another Hitler - of course not. I think the problem comes when we chose the people to supplant the overthrown govt. A good example of this is SH.

But, to say the U.S. should never help overthrow a horrible dictator and then control his replacement so that another is not in the job is just wrong.
we often overthrow them and replace them with someone who works for our interests, by that i mean business, corporate interests, and not for the welfare of their own countries' people. :shrug: Yes, evil despots are bad. But what we replace them with is bad, too. :)
I have the feeling we could talk about this forever... :p

[amber]

After 9/11 when all air traffic was banned from American airspace for 3 days the climate actually changed... It became 1-2 degrees colder in the day and a degree warmer at night....
Yeps. :D :nod:

[strandinthewind]

Conserve! Be reasonable with consumption. Recycle. Don't waste money. Real in greed. Live by principles that all men are created equal. Use the Golden Rule. God I guess I'm an idealist but to me the answers are right in front of your face.

But that is so subjective. I mean who here does without to the point of hurting. Who here if they can afford it thinks twice about putting on the AC in July. I know of no one here in Atlanta that does. That can be extrapolated to a million things like going to the grovcery store only once every two months to save gas. Not going out at night to party to save gas. I mean who does that much less even think about it :shrug:

For my part, I turn off the climate control when I am not there and I rarely use it when it is nice outside. I turn off the lights in my house when I am not using them. I also take the train to work. I think if everyone did things like that, that would go a long way :shrug: But, there are people who could find their version of "fault" with me doing just that.

So, I get that we should conserve, but my point is that test is way way way subjective. So, I just do what I think is good.

[strandinthewind]

The solution is not to be greedy resource grubbing humans. :shrug: Another solution is to demand from our politicians and corporations that they function as clean as technology allows for, which we do not even come close to doing. And people want our products because our global capitalism campaign has been so very successful. Not because they need everything. Do indiginous amazonians need TV's? Or soda? Or video games? No, no one needs those things. :shrug: But advertising makes them think they do...

But aren't yoy forcing your thoughts of what they need on them? Why shouldn't they know about these things. Why shouldn't they have access to t.v. Why shouldn't they have access to modern over the counter drugs that could save their lives.

Plus, we are all greedy by some subjective standard. I went to three or four concerts last year. One would have been enough. But, I had the cash so why not? Am I a bad person for that? I do not think so. But, other people may think I am. Thus, where is the line to be drawn and who gets to deceide that?

[amber]

But that is so subjective. I mean who here does without to the point of hurting. Who here if they can afford it thinks twice about putting on the AC in July. I know of no one here in Atlanta that does. That can be extrapolated to a million things like going to the grovcery store only once every two months to save gas. Not going out at night to party to save gas. I mean who does that much less even think about it :shrug:

For my part, I turn off the climate control when I am not there and I rarely use it when it is nice outside. I turn off the lights in my house when I am not using them. I also take the train to work. I think if everyone did things like that, that would go a long way :shrug: But, there are people who could find their version of "fault" with me doing just that.

So, I get that we should conserve, but my point is that test is way way way subjective. So, I just do what I think is good.
Exactly. Sad, what we think we need, isn't it? Sad what we've been sold to think we need... :D

[amber]

But aren't yoy forcing your thoughts of what they need on them? Why shouldn't they know about these things. Why shouldn't they have access to t.v. Why shouldn't they have access to modern over the counter drugs that could save their lives.

Plus, we are all greedy by some subjective standard. I went to three or four concerts last year. One would have been enough. But, I had the cash so why not? Am I a bad person for that? I do not think so. But, other people may think I am. Thus, where is the line to be drawn and who gets to deceide that?
*sigh* :o

[strandinthewind]

Who said this? :shrug:

I am unsire what you are asking. I was responding to Amber's suggestion that it is never necessary to supplant a govt. If Amber did not say that, then I misunderstood her. :sorry:

[strandinthewind]

*sigh* :o

But, I am correct. I mean we all could exist driving a Prius (sp.?) and living in a studio apt. But, that will never happen. Human beings are just not that way. i base this conclusion on the thousands of years of people not living this way :laugh:

[amber]

I am unsire what you are asking. I was responding to Amber's suggestion that it is never necessary to supplant a govt. If Amber did not say that, then I misunderstood her. :sorry:
I didn't say never necessary. I responded with something about the ones we put in place, etc. Also, i think i said evil despots are bad. :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

America does.

Nice try - the rest of the world does as well. After all, they sell their products here as well - yet you do not point that out. It is all, as i noted before, America is the evil one :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

I didn't say never necessary. I responded with something about the ones we put in place, etc. Also, i think i said evil despots are bad. :laugh:

touche' :cool:

[amber]

But, I am correct. I mean we all could exist driving a Prius (sp.?) and living in a studio apt. But, that will never happen. Human beings are just not that way. i base this conclusion on the thousands of years of people not living this way :laugh:
some humans are that way. For instance, in Africa, the amount of water i use to take a shower would last them a week. In fact, humans lived in America for countless centuries, uh, not needing things besides food and shelter, etc. People over the world still live this way. But again, we obviously come from different spectrums of what people need. And yes, it is not feasible to "go back", but it is feasible to "have and consume less" And why couldn't we all drive a Prius? :shrug: :)
"The Earth Does Not Belong to Us, We Belong to the Earth" :p

[strandinthewind]

You mean you base this conclusion on people being told, for thousands of years, that people can't live this way.

No - I think it was the way we evolved. I mean I think the cavepeople had heirarchies. Interestingly, this system exists in some form in just about all species. The lions have their king, the bees have their queens and drones, dogs have the alpha, etc. So, think that while certainly humans evolve through perception and teaching, the inant wanting of better is and always has been there.

[amber]

You mean you base this conclusion on people being told, for thousands of years, that people can't live this way.
:xoxo: :xoxo:

[strandinthewind]

some humans are that way. For instance, in Africa, the amount of water i use to take a shower would last them a week. In fact, humans lived in America for countless centuries, uh, not needing things besides food and shelter, etc. People over the world still live this way. But again, we obviously come from different spectrums of what people need. And yes, it is not feasible to "go back", but it is feasible to "have and consume less" And why couldn't we all drive a Prius? :shrug: :)
"The Earth Does Not Belong to Us, We Belong to the Earth" :p

I agree we all could. Will it ever happen. No. Humans will never go for that - for whatever reason. So, I say live your live and thry to conserve where you can. That is all an individual can really do.

And - why is it that those people in Africa who could use your water would want to have the luxury you do. I know this is a generalization, but who here does not take a shower when they feel like it. Who actually says, i am not going to shower for a week because it will be better for the environment?

[SuzeQuze]

But, I am correct. I mean we all could exist driving a Prius (sp.?) and living in a studio apt. But, that will never happen. Human beings are just not that way. i base this conclusion on the thousands of years of people not living this way :laugh:

I just remembered the solution, a religious leader said it on television recently, Bishop Tutu I believe. He said that women should rule the world. To us this stuff is second nature, to take care of others instead of try to dominate them is natural to us. So, Amber, you ready girl? It's our time to save the world, hehe.

[SuzeQuze]

I agree we all could. Will it ever happen. No. Humans will never go for that - for whatever reason. So, I say live your live and thry to conserve where you can. That is all an individual can really do.

Yes we will, when women rule the world (pumps fist). :D

[amber]

I agree we all could. Will it ever happen. No. Humans will never go for that - for whatever reason. So, I say live your live and thry to conserve where you can. That is all an individual can really do.
The "whatever the reason" is that it's been sold to us. The concept of capitalism is "create a need, then fill it" create a need.
okay, I think we both know how the other feels about this, now... :p :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Yes we will, when women rule the world (pumps fist). :D

Lord Child - all men will retreat for a week when you all start cycling together :eek: :laugh: :wavey:

[amber]

I just remembered the solution, a religious leader said it on television recently, Bishop Tutu I believe. He said that women should rule the world. To us this stuff is second nature, to take care of others instead of try to dominate them is natural to us. So, Amber, you ready girl? It's our time to save the world, hehe.
Let's go!! I've got my bags packed. We're off to the valley where the sun, meets the sea!!!! :xoxo: *giggle*

[DrummerDeanna]

I just remembered the solution, a religious leader said it on television recently, Bishop Tutu I believe. He said that women should rule the world. To us this stuff is second nature, to take care of others instead of try to dominate them is natural to us. So, Amber, you ready girl? It's our time to save the world, hehe.

lol - I met him when I first started working in Rochester - he came here to give a talk - and had a press opportunity beforehand...it was him and four or five press folks....he's a smart and very funny man :nod:

[strandinthewind]

The "whatever the reason" is that it's been sold to us. The concept of capitalism is "create a need, then fill it" create a need.
okay, I think we both know how the other feels about this, now... :p :laugh:

Then how did the cavepeople know it. How did the Romans know it. how did thousands of other civilizations know it. I think you are giving America credit for discovering this when it clearly has existed for centuries.

[amber]

Lord Child - all men will retreat for a week when you all start cycling together :eek: :laugh: :wavey:
Ha, good, then we can find you all in one place and kick your chauvenist a** for saying that!!!! :mad: :lol: :xoxo:

[amber]

Then how did the cavepeople know it. How did the Romans know it. how did thousands of other civilizations know it. I think you are giving America credit for discovering this when it clearly has existed for centuries.
no, no, I don't think America discovered it at all. We just took it waaay, waaay, to far. Hey, don't get me started with Colonial Britain, Spain, or Portugal... :laugh:

[amber]

Leave me out of this one. If I had the courage to execute my desires, far from nurturing, I'd be more inclined to blow things up.
right, so put Lux on demolition duty... :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

How is the fact that bees have a hierarchy evidence that humans cannot live any other way? I'm not saying I believe it's true, I don't know. I just don't believe in absolute truth.

I read an interesting article awhile back on socialization and instinct. Why do dogs know to run in packs. Why do lions give the leader (king) special treatment. I think it is part instinct and I also think instinct can be learned over generations - sort of like evolving. So, who realy knows for sure. I do think, however, the reality for the last three thousand or so years is that humans are by nature and for the most part competitive.

[SuzeQuze]

Lord Child - all men will retreat for a week when you all start cycling together :eek: :laugh: :wavey:

LOL! And sorry, that was Archbishop TuTu. Anyway, it was really interesting and, of course, valid. :xoxo: :laugh: He wasn't joking though. I think he talks about this in his new book.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0385477848/qid=1104260883/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/103-2953959-4473429?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

[ontheEdgeof17]

I read an interesting article awhile back on socialization and instinct. Why do dogs know to run in packs. Why do lions give the leader (king) special treatment. I think it is part instinct and I also think instinct can be learned over generations - sort of like evolving.


Amber and I had a long discussion last night on why I do the "things" I do. I think she is understanding what instinct is all about. :xoxo:

[amber]

I read an interesting article awhile back on socialization and instinct. Why do dogs know to run in packs. Why do lions give the leader (king) special treatment. I think it is part instinct and I also think instinct can be learned over generations - sort of like evolving. So, who realy knows for sure. I do think, however, the reality for the last three thousand or so years is that humans are by nature and for the most part competitive.
It's true, there has always been heirarchies, but we could be competitive to make things better, not just grab all the **** we can before we die... :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

Ha, good, then we can find you all in one place and kick your chauvenist a** for saying that!!!! :mad: :lol: :xoxo:

I love it when ever men point out that women have a change in attitude during TTOTM - it is as if we slap them. Everyone, even women, know it is mostly true, yet we are pigs for noting it :laugh: Oh Well :laugh:

I used to have this friend in law school who would reply to that comment "I DO NOT NEED MY PERIOD AS AN EXCUSE TO BE A BITCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

:eek: :eek:

:wavey:

[SuzeQuze]

Then how did the cavepeople know it. How did the Romans know it. how did thousands of other civilizations know it. I think you are giving America credit for discovering this when it clearly has existed for centuries.

That is our lower nature. We've got to embrace our higher nature and let it prevail.

[strandinthewind]

Amber and I had a long discussion last night on why I do the "things" I do. I think she is understanding what instinct is all about. :xoxo:

You are sooooo bad :xoxo: :angel: :xoxo: :wavey:

[SuzeQuze]

lol - I met him when I first started working in Rochester - he came here to give a talk - and had a press opportunity beforehand...it was him and four or five press folks....he's a smart and very funny man :nod:

Pack your bags too Deanna, we need you as well! :blob2: :blob2:

[strandinthewind]

That is our lower nature. We've got to embrace our higher nature and let it prevail.

I agree - but none of us really do as much as we could. I mean who here has declined to go to the movies in an effort to save gas and thus support conservation. If everyone in America, much less the world, did that (or some other equally as silly example :laugh: ) once a month - the results would be staggering. It would, of course, only prolong our dependance on oil, but hey, it would conserve it :laugh:

[SuzeQuze]

I love it when ever men point out that women have a change in attitude during TTOTM - it is as if we slap them. Everyone, even women, know it is mostly true, yet we are pigs for noting it :laugh: Oh Well :laugh:

I used to have this friend in law school who would reply to that comment "I DO NOT NEED MY PERIOD AS AN EXCUSE TO BE A BITCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

:eek: :eek:

:wavey:

Dude, that's perfect. I think Amber was joking with you, you were gentle with your comment, hehe. It <i>is</i> a really scary notion to possibly confront a gaggle of world leaders all PMSing. However, <i>I</i> do not get that way ;)

And PS, you're still a pig, comes with the Y chromosome. By "pig" I mean focused on sex way more than is necessary, but you can't even help it. Oh man (braces self).

[ontheEdgeof17]

You are sooooo bad :xoxo: :angel: :xoxo: :wavey:


Whhaaatttttt? :o

[strandinthewind]

It's true, there has always been heirarchies, but we could be competitive to make things better, not just grab all the **** we can before we die... :shrug:

But, my point is the statement "grab all the **** we can before we die" is too subjective. If I had a wife and two kids and and my household income was $200,000 a year, I think owning a four bedroom house in the burbs and having two cars would be okay. There are some who would say one or no cars and two bedrooms are enough :shrug: So, once again, where is the line drawn. I submit only I can draw it for myself AND - I think I have a duty to educate myself on how to conserve, live within that as best I can, etc., which is I think what you are trying to say.

[SuzeQuze]

I agree - but none of us really do as much as we could. I mean who here has declined to go to the movies in an effort to save gas and thus support conservation. If everyone in America, much less the world, did that (or some other equally as silly example :laugh: ) once a month - the results would be staggering. It would, of course, only prolong our dependance on oil, but hey, it would conserve it :laugh:

Okay, this is a little different than wiping out entire forests without regret, you see? I don't do as much as I could either. But I feel like my intent is to conserve and that is what is important. I am not recklessly wasting resources.

[strandinthewind]

Dude, that's perfect. I think Amber was joking with you, you were gentle with your comment, hehe. It <i>is</i> a really scary notion to possibly confront a gaggle of world leaders all PMSing. However, <i>I</i> do not get that way ;)

And PS, you're still a pig, comes with the Y chromosome. By "pig" I mean focused on sex way more than is necessary, but you can't even help it. Oh man (braces self).

You will find no argument from me that the male gender is, without exception, porcine!!!!!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

[strandinthewind]

Okay, this is a little different than wiping out entire forests without regret, you see? I don't do as much as I could either. But I feel like my intent is to conserve and that is what is important. I am not recklessly wasting resources.

ITA - and I think the way corps. run amuck on this is horrible. I do think, however, that many of them are trying to do better. I just look at the exploration of oil and how, mostly due to the treehuggers :laugh: - that industry is vastly more efficient than it was even 15 years ago. I also pray in vain for the day when no oil is extracted from the earth and we use other non-pollutant fuel sources like the wind, sun, water, and hydrogen. So, we are on the same page here and really there as well.

[amber]

Amber and I had a long discussion last night on why I do the "things" I do. I think she is understanding what instinct is all about. :xoxo:
:lol: :laugh:
giggle.

[amber]

I love it when ever men point out that women have a change in attitude during TTOTM - it is as if we slap them. Everyone, even women, know it is mostly true, yet we are pigs for noting it :laugh: Oh Well :laugh:

I used to have this friend in law school who would reply to that comment "I DO NOT NEED MY PERIOD AS AN EXCUSE TO BE A BITCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

:eek: :eek:

:wavey:
:laugh: :lol:
It's basically the intimation that we couldn't make proper rational decisions at that time that gets my goat. Stevie-goat, that is. :laugh:

[SuzeQuze]

ITA - and I think the way corps. run amuck on this is horrible. I do think, however, that many of them are trying to do better. I just look at the exploration of oil and how, mostly due to the treehuggers :laugh: - that industry is vastly more efficient than it was even 15 years ago. I also pray in vain for the day when no oil is extracted from the earth and we use other non-pollutant fuel sources like the wind, sun, water, and hydrogen. So, we are on the same page here and really there as well.

Yep, I agree with you, we agree. :shocked:

[amber]

ITA - and I think the way corps. run amuck on this is horrible. I do think, however, that many of them are trying to do better. I just look at the exploration of oil and how, mostly due to the treehuggers :laugh: - that industry is vastly more efficient than it was even 15 years ago. I also pray in vain for the day when no oil is extracted from the earth and we use other non-pollutant fuel sources like the wind, sun, water, and hydrogen. So, we are on the same page here and really there as well.
The bad part is, we have way more advanced technology than we actually use - because if we did, it would cut into some big business pocketbooks. :wavey:

[amber]

It is also those at the top of the hierarchy who need the system the most and so they continue to create the circumstances within which it can function.
Luxie nails it, once again... :thumbsup:

[SuzeQuze]

Well I'm one of the guys when it comes to that. For some bizarre reason I haven't fallen victim to the curse that is 'womanhood' and so have always been, like a guy, on the lookout for these apparent mood changes in the females I know. Maybe it's the fact that my case studies are inheritently 24 hour bitches, but I've never noticed this 'time of the month' mood change. Just an excuse for a joke in my opinion, and a bad joke at that.

Most women don't have severe mood swings but some actually do. They make the rest of us look bad ;)

[madformac]

Most women don't have severe mood swings but some actually do. They make the rest of us look bad ;)

Yeah some of them go to jail for manslaughter!! :eek:

Then get off because of it!! :shocked:

I actually feel sorry for those that get severe cramps and stuff..

Mood swings I can handle, the throwing of furniture I draw the line at!! :laugh: :laugh:

[amber]

Yeah some of them go to jail for manslaughter!! :eek:

Then get off because of it!! :shocked:

I actually feel sorry for those that get severe cramps and stuff..

Mood swings I can handle, the throwing of furniture I draw the line at!! :laugh: :laugh:
silly - furniture is too heavy! think glassware.... :lol:

[strandinthewind]

It is also those at the top of the hierarchy who need the system the most and so they continue to create the circumstances within which it can function.

Again, gross generalization, all levels need to exist for it to survive. If there is no corp., the worker does not get paid, etc. So, it is a mutual thing. Now - if you want to get into the pay scales, that is a whole other argument :laugh: But, to insist the top level needs it more is, I think, incorrect. Plus, there must always be followers and leaders. Not everyone can lead - or at least I have never seen anything work that way :shrug:

[madformac]

silly - furniture is too heavy! think glassware.... :lol:

Sorry, my mistake.. :laugh: :laugh:

[amber]

Again, gross generalization, all levels need to exist for it to survive. If there is no corp., the worker does not get paid, etc. So, it is a mutual thing. Now - if you want to get into the pay scales, that is a whole other argument :laugh: But, to insist the top level needs it more is, I think, incorrect. Plus, there must always be followers and leaders. Not everyone can lead - or at least I have never seen anything work that way :shrug:
I think the pay scales is the point of the "argument" :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

I think the pay scales is the point of the "argument" :shrug:

No - she was arguing the structure of society - at least I think she was :laugh:

[amber]

No - she was arguing the structure of society - at least I think she was :laugh:
Oh, right - I didn't mean her argument, I meant the argument. sorry for the misunderstandment. :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Oh, right - I didn't mean her argument, I meant the argument. sorry for the misunderstandment. :laugh:

should I have addressed that differently :cool:

(this is a joke BTW :p :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :wavey: )

[amber]

should I have addressed that differently :cool:

(this is a joke BTW :p :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :wavey: )
oh! I don't get it anyway :confused: Am i losing my touch? :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

oh! I don't get it anyway :confused: Am i losing my touch? :laugh:

I was referring to the post a few days ago where you expressed confusing regarding the addresse of my post. You did not think it sufficient that I quoted Lux's question about Pattie in a mini-skirt and then answered it :cool: :wavey:

[amber]

I was referring to the post a few days ago where you expressed confusing regarding the addresse of my post. You did not think it sufficient that I quoted Lux's question about Pattie in a mini-skirt and then answered it :cool: :wavey:
OH! I see. oo, FM just came on the radio! oops, uh... :lol:

[strandinthewind]

OH! I see. oo, FM just came on the radio! oops, uh... :lol:

:] :] :] :] :] :] :] :]

:cool:

[SuzeQuze]

OH! I see. oo, FM just came on the radio! oops, uh... :lol:

Dayum I gotta get a radio for work! Gonna spin Gwen again for now.