PLEASE! Read My Note. DEBATE SUBJECT: U.S. Should Stop Apologizing For Its Success

HP, I couldn't agree with you more. I'll admit I come her less than I used to simply because there is almost no debate at all.

About the article...

The US should stop apologizing for it's success. Let me ask this first is it really success?

What exactly are we successful at right now? In the past 100 years the US has gone from an Agricultural economy to an industrial and now a service oriented economy. For the most part this country really doesn't produce anything. So what do we contribute to the world economy? War? We impose our lifestyle and our form of government onto countries and expect them not to mind? We have been a bully for a long time and it was really bad during the Cheney Administration. I see nothing wrong with Obama trying to rebuild relationships that have been ruined.

We absolutely need to cut back our energy consumption. Who are we to think we are entitled to raw resources simply because we have a powerful military. Because, that's really what it comes down to isn't it?

Frankly, I think it's about time somebody is in office that realizes we've been going about this whole thing wrong and not afraid to say it.

If you get into an argument with a little sister, or one of your children, or someone you have direct control over, and you realize later that you were in the wrong, do you apologize? Or are you too proud to apologize to someone beneath you? That's the same thing with the US. We have been bullys and yea it's time we admit we were wrong and start playing with the rest of the team.

Big Slick wrote:HP, I couldn't agree with you more. I'll admit I come her less than I used to simply because there is almost no debate at all.

About the article...

The US should stop apologizing for it's success. Let me ask this first is it really success?

What exactly are we successful at right now? In the past 100 years the US has gone from an Agricultural economy to an industrial and now a service oriented economy. For the most part this country really doesn't produce anything. So what do we contribute to the world economy? War? We impose our lifestyle and our form of government onto countries and expect them not to mind? We have been a bully for a long time and it was really bad during the Cheney Administration. I see nothing wrong with Obama trying to rebuild relationships that have been ruined.

We absolutely need to cut back our energy consumption. Who are we to think we are entitled to raw resources simply because we have a powerful military. Because, that's really what it comes down to isn't it?

Frankly, I think it's about time somebody is in office that realizes we've been going about this whole thing wrong and not afraid to say it.

If you get into an argument with a little sister, or one of your children, or someone you have direct control over, and you realize later that you were in the wrong, do you apologize? Or are you too proud to apologize to someone beneath you? That's the same thing with the US. We have been bullys and yea it's time we admit we were wrong and start playing with the rest of the team.

alright, you opened it up, slick; thanks for that.

to say we are not successful at this point in time, is looking past our great strides in medicine, health; and let's not forget, the us military invented the internet. right there alone, slick, you've got a pretty productive nation.

we should keep our nose out of other nations' business, i'm all for that. I wonder how they'd really like that though? total separation from the us might come to bite them on the butt. i think it would be great for us, though. i'm tired of covering their ass-and sometimes it is for their benefit-and getting jack for doing it.

i'm down with bo in some issues, i'm not going to lie. my problem with him is mega-adding to the already ridiculous deficit that we inherited from bush, some of which he inherited, don't forget. they all get that 'gift' from the previous admin, but bo went overboard, imo.

HotParadox wrote:alright, you opened it up, slick; thanks for that.

to say we are not successful at this point in time, is looking past our great strides in medicine, health; and let's not forget, the us military invented the internet. right there alone, slick, you've got a pretty productive nation.

To the contrary. I didn't question if we were successful in the past. I questioned if we were successful right now. Like I said it has only been 100 short years from being agricultural and industrial to not. We don't produce anything.

You also have to think about all of the great strides we've made were a result of other countries work. Rocket technology, nuclear technology, lots of medicine and health. These are strides because we either stole them from someone else or took someone elses idea and expanded on it.

Big Slick wrote:

HotParadox wrote:alright, you opened it up, slick; thanks for that.

to say we are not successful at this point in time, is looking past our great strides in medicine, health; and let's not forget, the us military invented the internet. right there alone, slick, you've got a pretty productive nation.

To the contrary. I didn't question if we were successful in the past. I questioned if we were successful right now. Like I said it has only been 100 short years from being agricultural and industrial to not. We don't produce anything.

You also have to think about all of the great strides we've made were a result of other countries work. Rocket technology, nuclear technology, lots of medicine and health. These are strides because we either stole them from someone else or took someone elses idea and expanded on it.

okay, the internet is new, no? recent cures for diseases we stole? can you give me examples of what we stole from other countries? or did we expand upon what they may have begun? there's a difference.

I think all this apoligizing is showing nothing more than we have weak leaders. Bowing is not a custom for the Saudi's unless you are a servant. And we contribute more than our fair share to the global community. I think complete seperation would be grand. Let the world find out what it's like to survive without the mean ole United States supplying them with food and backing up the useless U.N. resolutions. It would be interesting to see how they get along.

HotParadox wrote:

U.S. should stop apologizing for its success
The Lowell Sun
Updated: 06/09/2009 06:35:52 AM EDT

A recent column in The Sun by Barry Finegold, state representative from the 17th Essex District, about current trends in energy consumption caught my eye because of this quote: "The U.S. makes up 5 percent of the world's population but consumes 25 percent of the world's energy resources." Maybe Mr. Finegold should have joined President Obama on his recent world apology tour. What would our standard of living look like if we cut back our energy use from 25 percent to 5 percent to match our population? Personally I feel we have nothing for which to apologize.

In the last 400 years, we have become the most generous and prosperous nation on the planet. We have made advancements in science, medicine, agriculture and technology that have benefited the entire world. This would not have happened if we had restricted our energy consumption. To say that we use 25 percent of the world's energy resources as if that's something we should be ashamed of is ridiculous. Yes, we consume more energy than other countries, but we also do more of the heavy lifting than any other country.

Mr. Finegold states, "Wind power will one day help the whole nation meet our energy demands." That day is hard to see when at present wind power accounts for about 1 percent of our current energy needs. In fact, it costs almost 50 percent more to produce one watt of energy from wind power than it does to produce that same watt from a coal-fired plant. Nowhere in the article does Mr. Finegold mention nuclear power.

At present, nuclear power plants supply less than 20 percent of our energy needs. We would need to build another 25 to 30 plants just to keep up with the rising energy demands that we will need in the next 30 to 50 years. Yet there is no discussion in this present administration of increasing this truly green source of power.

Instead the proposals coming from this administration are meant to increase the cost to consumers of energy from sources such as oil, coal and natural gas. The idea is to make our current sources of energy so expensive that suddenly wind and solar power don't look so bad. I say let the free market and the law of supply and demand determine our energy usage. And let's stop apologizing to the rest of the world for our successes as a nation.

NORMAN BLANCHETTE

North Chelmsford


http://www.lowellsun.com/letters/ci_12551552[/b]

Norman Blanchette is an idiot. The statement that we use 25% of the worlds energy refers to oil, not domestic energy sources, of which we have ample supply within our borders. He talks about our energy consumption in terms of powering our cities/homes. He has missed the point entirely. The primary cause of our excessive energy consumption is... hold on, this might be a shock... the automobile.
Until a viable replacement to the petroleum powered, internal combustion engine is found we will remain dependant upon foreign OIL... not foreign energy. Therefore, we will continue to use a disproportionate share of those resources.

By all means, research alternative methods to power our cities and homes, but don't become distracted into believing that is all that is needed. The primary culprit... the one thing that sucks all the money up is the automobile and the method we have chosen to power it. Solve that problem and you'll see America return to it's "glory days".

PaulM wrote:

HotParadox wrote:

U.S. should stop apologizing for its success
The Lowell Sun
Updated: 06/09/2009 06:35:52 AM EDT

A recent column in The Sun by Barry Finegold, state representative from the 17th Essex District, about current trends in energy consumption caught my eye because of this quote: "The U.S. makes up 5 percent of the world's population but consumes 25 percent of the world's energy resources." Maybe Mr. Finegold should have joined President Obama on his recent world apology tour. What would our standard of living look like if we cut back our energy use from 25 percent to 5 percent to match our population? Personally I feel we have nothing for which to apologize.

In the last 400 years, we have become the most generous and prosperous nation on the planet. We have made advancements in science, medicine, agriculture and technology that have benefited the entire world. This would not have happened if we had restricted our energy consumption. To say that we use 25 percent of the world's energy resources as if that's something we should be ashamed of is ridiculous. Yes, we consume more energy than other countries, but we also do more of the heavy lifting than any other country.

Mr. Finegold states, "Wind power will one day help the whole nation meet our energy demands." That day is hard to see when at present wind power accounts for about 1 percent of our current energy needs. In fact, it costs almost 50 percent more to produce one watt of energy from wind power than it does to produce that same watt from a coal-fired plant. Nowhere in the article does Mr. Finegold mention nuclear power.

At present, nuclear power plants supply less than 20 percent of our energy needs. We would need to build another 25 to 30 plants just to keep up with the rising energy demands that we will need in the next 30 to 50 years. Yet there is no discussion in this present administration of increasing this truly green source of power.

Instead the proposals coming from this administration are meant to increase the cost to consumers of energy from sources such as oil, coal and natural gas. The idea is to make our current sources of energy so expensive that suddenly wind and solar power don't look so bad. I say let the free market and the law of supply and demand determine our energy usage. And let's stop apologizing to the rest of the world for our successes as a nation.

NORMAN BLANCHETTE

North Chelmsford


http://www.lowellsun.com/letters/ci_12551552[/b]

Norman Blanchette is an idiot. The statement that we use 25% of the worlds energy refers to oil, not domestic energy sources, of which we have ample supply within our borders. He talks about our energy consumption in terms of powering our cities/homes. He has missed the point entirely. The primary cause of our excessive energy consumption is... hold on, this might be a shock... the automobile.
Until a viable replacement to the petroleum powered, internal combustion engine is found we will remain dependant upon foreign OIL... not foreign energy. Therefore, we will continue to use a disproportionate share of those resources.

By all means, research alternative methods to power our cities and homes, but don't become distracted into believing that is all that is needed. The primary culprit... the one thing that sucks all the money up is the automobile and the method we have chosen to power it. Solve that problem and you'll see America return to it's "glory days".

And that's the kicker right there.

CarolinaHound wrote:

PaulM wrote:

HotParadox wrote:

U.S. should stop apologizing for its success
The Lowell Sun
Updated: 06/09/2009 06:35:52 AM EDT

A recent column in The Sun by Barry Finegold, state representative from the 17th Essex District, about current trends in energy consumption caught my eye because of this quote: "The U.S. makes up 5 percent of the world's population but consumes 25 percent of the world's energy resources." Maybe Mr. Finegold should have joined President Obama on his recent world apology tour. What would our standard of living look like if we cut back our energy use from 25 percent to 5 percent to match our population? Personally I feel we have nothing for which to apologize.

In the last 400 years, we have become the most generous and prosperous nation on the planet. We have made advancements in science, medicine, agriculture and technology that have benefited the entire world. This would not have happened if we had restricted our energy consumption. To say that we use 25 percent of the world's energy resources as if that's something we should be ashamed of is ridiculous. Yes, we consume more energy than other countries, but we also do more of the heavy lifting than any other country.

Mr. Finegold states, "Wind power will one day help the whole nation meet our energy demands." That day is hard to see when at present wind power accounts for about 1 percent of our current energy needs. In fact, it costs almost 50 percent more to produce one watt of energy from wind power than it does to produce that same watt from a coal-fired plant. Nowhere in the article does Mr. Finegold mention nuclear power.

At present, nuclear power plants supply less than 20 percent of our energy needs. We would need to build another 25 to 30 plants just to keep up with the rising energy demands that we will need in the next 30 to 50 years. Yet there is no discussion in this present administration of increasing this truly green source of power.

Instead the proposals coming from this administration are meant to increase the cost to consumers of energy from sources such as oil, coal and natural gas. The idea is to make our current sources of energy so expensive that suddenly wind and solar power don't look so bad. I say let the free market and the law of supply and demand determine our energy usage. And let's stop apologizing to the rest of the world for our successes as a nation.

NORMAN BLANCHETTE

North Chelmsford


http://www.lowellsun.com/letters/ci_12551552[/b]

Norman Blanchette is an idiot. The statement that we use 25% of the worlds energy refers to oil, not domestic energy sources, of which we have ample supply within our borders. He talks about our energy consumption in terms of powering our cities/homes. He has missed the point entirely. The primary cause of our excessive energy consumption is... hold on, this might be a shock... the automobile.
Until a viable replacement to the petroleum powered, internal combustion engine is found we will remain dependant upon foreign OIL... not foreign energy. Therefore, we will continue to use a disproportionate share of those resources.

By all means, research alternative methods to power our cities and homes, but don't become distracted into believing that is all that is needed. The primary culprit... the one thing that sucks all the money up is the automobile and the method we have chosen to power it. Solve that problem and you'll see America return to it's "glory days".

And that's the kicker right there.

Absolutely. IMO, Finegold was not apologizing... he was stating a hard fact. He just wasn't clear on his definition of energy consumption. As a result... along comes someone like Blanchette, just waiting to jump on the statement as an apology. He took that ball and ran with it. The sad thing is... he only got about 1 yard before he tripped on his feet.

Doesn't most of our energy, ie.. electricity, come from coal that we mine? I think, could be wrong, but most of the oil that we use goes into cars. transpertation and products that are produced like plastic, paint, and a majority of everyday things we use. Other than transportation it's used more as an ingredient than for energy. I'm no expert so I could be wrong there.

CarolinaHound wrote:Doesn't most of our energy, ie.. electricity, come from coal that we mine? I think, could be wrong, but most of the oil that we use goes into cars. transpertation and products that are produced like plastic, paint, and a majority of everyday things we use. Other than transportation it's used more as an ingredient than for energy. I'm no expert so I could be wrong there.

Yep. Majority of our energy comes from coal. We have more than anyone in the world. & the oil is used primarily for transportation & plastics & such... though it wouldn't surprise me that IF we didn't need it to feed the automobile we could meet our "by-product" need easily with our domestic production.
We built our economy and social structure (post WWII) around the automobile and the concept of cheap energy. With our population increase... everyone wants to live as their parents and grandparents did. The problem is that the energy isn't cheap anymore... hasn't been for 30+ years. I remember when gas was .10 to .20 cents per gallon.

PaulM wrote:

HotParadox wrote:

U.S. should stop apologizing for its success
The Lowell Sun
Updated: 06/09/2009 06:35:52 AM EDT

A recent column in The Sun by Barry Finegold, state representative from the 17th Essex District, about current trends in energy consumption caught my eye because of this quote: "The U.S. makes up 5 percent of the world's population but consumes 25 percent of the world's energy resources." Maybe Mr. Finegold should have joined President Obama on his recent world apology tour. What would our standard of living look like if we cut back our energy use from 25 percent to 5 percent to match our population? Personally I feel we have nothing for which to apologize.

In the last 400 years, we have become the most generous and prosperous nation on the planet. We have made advancements in science, medicine, agriculture and technology that have benefited the entire world. This would not have happened if we had restricted our energy consumption. To say that we use 25 percent of the world's energy resources as if that's something we should be ashamed of is ridiculous. Yes, we consume more energy than other countries, but we also do more of the heavy lifting than any other country.

Mr. Finegold states, "Wind power will one day help the whole nation meet our energy demands." That day is hard to see when at present wind power accounts for about 1 percent of our current energy needs. In fact, it costs almost 50 percent more to produce one watt of energy from wind power than it does to produce that same watt from a coal-fired plant. Nowhere in the article does Mr. Finegold mention nuclear power.

At present, nuclear power plants supply less than 20 percent of our energy needs. We would need to build another 25 to 30 plants just to keep up with the rising energy demands that we will need in the next 30 to 50 years. Yet there is no discussion in this present administration of increasing this truly green source of power.

Instead the proposals coming from this administration are meant to increase the cost to consumers of energy from sources such as oil, coal and natural gas. The idea is to make our current sources of energy so expensive that suddenly wind and solar power don't look so bad. I say let the free market and the law of supply and demand determine our energy usage. And let's stop apologizing to the rest of the world for our successes as a nation.

NORMAN BLANCHETTE

North Chelmsford


http://www.lowellsun.com/letters/ci_12551552[/b]

Norman Blanchette is an idiot. The statement that we use 25% of the worlds energy refers to oil, not domestic energy sources, of which we have ample supply within our borders. He talks about our energy consumption in terms of powering our cities/homes. He has missed the point entirely. The primary cause of our excessive energy consumption is... hold on, this might be a shock... the automobile.
Until a viable replacement to the petroleum powered, internal combustion engine is found we will remain dependant upon foreign OIL... not foreign energy. Therefore, we will continue to use a disproportionate share of those resources.

By all means, research alternative methods to power our cities and homes, but don't become distracted into believing that is all that is needed. The primary culprit... the one thing that sucks all the money up is the automobile and the method we have chosen to power it. Solve that problem and you'll see America return to it's "glory days".

ok, and well said b/c you cleared up a lot of questions for me. what about slicks point that we haven't accomplished much of late and what we have accomplished we've stolen from other countries. any thoughts?

HotParadox wrote:

Big Slick wrote:

HotParadox wrote:alright, you opened it up, slick; thanks for that.

to say we are not successful at this point in time, is looking past our great strides in medicine, health; and let's not forget, the us military invented the internet. right there alone, slick, you've got a pretty productive nation.

To the contrary. I didn't question if we were successful in the past. I questioned if we were successful right now. Like I said it has only been 100 short years from being agricultural and industrial to not. We don't produce anything.

You also have to think about all of the great strides we've made were a result of other countries work. Rocket technology, nuclear technology, lots of medicine and health. These are strides because we either stole them from someone else or took someone elses idea and expanded on it.

okay, the internet is new, no? recent cures for diseases we stole? can you give me examples of what we stole from other countries? or did we expand upon what they may have begun? there's a difference.

Penicillin is the first medicine to come to mind.

Penicillin was discovered in 1928 by Alexander Fleming, a Scottish scientist. This is the foundation for the modern antibiotic era.

Rocket technology that allows us to have missles for our defense and allowed us to develop a space program. The Germans developed rocket technology during WWII and when they were defeated many of the German scientists were brought to the US.

Much of what we know about poisons and the effect they have on the human body come from the Nazi concentration camps. It's sad to say but we wouldn't know how the body reacts if it weren't for the twisted experiments the Nazi doctors were conducting.

Nuclear technology was made possible through the discoveries of Henri Becquerel, a French physicist. His discoveries followed by advancements by Pierre Curie (French) and Marie Curie (Polish/French), Ernest Rutherford (British) and Albert Einstein (German) are what made our nuclear program possible. As you know this nuclear program is what developed our nuclear bomb and subsequently cemented our position as the dominant world power, because we possesed, without question, the most powerful weapon in the world.

Currently, Malaysia is pouring truckloads of money into their medical and healthcare industry. Their goal is to become the premier leader in medical technology in the world. They are working to develop the most advanced equipment and techniques at a fraction of the cost because they don't have deal with the bureaucracy of the American insurance companies and their lobbyists.

I know there are lots more but I would have to do more digging. Think about cloning technology and stem cell research. Think about how much our discoveries are restricted by religious groups blocking the research on this. You think other countries are more advanced than we are in these fields?

CarolinaHound wrote:I think all this apoligizing is showing nothing more than we have weak leaders. Bowing is not a custom for the Saudi's unless you are a servant. And we contribute more than our fair share to the global community. I think complete seperation would be grand. Let the world find out what it's like to survive without the mean ole United States supplying them with food and backing up the useless U.N. resolutions. It would be interesting to see how they get along.

No, it would be interesting to see how we get along. We import more than we export. And we have turned into a service oriented economy which means we don't really produce that much. Look at anything you buy and you will find "made in xxxx" filll in the blank with korea/japan/china/mexico/phillipines/pakistan/india...etc., etc. We can't support ourselves. We rely to much on other counries so no a complete separation would mean a complete failure for us.

HotParadox wrote:

PaulM wrote:

HotParadox wrote:

U.S. should stop apologizing for its success
The Lowell Sun
Updated: 06/09/2009 06:35:52 AM EDT

A recent column in The Sun by Barry Finegold, state representative from the 17th Essex District, about current trends in energy consumption caught my eye because of this quote: "The U.S. makes up 5 percent of the world's population but consumes 25 percent of the world's energy resources." Maybe Mr. Finegold should have joined President Obama on his recent world apology tour. What would our standard of living look like if we cut back our energy use from 25 percent to 5 percent to match our population? Personally I feel we have nothing for which to apologize.

In the last 400 years, we have become the most generous and prosperous nation on the planet. We have made advancements in science, medicine, agriculture and technology that have benefited the entire world. This would not have happened if we had restricted our energy consumption. To say that we use 25 percent of the world's energy resources as if that's something we should be ashamed of is ridiculous. Yes, we consume more energy than other countries, but we also do more of the heavy lifting than any other country.

Mr. Finegold states, "Wind power will one day help the whole nation meet our energy demands." That day is hard to see when at present wind power accounts for about 1 percent of our current energy needs. In fact, it costs almost 50 percent more to produce one watt of energy from wind power than it does to produce that same watt from a coal-fired plant. Nowhere in the article does Mr. Finegold mention nuclear power.

At present, nuclear power plants supply less than 20 percent of our energy needs. We would need to build another 25 to 30 plants just to keep up with the rising energy demands that we will need in the next 30 to 50 years. Yet there is no discussion in this present administration of increasing this truly green source of power.

Instead the proposals coming from this administration are meant to increase the cost to consumers of energy from sources such as oil, coal and natural gas. The idea is to make our current sources of energy so expensive that suddenly wind and solar power don't look so bad. I say let the free market and the law of supply and demand determine our energy usage. And let's stop apologizing to the rest of the world for our successes as a nation.

NORMAN BLANCHETTE

North Chelmsford


http://www.lowellsun.com/letters/ci_12551552[/b]

Norman Blanchette is an idiot. The statement that we use 25% of the worlds energy refers to oil, not domestic energy sources, of which we have ample supply within our borders. He talks about our energy consumption in terms of powering our cities/homes. He has missed the point entirely. The primary cause of our excessive energy consumption is... hold on, this might be a shock... the automobile.
Until a viable replacement to the petroleum powered, internal combustion engine is found we will remain dependant upon foreign OIL... not foreign energy. Therefore, we will continue to use a disproportionate share of those resources.

By all means, research alternative methods to power our cities and homes, but don't become distracted into believing that is all that is needed. The primary culprit... the one thing that sucks all the money up is the automobile and the method we have chosen to power it. Solve that problem and you'll see America return to it's "glory days".

ok, and well said b/c you cleared up a lot of questions for me. what about slicks point that we haven't accomplished much of late and what we have accomplished we've stolen from other countries. any thoughts?

Slick made an interesting point. Rocket tech was an exceptionally good example. It was, afterall Werner von Braun (sp) the creator of the German V-2 rocket that got us to the Moon. It was a number of foreign Physicists, under the umbrella of the Manhatten Project, that developed our nuclear capability. Heart transplant tech...

The first heart transplant involving a human was carried out by a team led by Dr James D. Hardy on the of 23 of January 1964 at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, when the heart of a chimpanzee was transplanted into the chest of a dying man. The heart beat for only 90 minutes before stopping. The procedure raised a series of ethical and moral questions, and received copious amounts of publicity. However, it also helped pave the way for human-to-human heart transplants.

The first human-to-human heart transplant was performed by cardiac surgeon Christiaan Barnard at Groote Schuur Hospital in South Africa on the 3rd December, 1967 by a team led by Dr. Christiaan Barnard. The patient was Louis Washkansky of Cape Town, South Africa, who lived for 18 days after the procedure before dying of pneumonia. Barnard transplanted a healthy heart from a deceased patient, the donor, Denise Darvall, who was rendered brain dead in a car accident.

an excellent example of shared tech... pioneered in 1964 and first employed human to human in 1967, in South Africa.

My views on his position... technology is shared, stolen, observed & copied, BUT all advances are made by standing on the shoulders of those who preceeded you. Therefore, there is no absolutely "original" advances made by anyone or any country.

Big Slick wrote:

CarolinaHound wrote:I think all this apoligizing is showing nothing more than we have weak leaders. Bowing is not a custom for the Saudi's unless you are a servant. And we contribute more than our fair share to the global community. I think complete seperation would be grand. Let the world find out what it's like to survive without the mean ole United States supplying them with food and backing up the useless U.N. resolutions. It would be interesting to see how they get along.

No, it would be interesting to see how we get along. We import more than we export. And we have turned into a service oriented economy which means we don't really produce that much. Look at anything you buy and you will find "made in xxxx" filll in the blank with korea/japan/china/mexico/phillipines/pakistan/india...etc., etc. We can't support ourselves. We rely to much on other counries so no a complete separation would mean a complete failure for us.

The only reason we import so much, with the exception of oil, is because it costs too much to pay american workers to produce. Americans would rather collect welfare for nothing than to work for $8.00 an hour. Make those people work for the welfare and we'd get along just fine. Oil might be an issue, but people will just have to get used to seeing a working oil rig while we work on a better alternative. Basicly people will have to learn that life sucks sometimes, no one guaranteed them a fat life making a fortune at a job with guaranteed benifits, no where in our constitution does it promise people wil get paid to be here, all it promises is the right to work your way to a better future, and they'll just have to learn to deal with it.

CarolinaHound wrote:

Big Slick wrote:

CarolinaHound wrote:I think all this apoligizing is showing nothing more than we have weak leaders. Bowing is not a custom for the Saudi's unless you are a servant. And we contribute more than our fair share to the global community. I think complete seperation would be grand. Let the world find out what it's like to survive without the mean ole United States supplying them with food and backing up the useless U.N. resolutions. It would be interesting to see how they get along.

No, it would be interesting to see how we get along. We import more than we export. And we have turned into a service oriented economy which means we don't really produce that much. Look at anything you buy and you will find "made in xxxx" filll in the blank with korea/japan/china/mexico/phillipines/pakistan/india...etc., etc. We can't support ourselves. We rely to much on other counries so no a complete separation would mean a complete failure for us.

The only reason we import so much, with the exception of oil, is because it costs too much to pay american workers to produce. Americans would rather collect welfare for nothing than to work for $8.00 an hour. Make those people work for the welfare and we'd get along just fine. Oil might be an issue, but people will just have to get used to seeing a working oil rig while we work on a better alternative. Basicly people will have to learn that life sucks sometimes, no one guaranteed them a fat life making a fortune at a job with guaranteed benifits, no where in our constitution does it promise people wil get paid to be here, all it promises is the right to work your way to a better future, and they'll just have to learn to deal with it.

I don't disagree with you. I'm just saying that as a result of our power position and our relative high paid labor force we depend on other countries for way too much to just cut ourselves off from everybody.

Big Slick wrote:

CarolinaHound wrote:

Big Slick wrote:

CarolinaHound wrote:I think all this apoligizing is showing nothing more than we have weak leaders. Bowing is not a custom for the Saudi's unless you are a servant. And we contribute more than our fair share to the global community. I think complete seperation would be grand. Let the world find out what it's like to survive without the mean ole United States supplying them with food and backing up the useless U.N. resolutions. It would be interesting to see how they get along.

No, it would be interesting to see how we get along. We import more than we export. And we have turned into a service oriented economy which means we don't really produce that much. Look at anything you buy and you will find "made in xxxx" filll in the blank with korea/japan/china/mexico/phillipines/pakistan/india...etc., etc. We can't support ourselves. We rely to much on other counries so no a complete separation would mean a complete failure for us.

The only reason we import so much, with the exception of oil, is because it costs too much to pay american workers to produce. Americans would rather collect welfare for nothing than to work for $8.00 an hour. Make those people work for the welfare and we'd get along just fine. Oil might be an issue, but people will just have to get used to seeing a working oil rig while we work on a better alternative. Basicly people will have to learn that life sucks sometimes, no one guaranteed them a fat life making a fortune at a job with guaranteed benifits, no where in our constitution does it promise people wil get paid to be here, all it promises is the right to work your way to a better future, and they'll just have to learn to deal with it.

I don't disagree with you. I'm just saying that as a result of our power position and our relative high paid labor force we depend on other countries for way too much to just cut ourselves off from everybody.

It would hurt but I think we'd be better for it.

Peregrine(Endangered) wrote:Its important to remember that prior to WWII we were isolationists. It would almost be impossible today. We owe so much money to China. Personally I would like to see some kind of isolation but we all know because of resourses, it will never happen again.

We don't need to be isolationist. What we do need is to bring back tariffs. Change nafta, or get rid of it, and look at changing other trade agreements that put the American worker at a disadvantage. There should be a stronger emphasis on labour. We could if we wanted to create a new manufacturing base. Also getting rid of the stupid federal reserve would be a great step forward. How about state run banks like the one in North Dakota. Also no more money for Israel. They have hosted off us long enough.

Of course if anyone thinks this will happen, you might say no. Well I say yes, because the path we are on in America.....

We are going to collapse economically. There is no doubt in my mind. At this point states will break away. The federal government will be powerless to do anything because at the point the economy collapses the federal government will be completely defunct. The federal government will say hey we have to stick together. The American people will say no we have had enough of your fucking bullshit.

They won't be able to send federal agents to do anything. People will say under who's authority do you have the right to tell me anything. What? The fucking authority of the Federal government that has collapsed. I would say "hey who's paying you fuck face." I would follow with "How's that US dollar working for ya."

It's over. It's done. We are well beyond the point of no return.

Now the sun is setting on the good OLD USA.

Theophilus wrote:

Peregrine(Endangered) wrote:Its important to remember that prior to WWII we were isolationists. It would almost be impossible today. We owe so much money to China. Personally I would like to see some kind of isolation but we all know because of resourses, it will never happen again.

We don't need to be isolationist. What we do need is to bring back tariffs. Change nafta, or get rid of it, and look at changing other trade agreements that put the American worker at a disadvantage. There should be a stronger emphasis on labour. We could if we wanted to create a new manufacturing base. Also getting rid of the stupid federal reserve would be a great step forward. How about state run banks like the one in North Dakota. Also no more money for Israel. They have hosted off us long enough.

Of course if anyone thinks this will happen, you might say no. Well I say yes, because the path we are on in America.....

We are going to collapse economically. There is no doubt in my mind. At this point states will break away. The federal government will be powerless to do anything because at the point the economy collapses the federal government will be completely defunct. The federal government will say hey we have to stick together. The American people will say no we have had enough of your fucking bullshit.

They won't be able to send federal agents to do anything. People will say under who's authority do you have the right to tell me anything. What? The fucking authority of the Federal government that has collapsed. I would say "hey who's paying you fuck face." I would follow with "How's that US dollar working for ya."

It's over. It's done. We are well beyond the point of no return.

Now the sun is setting on the good OLD USA.

And the Republic of Texas will rise again and reign supreme...

Big Slick wrote:And the Republic of Texas will rise again and reign supreme...

Damn straight.

Also who knows...... Kinky Friedman might be the next president of Texas.

Some more on economic collapse. This video is called Obamageddon.

So where do I put my name in for King of the great country of Noth Kakalacky??

Theophilus wrote:

Big Slick wrote:And the Republic of Texas will rise again and reign supreme...

Damn straight.

Also who knows...... Kinky Friedman might be the next president of Texas.

We can only dream my friend.

By the way, Kinky's running for govenor again in 2010.

Big Slick wrote:

Theophilus wrote:

Big Slick wrote:And the Republic of Texas will rise again and reign supreme...

Damn straight.

Also who knows...... Kinky Friedman might be the next president of Texas.

We can only dream my friend.

By the way, Kinky's running for govenor again in 2010.

I saw that he was running for governor again. My thinking is that by 2010 Texas will be a country. The republic of Texas, and Kinky Friedman will be the President of the republic of Texas.