|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
>Actually, when Clinton was first elected there were several very liberal actresses clamoring about 'we're
>in charge now'. The Jane Fondas, Meryl Streeps, etc are often present at Senate and Congressional hearings
>regarding the homeless, gun control, welfare, etc because they once 'acted in a part' that took in that
>role.
Well, this is a minor detail as everywhere on the globe people and politicians throw parties and do party,
and also the fact that at least they(the artists) weren't elected to run the country.
>Well then I guess you will agree that Clarence Thomas was persecuted unjustly and Sen Packwood should not
>have been forced to resign because of their 'private sex lives'. When an elected official has oral sex
>during the day, on the job, in the office, and once while on the phone discussing troop deployments I'd
>say that's a bit too close to the job to be 'private'....but see the next sentence...
>
>> re:what has that got to do with anyone "doing their jobs right" or with politics in general?
>
>Well, what it SEEMS do with jobs and and politics is that if your a conservative you get crucified for
>even looking at a woman the wrong way, but if you're a liberal and sexy-looking you can get
In this I elect for the people capable of doing the job I would like to see them doing.
Whatever they do in their private lives or on that job is their concern, not mine, and if they crosspass
the lines set out by a law, then that is their responsablity also, again not mine, and if these crossing
the lines should be fined, then that is up to the judges or their staff.
Lying under oath for a non political issue by a proffesional politician, be it a president or congressman
or local government employee or anyone for that matter can be dealt with by the lowest -in rank- judge.
It falls in the same categorie as speeding tickets or driving trough a red light.
>So you think having a large number of people on the welfare slavery voting roles shows the country is
>'well run'? I DON'T THINK SO.
What a congress is ought to be doing, is to check out on and see right that the men in charge their
POLITICAL actions or their PROPOSED laws do not screw up countries interests, be it home or abroad.
If your Congress is too busy partying over somenone's eledged tresspassing the law(s), see also above
then its no wonder that they fail in performing their offical duty and obligations.
Thus actualy, the failing Congress should then be im-peached by the citicens' representatives and as
the Congress-members are the elected citicens representatives, an endless circle of no action and
countries' slow-down failures starts. Note that they also have to speak out their oath as well.
Now also note that I also believe that the US's unemployment rate is not as high as it is here
in Europe(18-20%), or elsewhere on the globe (Indonesia's level alone 'only' reaches a mere 40-50% !).
Also note that Europe's unemployment levels would be much larger if the medicaly unfit rejects were
taken into account as well. Also note that part of the unemployed are also the very profesional unemployed,
eg the ones that will not ever want to take on a job or go out of their way to get one.
These unemployment rate levels are indeed a great concern and should be addressed to by the
government AND its controllers in charge, for that a government alone is not to blame.
Also from the above you can see that unemployment is a worldwide issue, and will only be solved
by creating more welfare(=more jobs) and different human in the head mentality for standards(=responsibility).
>re:And note that the world hasn't seen any major cival wars since the WW2 or have not seen any of the very
>bad "mistakes" like Vietnam.
>Um, apparently you haven't read the papers since WWII....Let's see, Israel, Lebanon, multiple countries in
>Africa, Asia, genocide in Tibet, civil war in Samolia, the Gulf War.....Hmm,....
Are they local affairs and/or due to a malfunctioning US government, or are they due to a malfunctioning
United Nations?
The Gulf war was enevitible and was everyones responsibility(UN). That the US through the UN stood up
as first, is not so parculear knowing that the US in the Reagan 80tees overloaded Irak and Hussain with
the basics for the chemical armours and any weapons Irak could afford(from selling their oil) to buy
to fight nabouring offensive IRAN. Weapens that came from the Western Industrialised countries as well
as from Russia and China.
Later on the US as being the first to undertake actions(Bush), can only be prased and admired, and
this should especially be done so by the French, the Russians and the Chinese, as if it wasn't for the US's
this early and very protective initiative, the world could have been faced with another WW(now #3) or
at least a greater disaster then the nuclear Tsjernobil ever was.
>Also, I was in Vietnam, and I didn't consider it a mistake making the Communists live up to their promise
>about leaving S. Vietnam alone - until the corruption got so bad in the government that even the U.S.
>couldn't stand it....
Wrong here, the Communists were in China, and that country was far too big too be put to order by the
US alone or by any others and was not mandated by the UN.
The cry-out for assistance indeed came from the formaly South-Vietnam, but that was, as being their
last rulers/empires, the French's responsibility and obligation, not the US's, and as the French has
had to mess this up too(like they have had also made a mess of their African adventures), it then in
fact became the responsibility of the then very divided United Nations.
Currently in Afghanistan the Taliban are performing the somehow same type of communism(an islamic
spin-off) after they(the Taliban) have had to kick-out the illegaly present Russians that were also plundering
and ruling the country down to ground and now what does the world do?
At least the US is not making the same Vietnam mistake again here, and this time this will also(like Irak)
will have to be dealt with by the still too very divided(French,Russians,Chinese) United Nations.
>Re: The Euro
>It is intended to douse the power the US$ has on the world. The socialists of Europe intend to bring down
>the U.S. and the US$ with it - if they can. I doubt it will happen,however, the bankers and major
>families who run the banking industry will doubtless not give up any control they've exercised for
>generations.
>I guess the overall picture will depend on whether Russia is allowed into the Euro picture. Things could
>be in for a really wild ride if they are.
First the Euro's EMU(monetairy union) is there to make a united -instead of- divided one single
Euro trading zone. So this is firstly to be ment for and among the participating countries themselves
internally.
If the Euro will be(ever) a ruler over the US$ is something to be debated, as that is now not in anyone's
hands anymore(hurray) and will be decided by the markets, on the overal economical financial current
and future outlooks for the currencies involved as well as for their underlays current and future prospects
and are then finaly set by the humans(=price) terms.
So for this then the "answer" lies within the US.
The socialists of Europe as you mention them are elected politicians by EuroLand's own citicens to
perform what they have promissed and set out to do, eg to en-better social welfare and prosparity in
the EEC (the european economic community). This is also ment to be done in good order with the other
participating partners in the Industrial World, eg the G-7, G-12, and G-20 (and other setup institutes).
Disputes among friends always do happen and will here happen as well, but I do not agree on your
kinda paranoya towards a single currency bringing down another.
It will be that currencies' underlying economical and political (in)stability that will bring itselve down.
So for that and in the situation you mention, the "answer" lies as well within the US.
The Russians will not come into the Euro picture for a long time, if they will ever. There were european
parts of Russia, as well as there where Asian parts. Most parts have now split-off of from the former
USSR and are now finaly young independant countries. Also the Russians' treaties(either the Asian Russia
or the European Russia) with their neigbouring countries, are not fully being estableshed(marked) as yet.
Also Europe's landmarks ends somewhere within the still too very divided european Russia for it
to be concidered. Apart from other rules and regulations possible participating countries would
have to comply to, like democracy, human rights, stability etc.
This all (appart from other issues) will prevent Russia's 2-parts from entering in on the Euro, EMU or ECC.
They will eventualy and posible create some sort of "Copied" version of all these Euro institutes, but then
now with the Russians 2 parts and their direct door nabours joining in.
>
>Wayne
>
>
Best regards,
Ton Maas
ms-irb@xxxxxx
|