Wasn't the turnout ~60%?
Those people who didn't vote just need to get off their butts and they could have the Presidency.
Those people who didn't vote just need to get off their butts and they could have the Presidency.
Fuck Israel
I think you missed my point. The sentiment you expressed in your next line about "hell, anyone as long as it's not Bush or his successors" is the reason Obama was elected.Dilbert_X wrote:
Take whichver you like, in whichever order, if you want to achieve change in the US suggest using it as your model.You could take one of these as the primary factor, or the one you added to your list a little late:Theres no lol about it.lol
Popular opinion at the time was the Washington should be the monarch of the new country. If Congress had had its way without influential presidencies of Lincoln and more importantly Johnson during reconstruction, cooler heads would not have prevailed and we would be living in a very different U.S.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I'm not sure I follow you there.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
If we had nothing but the populace to run with, George Washington would be king and the Civil War would have ripped us apart, if not during the war then in its aftermath.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
The revolution starts in the minds of the population - the sole biggest asset the US (and by extension the government) has.
Exactly the opposite. Individuals will never get off their asses without the influence of an individual or the complete degradation of the standard of living, whatever comes first. Our couch cushions are much too comfy and our beds much too warm to feel motivated to do something about a situation that, in the scheme of things, effects the individual very little.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Collectively Americans need to get off their asses, because one individual isn't going to do anything. A bunch of individuals acting together will.
If they are ever motivated, maintaining the collective motivation will be essential to bringing longevity to the solution, or else it will break down as soon as weak individuals are running the country. Without a jumpstart however, I don't believe we will be getting anywhere quickly.
No, mine. Yes I recently discovered her and then her work, and made a thread about her against my better judgment. Her writings have not influenced my opinion at all, as you should know if you have followed my posts these last three years. Hell, I'm pretty sure I could dig up a "Diamond Boy" (lol) pic used in a spat with Kmarion.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I know very well your (Ayn Rand's) ideas regarding the importance of individuals
It is of permanent relevance.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
but frankly I don't think it's relevant to this particular conversation.
Oh right. But I thought you said:FM wrote:
I think you missed my point. The sentiment you expressed in your next line about "hell, anyone as long as it's not Bush or his successors" is the reason Obama was elected.
Grass-roots my ass. George W. Bush could have won the election after George W. Bush.
Fuck Israel
...or into the wilderness to escape war.Dilbert_X wrote:
Could be.
In ten years time when people are literally starving all it will take is for a politician to say:
'Its China'/Russia's/Saudia Arabia's fault'
And you'll all march off to war.
Turquoise wrote:
...or into the wilderness to escape war.Dilbert_X wrote:
Could be.
In ten years time when people are literally starving all it will take is for a politician to say:
'Its China'/Russia's/Saudia Arabia's fault'
And you'll all march off to war.
lol.. Turq needs his universal healthcare in place before he's going to risk getting injured.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Speak for yourself, because I wouldn't buy that opinion for a dollar.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Exactly the opposite. Individuals will never get off their asses without the influence of an individual or the complete degradation of the standard of living, whatever comes first. Our couch cushions are much too comfy and our beds much too warm to feel motivated to do something about a situation that, in the scheme of things, effects the individual very little.
You aren't pretentious enough to think that I would've read every post you put out on this forum, are you?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
No, mine. Yes I recently discovered her and then her work, and made a thread about her against my better judgment. Her writings have not influenced my opinion at all, as you should know if you have followed my posts these last three years. Hell, I'm pretty sure I could dig up a "Diamond Boy" (lol) pic used in a spat with Kmarion.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I know very well your (Ayn Rand's) ideas regarding the importance of individuals
Regardless of how I feel about Ayn Rand, I think it's a little naive to say her opinions have not influenced yours at all. Again, a discussion for another day.
If another world war breaks out, I'm hanging with the eskimos. At least then, I'd have a decent chance at survival.Kmarion wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
...or into the wilderness to escape war.Dilbert_X wrote:
Could be.
In ten years time when people are literally starving all it will take is for a politician to say:
'Its China'/Russia's/Saudia Arabia's fault'
And you'll all march off to war.
lol.. Turq needs his universal healthcare in place before he's going to risk getting injured.
In expressing the sentiment that even the most unpopular person could win the election after one of the most unpopular presidencies ever, yes.Dilbert_X wrote:
Oh right. But I thought you said:FM wrote:
I think you missed my point. The sentiment you expressed in your next line about "hell, anyone as long as it's not Bush or his successors" is the reason Obama was elected.Grass-roots my ass. George W. Bush could have won the election after George W. Bush.
I would buy yours if you could offer any proof of large groups of people being motivated without a leader.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Speak for yourself, because I wouldn't buy that opinion for a dollar.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Exactly the opposite. Individuals will never get off their asses without the influence of an individual or the complete degradation of the standard of living, whatever comes first. Our couch cushions are much too comfy and our beds much too warm to feel motivated to do something about a situation that, in the scheme of things, effects the individual very little.
No, my point is that my post history seriously backs me up, providing quite the history (available to you if you did happen to care) of past behavior well before I ever heard of the name. I like her work so much because there are numerous examples of shared ideology between things that I could physically go back and put a finger on the date that I wrote it, and that date is well before I had the pleasure of touching any of her books. When I have two essays in my hand representing the best samples of my writing, one about the tyranny of tradition and the other beginning with "I take real joy in being me.", both submitted to colleges more than a month before picking up her book...you know there is a special <3 there.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
You aren't pretentious enough to think that I would've read every post you put out on this forum, are you?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
No, mine. Yes I recently discovered her and then her work, and made a thread about her against my better judgment. Her writings have not influenced my opinion at all, as you should know if you have followed my posts these last three years. Hell, I'm pretty sure I could dig up a "Diamond Boy" (lol) pic used in a spat with Kmarion.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I know very well your (Ayn Rand's) ideas regarding the importance of individuals
Regardless of how I feel about Ayn Rand, I think it's a little naive to say her opinions have not influenced yours at all. Again, a discussion for another day.
So ends the defense that I am disappointed that I have to make, one that I have typed out to excess here with the intention of copying/pasting it later.
Or if I could offer up proof of a leader being anything without people to lead?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I would buy yours if you could offer any proof of large groups of people being motivated without a leader.
If you want we can continue in a separate thread.
Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2009-01-13 20:56:43)
Fine by me.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Or if I could offer up proof of a leader being anything without people to lead?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I would buy yours if you could offer any proof of large groups of people being motivated without a leader.
If you want we can continue in a separate thread.
Would you do the honors?
I wouldn't go as far as to say that the government created the housing bubble, I honestly doubt that there was any dubious conspiracy between the banks and the government or that any safety net was promised in advance. It was simply greed and short sided stupidity. The banks knew that they could make a lot of money off of people who would agree to simply paying off the interest and never touching the principle on their houses... that's not economically sound lending and this hellhole ensued. I guess the government wasn't really left with a choice, but I don't know if it goes any deeper than that...
On your second point, WWII ended the depression for sure, but was it the only factor? We we're completely screwed up until we entered the war, Roosevelt's "New Deal" livened our economy and started us on the right track. In his speeches, Obama has been starting to talk about the same kind of programs that get people back on the job and start the flow of money needed to revitalize our economy. War isn't the only way. In America, where those in power benefit so greatly from war, unfortunately, we have a track record of maintaining a constant state of war for the reason mentioned previously. A giant war would sure as hell pump some life into the economy but you have to have hope that this new administration will stray from the way of those previous and practice sound economics and governing rather than relying on war mongering to solve/(create) problems.
For what you're saying to be true, there would have to be an incredibly large number of people behind the scenes running this show and keeping this all a secret. I find it hard to believe that so many people could have this enormous agenda and no one would speak out...
On your second point, WWII ended the depression for sure, but was it the only factor? We we're completely screwed up until we entered the war, Roosevelt's "New Deal" livened our economy and started us on the right track. In his speeches, Obama has been starting to talk about the same kind of programs that get people back on the job and start the flow of money needed to revitalize our economy. War isn't the only way. In America, where those in power benefit so greatly from war, unfortunately, we have a track record of maintaining a constant state of war for the reason mentioned previously. A giant war would sure as hell pump some life into the economy but you have to have hope that this new administration will stray from the way of those previous and practice sound economics and governing rather than relying on war mongering to solve/(create) problems.
For what you're saying to be true, there would have to be an incredibly large number of people behind the scenes running this show and keeping this all a secret. I find it hard to believe that so many people could have this enormous agenda and no one would speak out...
the world we live in today was pretty much created by that "one country" i mentioned. if anybody is to set things right this time - it's that country, nobody else. if you don't agree with that, you are quite the retard.usmarine wrote:
no that wasnt your point. you mention one country.Shahter wrote:
yep, that's my point.
i don't really need to - my ukrainian friends are doing the job just fine for me.usmarine wrote:
why dont you go freeze women and children or something.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
Charles de Gaulle, for example, Ross Perot did OK on money alone.Ken-Jennings wrote:
Or if I could offer up proof of a leader being anything without people to lead?
Fuck Israel
Exactly ... the depression ended before WW2 ...Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Varegg wrote:
What great war dragged you out of the great depression in 1929??Wikipedia wrote:
The Great Depression was a worldwide economic downturn starting in most places in 1929 and ending at different times in the 1930s or early 1940s for different countries.
It's a little flawed to think a costly war can bring you out of anything but an invasion ...
As another example is the war you wage now is fueling the recession we have now, as long as the war itself isn't about expansion and capturing new resources it will only cause debt ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
How about the American people start a war against the government. Go'wan..............you will.
I reckon part of the thinking was it would be a nice cheap war, and US contractors would suck up Iraq's oil wealth rebuilding what they had blown up.Varegg wrote:
As another example is the war you wage now is fueling the recession we have now, as long as the war itself isn't about expansion and capturing new resources it will only cause debt
Debit side turned out a bit larger than the credit side, still, govt cronies made a pile of money.
Fuck Israel
Tax strike - you know you want toJahmanred wrote:
How about the American people start a war against the government. Go'wan..............you will.
Fuck Israel
Write the book Alex. I can see a great movie coming out from this.
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
For Germany it was the massive government spending in military hardware are public works (Autobahn etc) which got them out the depression. Sure it may have been before the war but the war effort is what got things rolling.Varegg wrote:
Exactly ... the depression ended before WW2 ...Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Varegg wrote:
What great war dragged you out of the great depression in 1929??Wikipedia wrote:
The Great Depression was a worldwide economic downturn starting in most places in 1929 and ending at different times in the 1930s or early 1940s for different countries.
It's a little flawed to think a costly war can bring you out of anything but an invasion ...
As another example is the war you wage now is fueling the recession we have now, as long as the war itself isn't about expansion and capturing new resources it will only cause debt ...
Officially the depression may have ended in the US too before the war but an economic boom happened the same way as in Germany (Massive military spending). The old saying 'you gota spend money, to make money' is never truer then when applied to economies and the biggest fastest easiest way to spend money is to start a war.
Also I don't know what you're all smoking.... there's no big economic crisis where I live, a slight slow down maybe but nothing major.
But in the case of Germany wasn't it all spending banked against future gains in resources, expected from invading other countries and stealing theirs?Drunkface wrote:
Sure it may have been before the war but the war effort is what got things rolling.
Kind of like a ponzi scheme, except everyone wore weird suits and yelled a lot?
Fuck Israel
It is pretty widely accepted that the economic growth at the time was due to increased production in military and civilian goods because of the war.Varegg wrote:
Exactly ... the depression ended before WW2 ...Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Varegg wrote:
What great war dragged you out of the great depression in 1929??Wikipedia wrote:
The Great Depression was a worldwide economic downturn starting in most places in 1929 and ending at different times in the 1930s or early 1940s for different countries.
It's a little flawed to think a costly war can bring you out of anything but an invasion ...
As another example is the war you wage now is fueling the recession we have now, as long as the war itself isn't about expansion and capturing new resources it will only cause debt ...
I partially agree, the employment rates was up and economic growth already in place before WW2 but the outlook for war made it more boom like.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
It is pretty widely accepted that the economic growth at the time was due to increased production in military and civilian goods because of the war.Varegg wrote:
Exactly ... the depression ended before WW2 ...Flaming_Maniac wrote:
?Varegg wrote:
What great war dragged you out of the great depression in 1929?
It's a little flawed to think a costly war can bring you out of anything but an invasion ...
As another example is the war you wage now is fueling the recession we have now, as long as the war itself isn't about expansion and capturing new resources it will only cause debt ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Forest Gump has already been done. <3 atgsergeriver wrote:
Write the book Alex. I can see a great movie coming out from this.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I actually wish I could break away from the internets long enough to finish my novel.