BF2S Forums Are America's Best Days Behind Us?

so let me sum this up:
you believe that america's gdp will be negative in the future because china and america will no longer be trading partners.  in absence of china as a trading partner, america will not do anything about it.  so america will not trade with another country or (shudder) provide needed jobs by opening up a few more factories.  and instead, america will continue to grow its debt, while gdp continues to fall.  this debt combined with lax fertility limitation laws for black and mexican people, the lack of a one-child policy, and the lack of encouraging old people to die earlier will eventually cause america to fail.

do you actually read your own posts dilbert?

Last edited by Pug (2011-03-13 18:43:53)

I think Sarah Palin should be president.

I think Paul Bunyan should be president.

I'm in a silly mood, let me be.

How's New Jersey doing with their governor BTW? I heard he was good.

burnzz wrote:

i want John Huntsman. but the truth of the matter is

the world wants barrack obama to have another term.

so you two grow up, register, vote in the primaries, and pitch in yo social security. i'm about due you know . . .

I ain't gonna vote for Obama. Fuck the world, let America be different than everyone else. It is what makes us special.

Schwarzenegger-Palin. Its the dream ticket.

burnzz wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Schwarzenegger-Palin. Its the dream ticket.

if you*re an idiot australian troll or a stand-up comedian

Schwarzenegger is at least an A-List actor, so he's way ahead on that count.

Don't tell me Americans wouldn't vote for him.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-03-14 05:05:29)

Reagan got elected, Schwarzenegger is on the same path with his governator thing, don't tell me it couldn't happen.

Obama isn't even an American.

trollbert.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Pug wrote:

so let me repeat the queston...care to support your reasoning on why both nations will support an isolationist trading policy.

I didn't say they would both adopt isolationist policy, just that they are currently linked but won't necessarily be forever.

you believe that america's gdp will be negative in the future because china and america will no longer be trading partners

I didn't say that either. The US will have problems of its own making, as will much of the West.

Well, would you care to explain?  Seems to be that if you stopped and explained your thought process it would make this a lot easier...

Pug wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Pug wrote:

so let me repeat the queston...care to support your reasoning on why both nations will support an isolationist trading policy.

I didn't say they would both adopt isolationist policy, just that they are currently linked but won't necessarily be forever.

you believe that america's gdp will be negative in the future because china and america will no longer be trading partners

I didn't say that either. The US will have problems of its own making, as will much of the West.

Well, would you care to explain?  Seems to be that if you stopped and explained your thought process it would make this a lot easier...

he is always like that, don't worry, you get used to it.

Pug wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Pug wrote:

so let me repeat the queston...care to support your reasoning on why both nations will support an isolationist trading policy.

I didn't say they would both adopt isolationist policy, just that they are currently linked but won't necessarily be forever.

you believe that america's gdp will be negative in the future because china and america will no longer be trading partners

I didn't say that either. The US will have problems of its own making, as will much of the West.

Well, would you care to explain?  Seems to be that if you stopped and explained your thought process it would make this a lot easier...

I'm not going to be explaining why I haven't said things I haven't said.