Haha yeah no doubt, we'll have to devote a budget to safety, what about sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads! Check it out, I made a thread for it http://forum.grasscity.com/general/554941-calling-all-blades.html
This thread calls for: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WNGjawtP48]YouTube - Michelle Obama: "Proud of Her Country" Speech[/ame]
Lol, and I was looking forward to move to the USA I guess there´s no a gig diference between our Continents, everywhere is people that we like nad people people that that we don´t, hell I´m staying...
I hope we get a republican next who is even a bigger failure. We will, Obama the whipping boy is gonna cause a lot of damage and take the fall. Just like Bush. The next election COULD smash the left right paradigm even further.
You are right about the Taliban not being the Afghan muhajideen. But those Afghans fought a civil war and the Taliban emerged victorious, and I wouldn't be surprised if some of the weapons that were used in the civil war were from the U.S. Reagan said he would start domestic oil production because there was an energy crises at that time, yet during his two terms he substantially increased the amount of oil imported from overseas. Reagan also established a heavy military presence in the Persian Gulf, and started attacking Iran without just reason. Now the Reagan was obviously positioning the U.S. to get control of the oil there. Why else would he establish such a big military presence there? For our national security, our military budget should not exceed Every other country's military budget combined, which it does. That means if you add up all the military budgets of every single country other than the U.S., the U.S. still devotes more money to their military budget. That is bad because it's promoting violence and spending money that the U.S. doesn't have. It also adds to the dependence on foreign imports, such as oil or steel, that the U.S. needs to sustain it's military When the earthquake struck in Haiti just recently, the U.S. military landed before the Red Cross and actually stopped them from bringing supplies into the mainland for days. The U.S. military acts in places where it shouldn't, like the Persian Gulf in the 80's, and I think its because there are so many U.S. troops out there that it becomes so easy to just send a # of troops overseas somewhere.
I think Obama is a 2 term president. So many people think it's easy to just be a pres and run all sorts of shit, but democracy runs really fucking slow, especially if people purposefully stop bills and shit. It's only his second year for Christ's sake. At least he didn't let the economy explode into the abyss.
Op, yes, I've faced the same dilemma. The thing is.... what the fuck are you going to do? You have to understand something. There is a fine line.... if the majority of people are overall satisfied with their lives, there is no way they will exert any effort to changing a system that exploits them. Most people know government is corrupt, they know wall-street is fucking them in the ass, but they're not willing to miss 'dancing with the stars' to change anything. We have to wait until the line is crossed, when so many freedoms and luxuries have been taken from us, that the masses are willing to do something. O'rly? Please stfu. Obama/McCain/Bush/Gore/etc. are all the same thing. Blaming one man for all of the ignorant policies and problems the country is facing is retarded. Literally. He's a spokesman. A celeb. He works for influential (rich) people. Every president has and will, to some extent. Voting is lolable.
Another fine day here in Bizarro world, sunny with a 90% chance of idiocy. Where economies are measured not on solvency or employment, but on emissions standards.
I dont think you have an accurate grasp of what the economy would have looked like if AIG and/or Bear Stearns tanked. economies are not measured by employment or solvency in any world. in fact, i didn't even know there were varying degrees of solvency. and that an economy could be considered solvent or insolvent.
I don't think you have an accurate grasp of what the economy will look like when this propped up bubble eventually falls, which it will. Reinflating the bubble doesn't solve anything. Economic indicators. A state's economy is either solvent or insolvent, those are the two degrees of solvency. California's economy, for example, is insolvent short of selling their assets to China. The unemployment rate is a pretty common statistic, I'm surprised you've never heard of it. California has the 5th highest unemployment rate in the country at 12.5%, while West Virginia is below the national average.
And I don't think you're in a position to be judging the educational merits of anyone regarding economics.
Because no bailout = the best economy ever? What was the alternative? Give money to small business? Give it to taxpayers? Small business gets their money from the BIG banks. If the big banks didn't get a huge sum of money, then the banks would HAVE to get the money from the loans they gave out; meaning that small businesses go bankrupt, more homes are seized, and more people lose jobs. Yeah, the economy still blows, but at least it's still alive. Go take a macroeconomics class. The weather was cloudy, I live in the Pacific North West.
I'm down. Fuck corporate America. As Serj Tankian once quoted "The bottom line is money, and nobody gives a fuck!" Not only is our country's economy failing, but so is our schools, healthcare, and on goes the list, but i think our country is also loosing its self preserverience and self dignity. People these days are more concerned about Tiger Wood's affairs way more than they are with today's political problems.
you might notice that employment is what people call a "lagging indicator" economies are "measured" in terms of expansion and contraction and people use stuff like GDP and stuff? to measure those things? huh? do you know what an economy is? an "economy" doesn't have debts. governments have debts. please learn your shit before you think you know what you're talking about.
this is incorrect, credit for small businesses and consumers come from mostly from small banks and credit unions. too big to fail firms make up roughly 40-45% of lending. however, giving money to everyone is not going to work for a different reason. because there's such a thing as savings and cash which people keep and that doesn't find its way into the economy as opposed to increased government expenditure.
i dont think you're in a position to judge my judgement or, in fact, the lack thereof. or maybe you can tell me when i ever mentioned educational merits?
honestly the rhetoric i see in this thread is the same as fox pundits and people like ron paul. if that's who you'd rather subscribe to rather than facts im done with arguing.