Today my Archaeology teacher was talking about how every empire eventually completely caves in upon itself in one form or another, and I began to entertain the possibility that through all the protesting, arguing, and disagreement- perhaps the United States is acting accordingly.
If you consider what it will be like reading about the US 200 years from now, will its fall be that big of a surprise? The writing has been all over the wall since the 50s, and has riddled major media since the 80s.
So; is America justified in its actions to defend the empire, even if they don't come to truthful terms with them (has anyone ever?)
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-11 0:44
>>40
Means that it's not an anarcho captialist movement, but a movement to reduce government spending and interference in people's lives (read:government waste), something neither party nor government ass-lickers like yourself would ever do.
Any radical change is going to cause chaos; I'm talking about a gradual shift, and not complete in that direction anyway. Extremes tend to be lacking.
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-11 8:38
Oh no, not the middle ground fallacy again. The positions of the extremes are always informed by our current position, they are not absolute.
In any case, the fact that you're painting me as a "government ass-licker" probably means that you're more extreme than you think.
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-11 10:56
>>42
Well, you are a little government ass-licker. And people who think the government should just dissolve like that are anarcho capitalist fags. And you have to admit that you are extreme yourself. Even the staunchest liberals in my country admit that government can be a horrible waste and a useless beaurocracy. You have some airy fairy view of them as perfect responsible citizens, which they are; but only when it's stuff that people will remember next election cycle.
We shouldn't have such humongous groups of people controlling us, corporate or government. That's why I believe in letting them constantly contradict each other. It lets us have a normal life.
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-11 16:11
Holy shit Mr. >>42! Mr. >>43 called you an >airy fairy! Ohhhh snap! Are you going to take that? You JUST GOT SERVED!
>>47
Damn straight. Now bend over you world4ch bitch.
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-12 8:55
>>36
How does a coutry thrive better with the government having control over the market rather than a free economy?
Government does nothing great, and does few things well. Please explain your communistic logic...
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-12 10:20
>>49
GOVERNMENT CARES FOR PEOPLE, IT FEEDS THE HOMELESS LITTLE NIGGERS WHO OTHERWISE CAN'T FEED THEMSELVES ARE YOU A RACIST?
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-12 11:37
Bush doesn't care about Black people.
unf
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-12 17:34
So you should just be a little myrmidon and let the government control every aspect of your life? Anyone in this country who can't feed themselves one way or another is a lazy bum. If you're in poverty, it's your own damn fault. Aside from physical or mental handicaps, there's no excuse for it. BAM, the truth hurts, kids.
What's the opposite of laziness? Industriousness? Mindless industriousness is bad too; there are limits to the necessities of production for most goods. Like most things in life, the rational person would advocate the middle way.
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-13 4:59
>>49
During the 60s the US had the highest rates of growth. It also had the most government. After the 80s you get Greenspan and his laissez-faire free market policies, and stock market bubbles and debt.