PDA

View Full Version : The End of America



Hoebawt
11-16-2007, 03:09
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjALf12PAWc


Discuss.....

Satan666
11-16-2007, 17:44
47 mins is too long. i got 2 mins in and gave up.

Mr President
11-16-2007, 17:47
lol.. i got about 4 before i clicked out.

perhaps Hoe could give us a run down of the point she is getting at.. :P

Satan666
11-16-2007, 17:49
your implying that he watched and understood, nice one Pres.

ooga booga
11-16-2007, 18:22
Not in a million years did hoe even watch this video. 47 minutes of who knows what... ya... right.

Hoebawt
11-16-2007, 19:49
Wow you guys really are something... Yes i watched this video and ive watched many others...

Before i go on and explain wat her Point is... Does anyone know wat teh North Amercian Union is? or for that matter wat the Amero is?

Crimson Shadow
11-16-2007, 20:46
No.....

....and like the others, there is no way I will make it 2 minutes through a 47 minute lecture.

Hoebawt
11-16-2007, 20:52
The vid really isnt that bad she does prove a few good points.....

Crimson Shadow
11-16-2007, 23:08
She might....but I don't want to sit and listen to her prove them.

Hoebawt
11-16-2007, 23:48
Thats one of the reasons our country is headed in the direction it is coz alot of dont wanna spend time to just listen...

Crimson Shadow
11-17-2007, 09:16
Listen to some random person go on about how America is ending?

Hoebawt
11-17-2007, 12:43
Shes nto just a random person.... if u would give the vid a chance u might open you eyes a bit and realized wats going on....

Satan666
11-17-2007, 14:36
well as long as Bush is in power, i don't doubt it. Hopefully the next one will fix things.

Hoebawt
11-17-2007, 14:49
thats wat this vid is about... that there might not be a next one....

ranger2112
11-17-2007, 16:21
democrat's are desperate enough to use this mess to "scare" us into voting them into office. I WATCHED THE WHOLE THING...i can take any situation and "show" any parallel and outcome i want with proper wording. MS Wolf is another version of that fat guy...u know who Micheal Moore...what a waste of flesh

ooga booga
11-17-2007, 18:19
I'm busy enough with my time listening to professors lecture about useless crap, I don't need another lecturer with useless crap wasting me time. :p

Forgive me if I don't believe that America is "ending" lol.

Hoebawt
11-17-2007, 18:49
What about the North Amercian Union... how bush did that wit out the consent of Congress or the Senate or the ppl?

Hoebawt
11-17-2007, 18:51
democrat's are desperate enough to use this mess to "scare" us into voting them into office. I WATCHED THE WHOLE THING...i can take any situation and "show" any parallel and outcome i want with proper wording. MS Wolf is another version of that fat guy...u know who Micheal Moore...what a waste of flesh

Who said anything about democrats? they are just as bad in my eyes....

Why is Micheal Moore a waste of flesh?

Satan666
11-17-2007, 19:30
well as a democrat, I don't care who the next president is republican or democrat or other, I just want someone to bring us back to where we should be. I guess the reason I say this is because I know that I have heard the other republicans not supporting Bush so much and that made me feel better that its not that he is a republican that I don't like him its that he's doing a bad job.

ranger2112
11-19-2007, 17:04
Who said anything about democrats? they are just as bad in my eyes....

Why is Micheal Moore a waste of flesh?

he is an ignorant manipulator. his video is half truths and bits and pieces of truths twisted to show "his" point of view. and for the record, i am glad President Bush is not up for reelection since I am not too sure I would vote for him again.

ranger2112
11-19-2007, 17:05
well as a democrat, I don't care who the next president is republican or democrat or other, I just want someone to bring us back to where we should be. I guess the reason I say this is because I know that I have heard the other republicans not supporting Bush so much and that made me feel better that its not that he is a republican that I don't like him its that he's doing a bad job.

President Bush is losing backers because of a few reasons...mainly because he is a lame duck president. no shot of being reelected and a few want his position so the best way to "look good" is to distance yourself from him. many Democrats did the same towards the end of clinton's administration.

Mr President
11-19-2007, 17:13
well as a democrat, I don't care who the next president is republican or democrat or other, I just want someone to bring us back to where we should be. I guess the reason I say this is because I know that I have heard the other republicans not supporting Bush so much and that made me feel better that its not that he is a republican that I don't like him its that he's doing a bad job.

This is where we have gone wrong. What we do is elect someone and say fix it! What we don't do is, listen to the people and what they have to say and then hold them accountable for the promises they made while running for this job.

With all due respect, it is not a Presidents job to fix this country. It is the people who live here to fix it. And to do this, we better start paying attention to what these freaks who run for office are saying and doing.

@ ranger, you are 100% correct. It's no different than when someone changes what football team they like each year by whoever is doing the best. Politicians do the same thing. if the majority doesn't like someone, then all of a sudden they don't like them. All the do is cover there own butts and then say "what the American people want".. How the hell do these guys know what we want when they don't listen to us?

I'll watch the video hoe, i just haven't had the time to free up yet..

ranger2112
11-19-2007, 17:17
Prez, i can sum it up for you....President Bush is Hitler and Mussolini evil cousin and is turning the USA into a Fascist country. according to this lady, Bush will never get out of office because he will "create" a national emergency to keep himself in office. I watched it all through and through and wasnt even kind of close to being swayed by this Michael Moore in a dress.

Hoebawt
11-19-2007, 17:19
again.... nuff said

Satan666
11-21-2007, 03:41
Prez, i can sum it up for you....President Bush is Hitler and Mussolini evil cousin and is turning the USA into a Fascist country. according to this lady, Bush will never get out of office because he will "create" a national emergency to keep himself in office. I watched it all through and through and wasnt even kind of close to being swayed by this Michael Moore in a dress.

yeah i heard from one of my friends about that. for lack of a better way to say this he is bring up dirt and trying to make other countries fight against eachother and cause a world war to stay in office. Not sure how much is true, but hope if that is the case it doesn't happen.

Hoebawt
11-21-2007, 05:24
How about how know he can overrule a Governor's Control of the National Guard?

it might all be a coincidence... but for the first time ever The Executive Branch has alot more power over the other two...... I hope its just BS but how do we really know?..

Crimson Shadow
11-21-2007, 07:24
Because we have a system called "Checks and Balances" and a document called the Constitution. They won't allow the president to stay in for more than his allotted time.

Satan666
11-21-2007, 16:39
well Crimson you have a point, only thing is that Bush believes that if a huge war happens (much like WWII) he can stay in office until the end of it. FDR was president from 1933 to 1945 when he died, thus he would have been president until the war was over but died. And thats the precedence that he would use to explain why he can stay in office.

Crimson Shadow
11-21-2007, 17:23
Actually before and up to FDR there was no restrictions on Presidential terms. He won 4 consecutive elections which just so happened to take place during WWII. (1933-1945)

FDR was the president who urged congress to pass a 2 term office.

ranger2112
11-21-2007, 18:31
How about how know he can overrule a Governor's Control of the National Guard?

it might all be a coincidence... but for the first time ever The Executive Branch has alot more power over the other two...... I hope its just BS but how do we really know?..

Katrina is a prime example, because he could NOT usurp a Governor's powers he had to wait three days to send in troops to help the victims.

Satan666
11-21-2007, 21:09
Actually before and up to FDR there was no restrictions on Presidential terms. He won 4 consecutive elections which just so happened to take place during WWII. (1933-1945)

FDR was the president who urged congress to pass a 2 term office.


well Crimson you have a point, only thing is that Bush believes that if a huge war happens (much like WWII) he can stay in office until the end of it. FDR was president from 1933 to 1945 when he died, thus he would have been president until the war was over but died. And thats the precedence that he would use to explain why he can stay in office.

yeah but he thinks that this loophole is still open. like you think he actually got real grades or was actually in the military.

Crimson Shadow
11-21-2007, 21:17
He can "believe" all he wants...but the Constitution WILL NOT allow him to stay in office....unless perhaps he has 100% congress backing, because of a national crisis. But in the extremely rare chance that this happens, his presidency won't be extended by more than 6 months....I mean you would have a better chance of buying 1 lottery ticket and winning 200m than his term being extended.

And can you prove that he "believes" that he can stay in office, or is it just your personal opinion?

Hoebawt
11-21-2007, 22:57
Katrina is a prime example, because he could NOT usurp a Governor's powers he had to wait three days to send in troops to help the victims.


Katrina wouldnt have been so bad if our NG wasnt on the other side of the world :dblthumbup:

ranger2112
11-21-2007, 23:04
there were plenty of people still here. but u decided to ignore the actual post

Hoebawt
11-22-2007, 00:52
he shouldnt have had to wait 3 days..... the troops should have been there and they should have help prepare the city for the storm.... but they werent why coz of this damm war

Mr President
11-22-2007, 11:32
The war had nothing to do with Katrina. If maybe the people of NO actually left when they were told to leave then they never would have been trapped.
But they like many others didn't think the storm was going to be as bad as it was.

Also how about if the NOPD actually stuck around instead of bailing out. They all went A-wall on there jobs.

FEMA was the biggest problem. They did not train well enough for a event that size, so they were way unprepared. There was still plenty of NG.

Now i'm not saying that i agree that there are too many NG over in Iraq, i'm simply saying that even if we had all the NG we needed you would not have seen much difference. Actually i think you would have seen things worse cause then there would have been thousands more guards not knowing what to do.

And my last thought, perhaps if SOME of the people in NO were more interested in helping others instead of stealing TV's and other things from
abandon store fronts, then maybe that would have helped things too. You can't lay this all on GW and the war in Iraq.

Mr President
11-22-2007, 11:40
Actually i do have one more thing to add.. It is not the Government of the United States job to support people in NO. Yes help them get back on there feet, but SOME of these people expect that the govt should buy them a new house and give them thousands of dollars cause they lost everything.

here is my point. If you live by the ocean and you know Hurricanes happen then YOU are the one who is taking the chance. We can't stop hurricanes
from happening.

I'm all for helping people get back up some, but sooner or later they need to take control. If my house burns down am i suppose to go to the Govt and ask them to buy me a new house and give me money cause they didn't prevent the fire?

Of course we all felt bad for what happened to them down there. That is why Americans gave millions to help them out. But there are still people saying the Govt owes them a new home.

Blame it on the levy's breaking. But still if you live that close to water then you are taking a chance on losing all you own. It's your gamble!

BB
11-22-2007, 12:26
could not have said it better myself... way to go pres

Mwahahahaha
11-24-2007, 21:26
If your home disappeared due to Katrina, wouldn't insurance pay for that? Or did they have some clever clauses in fine print against that?

Or were people so dumb that they thought nothing could ever happen and that insurance was a waste of money.

Building new homes in New Orleans should be a good way of employing a suffering home building industry these days. It's not like they're swamped with work..........

Mr President
11-25-2007, 12:43
Good points.

Last i heard about the insurance claims was there were so many that a lot
of the insurance companies were going bankrupt cause they couldn't keep up
with the claims. hence why the rest of us American's are paying such high
insurance prices..

BB
11-25-2007, 13:47
well look at all the folks who had no insurance at all and there getting government aide now for new homes

Mwahahahaha
11-30-2007, 19:47
Macroeconomic management. It's not such a bad thing. Keynes who came up with it was a genious, and even though I as most others these days generally lean towards Friedman, I think that Keynesian politics are a good solution in a situation like this.

It's not about what share of the cake others get, it's about how big you bake the cake, and instead of letting an important industry suffer, with resulting bankrupcies and layoffs, I think it's better to reach them a hand with work benefitting unfortunate individuals who has been hit by a catastrophy.

It will give a much needed boost to a struggling part of the economy, something which should benefit the nation as a whole, even though certain people may not deserve it. Think of it not as a handout towards morons, but rather a step against recession. The money is better spent on homes in New Orleans than bombs in Iraq, and that's from an economic perspective.

Mr President
11-30-2007, 21:02
I agree to a point. I'm all for helping people get back on there feet, but having to buy them a new house cause THEY chose to live next to the ocean is outrageous.

Yes give them a break on interest rates. Help them with current mortgage loans by extending terms or lowering interest rates on them too, but many of these people feel the US Govt should pay off all there debt and put them in a new home.

I also agree with homes instead of bombs. Look at how much money has been spent on this war, but yet 35% of Americans go hungry cause they can't afford to buy food. I'm sorry, but in todays world not ONE person should go hungry.

Again i'm all for helping, but i also believe that if you are able to work then you need to work. No matter what the job is. I'm tired of working my tail off and then going to a grocery store where people use food stamps to buy food but yet they are wearing new expensive shoes or a fur coat or nice jewelry and drive a nicer car than i do. As a middle class American i'm tired of footing the bill for everyone else. Now if a single mother or father or even a married couple is working and trying hard to make ends meet, then i have no problem with helping them out. At least they are trying!

I know that most of the people in New Orleans are doing the best they can trying to get there lives back together. But there are many that feel they are owed something.

Mwahahahaha
12-07-2007, 19:42
Obviously.

There are several considerations here.

The point I was arguing was that the building industry is struggling. Mainly because of a property boom which had to end.. The real value of properties (adjusted for inflation)) hadn't changed from about 1900 to the end of the nineties. Then it skyrocketed due to several factors, including giving cheap teaser loans to people who should never have been lent money. Now that the bubble has burst, no one is going to buy the overpriced homes that were built due to that. Obviously few people will pay lots of money to build a new home, when there's plenty of cheap used dwellings around. As a result, the home building industry is suffering, and they will continue doing so for a long time. Businesses will go bankrupt and people will lose their jobs. Sure, the american economy is one of the most flexible in the world, and people will eventually find new jobs elsewhere, but it when the housing market bottoms out, there will be a great shortage of businesses with the capacity to build new homes creating a huge pressure on the costs of building at that time.

Instead of suffering the cycle of boom and busts, the builders can be stimulated. There is a need for housing in New Orleans, but the capital is not there to pay for the creation of them. Obviously giving someone a brand new home for free is a bit too much. Most people spend 20 years or more using most of their disposable income before they actually own their own home, so giving that out for free is too much of a handout, but a generous financing plan towards these people enabling them to get back on their feet should be an option.

As for reducing the interest rates, I'm against it, as related to my comment from the financial times. The long period of artificially low interest rates is what caused the bubble to begin with, and more of that is not something that will solve any problems. The lower interest rates applies to everyone and will only cause bubbles in other parts of the economy.

The interesting question however, is who deserves it, and that is a difficult question that is hard to answer and hard to find a solution to. The better your social safety net is, the more people will use it. Few people has problems aiding someone who works hard and tries their best to make a better living for themselves, and by that stimulates the economy and pays taxes, but putting up a system for this that works is a headache which would probably give you a nobel prize if you solve it. A good social safety nets has the unfortunate effect that it creates more social clients. Some people may face so called bad luck, and enters a situation where they for a limited time need aid. It is in the societies interest to help them get back on their feet, and from a moral perspective it would be cruel for the society to leave these people on their own. On the other hand, aiding these people will create new social clients. People, who lack the understanding of how the society works, who lack the personal pride to take the responsibility for their own lives and the lives of their families, and instead sits on their asses waiting for the government, and indirectly on everyone else in their nation to fix their problems. As a person with a marginal tax rate of 53% I have little sympathy for these people. Finding the solution or even the balance on this is a tough question, which I wish I had the answer to, but I don't.

I wouldn't have a problem with my tax money going to hard working people who lost everything in a natural catastrophy, but I have no interest in helping people who are not interested in helping themselves.

Mr President
12-07-2007, 19:52
I wouldn't have a problem with my tax money going to hard working people who lost everything in a natural catastrophy, but I have no interest in helping people who are not interested in helping themselves.


Couldn't put it better myself. :dblthumbup:

ranger2112
12-08-2007, 10:44
i think it is funny how some people say give those who had no insurance aid...so lets help the ones who did not want to help themselves??? if you paid your insurance then deal with them, if you didnt then here is some of MY money to give you a new house...especially since most of the homes in question were rather rickety anyways...bull feces... pay your insurance get a new home, no insurance here is a nice cozy box.

Mwahahahaha
12-16-2007, 01:22
Well, natural selection would work in a way.

If no aid is offered, you're stuck with a bunch of people left with nothing. Not only in terms of material wealth, but also nothing in terms of hope and willingness to strive for a better life. If everything you own disappears in "bad luck", your motivation to start again is gone.

However, if you offer them a generous financing plan which gives them an opportunity on getting back on their feet, they will have an incentive to work and through that again become productive members of the society. If you leave them to themselves, you're stuck with a large group of people who would leave the conventions generally accepted by the society and instead tend towards unlawful activities.

Of course, I am insured, but if I suddenly was faced with a situation where everything I've worked for all these years was gone and no one offered any assistance, I doubt I would go back to work as if nothing had happened. I would start looking for shortcuts. Legal or not, if society has nothing to offer, I wouldn't feel any responsibility to give anything back. After all, that is what the current society is built upon. Through cooperation, we are able to emjoy a greater standard of living for all members of society. If this equation breaks down, you're left with oppression, perceived or real. From the societies perspective, that is not important. You need to have the common people believing in that. If not, you're left with anarchy.

Mwahahahaha
12-21-2007, 18:41
Well, since no one is interested in discussion anymore (or more likely those who are interested are banned), I'll discuss it on my own pretending that someone cared. An illustration.

Let's say you're playing monopoly, but you're not starting from scratch. All spots are taken, except for those two crappy ones at the start. You'll go round and round the board, hoping to avoid the other persons hotels, but simple probability tells you that the chances of that are f... all.

The rules are clear, you're doomed to walk around paying whatever you have and get to the people who's got it made. Will you bother continue?

Real life; you've spent half your life obeying the laws trying to build up something for a better life for yourself and your family, then it's all washed away. The law says you have to go back to scratch continueing to work as an indentured servant getting minimum wage so that those above you can continue to profit from your labour. Where's your motivation? You've spent half your life getting a small bone, are you going to spend the rest of your life trying to get back to that pitiful existance? From that person's viewpoint you'll have a significant divergence between your own subjective perspective of right and wrong and what the society has declared as law. If the laws of the society has nothing to offer you in your time of need, why should you offer anything back or even follow these laws?

The societies laws are made, or at least should be made, to improve the lives of the people subject to it. If you're on the wrong side of that equation, what should those laws mean to you?

Sure, if you could just take up any spot of land, and start a new life there, growing the crops you need to survive, things would be different, but all possesions are dealt already.

If nothing is given, then you'll have a sizeable population faced with the option of being a slave for the society, or take whatever can be taken.