Will the U.S fall apart soon?

Rant is probably to strong of a word, he just pointed out that, since someone made a coment about his small fingers, everything on his body was of correct size.
But seriously, that debate - I have seen it - was kinda ... kindergarden would be a good describtion.
There was only one of the candiates who seemed somewhat level headed in my opinion, since he didn't either always attacked the others, actually talked about his experience and didn't always mentioned for some facts on this go to enternameheredotcom.
 
I'm not an American so not really my place to talk about the falling apart-ing of US. However, if I were to chime in with my 2 cents, I would point out that US really is different from a lot of other nations. It's based on different values then for example most European nations. The "land rush" of old and greed still seems to be at the core of US thinking. I think it's possible that there could be a civil war of some type in the States in the near future. What kind exactly I'm not sure but it's possible.

Also, another issue, personally I'd like to see US and maybe also Canada divided into at least some Native American/Canadian nations. Much of middle US and Canada are just empty of people. It would be possible for there to be native cultures and native nations there. I'm not convinced by the casinos they've founded in the reservations in the States and then say "There, they're doing ok, look there's casinos there".
 
Last edited:
America is to modernized to fall at this point, I imagine a second great depression will occur and then America will go through huge societal change, so it'll be the figurative death of the American ideology but it'll live on; kind of like most civilisations not death, change.
 
More or less, there's no other way for America to change; Trump will become president, bring more ruin to the economy, then he'll be replaced by an even bigger idiot and then somebody with some common sense will come in and fix shit, just like FDR.
Or America will spectacularly fall apart and nuke the world to oblivion and, from America's ashes will rise a slave empire and a new democratic republic and they will battle for control of the Mid-West. Ave, True to Trump.
 
Didn't Ayn Rand collect social security?
Probably, but don't tell that to a Rand disciple or they'll launch into a fifty page diatribe about how it's not true.
OK. I just find it strange considering she wrote COLOSSAL books basically saying benefits are bad.
Well, it's one thing to sell an ideology to people for money, it's another thing to die for it when you're old and infirm.

She always claimed that the state is wrong in stealing money from you to fund such programs, but that you should not refuse it if they offer to give some back. What was the alternative, leaving it to the state?

The sad thing is, you could find that out by yourself through a single google search, yet you didn't even care to challenge the thought since it fits your narrative so well.

More or less, there's no other way for America to change; Trump will become president, bring more ruin to the economy, then he'll be replaced by an even bigger idiot and then somebody with some common sense will come in and fix shit, just like FDR.
Or America will spectacularly fall apart and nuke the world to oblivion and, from America's ashes will rise a slave empire and a new democratic republic and they will battle for control of the Mid-West. Ave, True to Trump.

FDR fixed shit? Did you know that there was also a stock market crisis around 1920 which was just as serious as the one FDR "fixed", the only difference being that the government didn't meddle in private affairs, and that it was over before you knew it? The New Deal practically created the depression.

 
Last edited:
Are you blaming the stock-market crash on FDR when he took office four years after it occurred? Or was that a typo? Or am I fucking up the date at which FDR was sworn in?
Anyway the New deal had it's bumps as any major economical legislature will have, show me a major bill that didn't greatly affect people in negative and positive ways. Or correct me, I know shit all about American history so most of my knowledge comes from skimmed wikipedia articles.
 
Are you blaming the stock-market crash on FDR when he took office four years after it occurred? Or was that a typo? Or am I fucking up the date at which FDR was sworn in?
Anyway the New deal had it's bumps as any major economical legislature will have, show me a major bill that didn't greatly affect people in negative and positive ways. Or correct me, I know shit all about American history so most of my knowledge comes from skimmed wikipedia articles.

Hoover was in office when it occured, and he was also an interventionist. FDR didn't really fix shit, it's just that the story was used as another myth, much like the one about the robber barons, to serve as an excuse for government interventionism.

It's overshadowed by the great depression, but the depression of 1920 is also worth reading into. The government's response to that one was lower income taxes, it was over quickly and gave way to a prosperous decade.
 
She always claimed that the state is wrong in stealing money from you to fund such programs, but that you should not refuse it if they offer to give some back. What was the alternative, leaving it to the state?

The sad thing is, you could find that out by yourself through a single google search, yet you didn't even care to challenge the thought since it fits your narrative so well.



FDR fixed shit? Did you know that there was also a stock market crisis around 1920 which was just as serious as the one FDR "fixed", the only difference being that the government didn't meddle in private affairs, and that it was over before you knew it? The New Deal practically created the depression.

the new deal couldn't create the depression. The depression was already going on by the time FDR took office. Most of the New Deal created safety nets, social security, ways to ensure the depression wouldn't happen again. Not exactly ways to helps it out of the depression. WWII pulled the U.S out of the depression by restoring production. So I guess it was ingeniously planned and maybe a coincidence at the same time.
 
The depression is a very interesting and complicated topic. Because it is touching so many different issues. And no, the New Deal didn't end depression, however, it's importance on the US society can't be denied either. It very likely prevented a very radical change. People forget easily the violence and despair in the United States during that time. You know thousands of people used to live in shacks in Washington and protesting against the government. Who knows where this might have ended, without some serious changes and reforms.
As far as overcoming the depression goes, I guess the fact that most of the European nations have been in ruins played it's part to all of that as well. It pretty much left the US with the only working economy on a global scale. There was at least a time of 5 to 10 years after 1945 before most of the European nations like France and Germany had a chance to catch up.

She always claimed that the state is wrong in stealing money from you to fund such programs, but that you should not refuse it if they offer to give some back. What was the alternative, leaving it to the state?
No clue? Not beeing a hypocrite? Following your defintion, she was one of all those parasites, no? And she was not very intelligent either because rich = intelligent for you, as far as I can judge from previous discussions.
So I am not entirely sure why you would defend her. She could not even live up to her own standards. The best kind of people, preaching all day about abstinenze, but whoring around at night.
 
Last edited:
More or less, there's no other way for America to change; Trump will become president, bring more ruin to the economy, then he'll be replaced by an even bigger idiot and then somebody with some common sense will come in and fix shit, just like FDR.
Or America will spectacularly fall apart and nuke the world to oblivion and, from America's ashes will rise a slave empire and a new democratic republic and they will battle for control of the Mid-West. Ave, True to Trump.

Didn't JFK come in and try to "fix shit" ?

The same thing will happen to any person who tries to "fix shit", rich people assholes who own 95% of the planet will not allow anyone to "fix shit", cause these rich cunts really need 15 super cars plus that gold plated ivory back scratcher.
 
The Great Depression was essentially a case study in how unfettered global economics don't work properly and can very easily fuck up countless billions of lives when shit goes all the way wrong, but here we are a hundred years later making all of the same mistakes, shitting ourselves every time a recession happens, waiting for the next Big One, with free market zealots still jumping through hoops in order to pin the blame for the first one on the government. What a world.
 
Well, even flat earthists are making a comeback.... despite the Flat Earth belief itself not being more than a modern myth of what they believed in the age of Exploration when America was "discovered"...
 
No clue? Not beeing a hypocrite? Following your defintion, she was one of all those parasites, no? And she was not very intelligent either because rich = intelligent for you, as far as I can judge from previous discussions.
So I am not entirely sure why you would defend her. She could not even live up to her own standards. The best kind of people, preaching all day about abstinenze, but whoring around at night.

How is it hypocrisy if she never told people not to do it? She held that people who oppose the welfare state have a right to the welfare because they are letting their robbers profit doubly by refusing to take the money, while those who support it have no right to them.

Ayn Rand said:
Many students of Objectivism are troubled by a certain kind of moral dilemma confronting them in today’s society. We are frequently asked the questions: “Is it morally proper to accept scholarships, private or public?” and: “Is it morally proper for an advocate of capitalism to accept a government research grant or a government job?”

I shall hasten to answer: “Yes”—then proceed to explain and qualify it. There are many confusions on these issues, created by the influence and implications of the altruist morality.

There is nothing wrong in accepting private scholarships. The fact that a man has no claim on others (i.e., that it is not their moral duty to help him and that he cannot demand their help as his right) does not preclude or prohibit good will among men and does not make it immoral to offer or to accept voluntary, non-sacrificial assistance.

A different principle and different considerations are involved in the case of public (i.e., governmental) scholarships. The right to accept them rests on the right of the victims to the property (or some part of it) which was taken from them by force.

The recipient of a public scholarship is morally justified only so long as he regards it as restitution and opposes all forms of welfare statism. Those who advocate public scholarships, have no right to them; those who oppose them, have. If this sounds like a paradox, the fault lies in the moral contradictions of welfare statism, not in its victims.

Since there is no such thing as the right of some men to vote away the rights of others, and no such thing as the right of the government to seize the property of some men for the unearned benefit of others—the advocates and supporters of the welfare state are morally guilty of robbing their opponents, and the fact that the robbery is legalized makes it morally worse, not better. The victims do not have to add self-inflicted martyrdom to the injury done to them by others; they do not have to let the looters profit doubly, by letting them distribute the money exclusively to the parasites who clamored for it. Whenever the welfare-state laws offer them some small restitution, the victims should take it .

As for the intelligence equals wealth thing... just because someone is intelligent doesn't mean they always make the right choices in life, but there's a hell of a bigger chance that they'll make them than someone stupid. And then again, who says that her goal in life was to get rich?

Didn't JFK come in and try to "fix shit" ?

The same thing will happen to any person who tries to "fix shit", rich people assholes who own 95% of the planet will not allow anyone to "fix shit", cause these rich cunts really need 15 super cars plus that gold plated ivory back scratcher.

This whole "eat the rich" rhetoric is really tiresome. It's painfully obvious that you want the ivory back scrathcher and envy those who have it, otherwise you would just enjoy the more humble back scratcher you have now instead of bitching against the rich. Why do you think that you're entitled to one of their super cars?
 
Last edited:
"You just envy the rich!" Oh my, he has hit all the marks. He has reached South Park character level. Will he reach Garfield character next?
 
How is it hypocrisy if she never told people not to do it? She held that people who oppose the welfare state have a right to them as restitution, while those who support it have no right to them.
You know what? I wish your profession would be a Judge in court. Here's why:
How is it hypocrisy if she never told people not to do it [Cocain] ? She held that people who oppose cocain have a right to it as restitution, while those who support it have no right to drugs.

Seriously, this is not rocket science. You simply can't be the Pope, preaching about abstinence, but also a whore at night.

This whole "eat the rich" rhetoric is really tiresome. It's painfully obvious that you want the ivory back scrathcher and envy those who have it, otherwise you would just enjoy the more humble back scratcher you have now instead of bitching against the rich. Why do you think that you're entitled to one of their super cars?
Com on ... you can not be so obtuse ... no one, NO ONE here is talking about "eating the rich" or to hang them or geting medieval on their asses. And no one is talking about being entitled to super fast cars, seriously, I even grant those rich people their fast cars, their ships and planes and their diamonds or gold and such.
What we are talking about is a very specific trend in economics, where it is growing, while the middle class shrinking, we are talking about unregulated business destroying investments and money of people with their unethical behaviour, we are talking about managers who get millions of dollars for their contracts despite of ruining the company.

You know what I think is very funny? You're so quick with blaming the government and calling them who knows what, for every mistake they do or because of corruption and paying for a service YOU think is not needed. But at the same time you also keep some kind of double standard when it comes to rich people and those in charge of companies, like they are all some kind of saints. But you know what? They are people, just like you, and me, and they make mistakes too! And those mistakes can cost a lot of people their jobs, their homes and future. Don't you think that it is only fair that those, which are on the top, who get all the money for their work, should be also somewhat held accountable for the results? You can't ONLY reap the benefits and not care about the responsibility for failures. That is not how it should work.
You know, if some important NASA engineer for a space ship forgets to maintain the billion dollar rocket with 6 astronauts inside it, and it blows up because of his negligence, he will have to face some severe consequences, and he will have to answer some serious questions. He won't simply get a million dollar because the NASA terminated his contract.

Talking to you, really feels like talking with some kind of carricature who has a very hard time to grasp what this is all about.
 
Last edited:
This whole "eat the rich" rhetoric is really tiresome. It's painfully obvious that you want the ivory back scrathcher and envy those who have it, otherwise you would just enjoy the more humble back scratcher you have now instead of bitching against the rich. Why do you think that you're entitled to one of their super cars?
Don't presume to know anything about my life or my contributions to society, you have no idea what they consist of - any attempt to speculate otherwise will prove your ignorance.

I think the opposite of you, this whole "The rich people are awesome and I love the fact that I am their financial slave" way of thinking just has to stop.


Oh, and the back scratcher I purchased from these rich pricks was made of such low quality plastic [that itself was made from the "off-cuts" of the oil industry] that it BROKE the first time I used it. It also cost me about three weeks hard labor wages to pay for.

You keep on accepting EXPENSIVE CRAP products from these greedy corporations and it will get worse and worse and worse as time goes on - your/others future offspring will never know the true value of a quality product. Or freedoms in general.
 
Back
Top