The future of the United States

Post Reply New Topic

Detroit used to be The Land of the Proles. Now look at it. Whatever the Labor Unions touch turns to dreck.

ruveyn

The labor unions? I thought it was the pimps, hos, drug dealers, arsonists, rapists, and crooked officials. My bad.

If it were not for the corrupt labor unions, Detroit would not have fallen upon the hard times that befell it. The combination of the U.A.W. and corrupt badly run corporations like G.M. killed the American auto industry. And that is why Detroit turned to Sh*t.

The ho's and the pimps get a hold of the city when it is in decline.

ruveyn

A good bit of the world's countries hate the US right now (not new), and with congress being unable to get their heads in the game and actually fix something for once, it honestly wouldn't surprise me if a good bit of the world united in order to conquer us. The worst thing is, they'd probably succeed too.

Congress needs to get their heads out of their *sses, stop bickering over stupid crap, and actually think about the people for the first time in 30 years, or it just won't end well.

Democracy at this point is dead, the people haven't had a real choice in how the country is run in over 30 years. The only reason a presidential "election" is even held is to keep people who are too stupid to realize what is going on, oblivious to reality. I mean, seriously it's so obvious it's not even funny. There are drones in the skies of the US to survey and track civilians, their excuse was "to catch criminals" ,bullsh*t, that's what choppers are for, you don't need drones that have the option to be armed with missiles to find some guy that probably isn't even a federal criminal, that's a waste of resources and money that the government should be using to help the middle class recover from this economic crap. Not to mention new laws that make internet privacy laws all but non-existant, security cameras at every street corner, new laws that state what kind of weapons and ammo law abiding citizens can own and how much. I mean, come on the only thing missing at this point is the lack of privacy in the home (which is quickly being demolished by companies like Microsoft with their camera devices and "required internet connection" for certain products to even be used). Does anyone not think that this sounds like a military take over? Or at the very least militarization/martial law over the people? Seriously, some people need to step back and think for a second "just how much power has the government taken from the people in the last, even 10 years?". And they do this using loopholes in the constitution of the united states so that the people don't have any "legal" means of calling them out on it.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist (about governmental takeover), but even I have stepped back and wondered what the deal is with it all. Sure, they can say it's for [insert yadda yadda here], but honestly most of their reasons are only excuses to ensure that their laws pass and it's at the expense of our privacy and personal safety against them, should they suddenly decide to use "secret police" (I wouldn't put it past them at this point).

The future of the US is quite clear to me, it will either become a powerhouse for the rich where everyone else is governed entirely by those in power, or be taken down by it's own people or possibly another country. In the end, it's going to boil down to congress and it's crap.

I'm sorry if my views offend anyone, but this is my opinion based on what I've seen. It will only change if I see real progress (which will not happen because there is a steady consistancy in events that tell me otherwise), no-one here can convince me otherwise so if you were planning to try, don't.

If they tried they would fail. And besides we are feeding the world. The U.S. has nukes. It cannot be conquered. We can be destroyed but that would take civilization down world wide.

Let the world hate us. They will still eat our food.

ruveyn

A country is not necessarily conquered through violence.
The rest of the world would still go turning, even if the US was obliterated by nukes.

well said! i couldn't agree with you more!

That it would and it would put the world back before the time of the industrial revolution.

The U.,S. would use nukes even if it meant the end of the human race.

Which is why we cannot be conquered. Killed yes. Destroyed yes;. Never conquered.

ruveyn

If the US was destroyed, there are at least 3 other leading powers with the same (or better) technological advancements to take over. In fact, most of our technology isn't even american, it's japanese. So i can say with confidence that the world would not be set back as far as before the industrial revolution.



That's part of the problem, everyone else thinks this as well, and that's why they want the US gone, because they feel that the US government is basically using fear to spread tyranny across the world with a singular goal in mind by using the threat of nuclear war.

If fear is what it takes then so be it.

So, you then condone imposing law on other countries through fear? You condone tyranny?
Since when did America become old britain, to which our forefathers fought for freedom against such tyranny?
They'd be rolling in their graves if they could see what America has become, with this sort of mentality.
Have we not learned by now, the price that is continually paid because of needless bloodshed over fear and intimidation?

Hearing this today has only confirmed my observations: The world is as childish now as it was 2000 years ago, and people are either too stupid, or too ignorant to learn that it all has to change if any real progress is to be made. If people really want peace, they have to grow up.

It is supposed to reflect the future of america obviously, as that is what the thread title suggests this thread is about.

Have you always been this dense? Or is it your old age?

WOW. Kindred spirit.

I was really into politics. I largely lost interest when I came to the very same conclusion. Majoring in Mass Communications and Political Science in college, I KNOW how political campaigns are supposed to be run. Bush, Sr. v. Bill Clinton...Clinton v. Dole...Bush, Jr. v. Gore...Bush, Jr. v. Kerry...McCain v. Obama...Obama v. Romney. Every one of those elections were pretty much rigged from day one to push a desired outcome. None of them were the people picking the best and brightest to be President. Even a democratic leader in Wyoming commented about the 2000 election by saying, "Bush or Gore...are these really the best we can find to run for office?"

Elections are expensive theater to make the lemmings think they have a choice. Even if the less-preferred person wins, the people running the game know they can work with him. Someone like Ron Paul is demonized from day one because they know he can't be controlled. If someone like Ron Paul was elected in spite of all their machinations to the contrary, you know he'd wind up assassinated within 6 months.

I wouldnt agree on that. I mentioned before, that I believe that the time of big invasions are gone, because of the atombomb. Hidden wars, trade wars, rebell wars, yes...but open gigantic supercountry wars for territory: No.

Simply because all the supercountries already have atombombs, and there is simply no benefit to win, when fighting with atombombs. "Horray, I have won. So our enemies territory is completly in the ass, 50% of their neighbors territory who hate us now for the next 5 centuries, and half of our own territory is destroyed for living in the next tousend years. - Hooray!" There is simply no sense in doing a war, that you dont have any benefit from it.

In the end in all countries and nations, anyway which government system there is someone who has to order that. Just like Kennedy and Chruschtschow during the Cuba crisis. And cold war, different ideologys and government systems anyway: None of them both wanted to be responsible for ruining two countries. (Because anyway who have one, both countries would have been in the ass in the end.) millions of deaths, only because of some political disagreement. Its simply not worth it. So as long as there are people with at last two functioning brain cells in the end responsible for an atom war, there will be none.

An atomwar is simply so ruining for both sides doing it, anyway who wins,, that there never can be reason for it. There is simply no benefit to do that for a f*****g small island or oil territories or an dumb tyrant or trade benefits or whatever. Even chinese politicians said inofficial that there never will be a war between the US and north corea, cause before China risks that the USA strikes north corea as revenge with atom bombs at the chinese border, they rather invade north corea themselves instantly, not caring for communism brotherland, truce between china and north corea or whatever.

Beside the two in Japan I dont see any atombomb ever used in an official war, simply because two minutes after you brought yours on the way, there will be already coming some in return for you. What I would care about are terrorists and not official groups. Because of them not being stationary, they can risk to attack with such things, because when you have no home anyway, then you also cant care for it being destroyed in return.

Nuke 'em until they glow and use their asses for runway lights.