@TG:
to some extent, i guess. Although from what i read, the “shot heard around the world” didn’t really need to be fired. The rest kind of snowballed . . . .
Yeah, it would be much better if Britain remained the mother country to the States… :roll: Wonderful.
i was talking about the actual incident - not the need for the US to separate itself from Britain. Also we seem to have done ok w/ Britain the mother country to Canada . . . same w/ Australia . . . .
ok, i’m no genius, but it seems that someone’s trying to make a point here . . .
Hands up!!! who is it??
i was talking about the actual incident
So the Brits should Confiscated all weapons?
Well, if only those that are angry vote, then it is surprising that your system works at all. Imagine:
I am angry, i vote a party to change as much as possible (assuming such a party exists in the US ). The ones who don’t want change, don’t vote.
Who will get the majority in the parliament? If only those who complain vote…. then i really wonder!
Yes, plus the educated people who actually care about the issues. Of course youngsters are stupid, they think they can change the world only by protest. What percentage of young adults vote again?
How does GDP translate
Gross Domestic Product.
Through the area they ruled.
And those areas did not rise up in revolt? No spirit of the conuqered?
Plus: Most of the smartest brains in the US have been imported (just like Rome had to do in the later times)…. difficult, but still i cannot see any evidence that the US will dominate this planet for the rest of humankinds time.
It called being smart.
Sure, just by definition conquering empires don’t collapse, that’s more than a rule of thumb. Look at Alexander the great: As soon as he died during his conquests his empire crumbled away.
And saying that is saying China declined for most of its time, or (West) Rome declined for 360 years, after your logic. Not counting Byzantine, which declined much longer, didn’t it (should be about 800 years, after your logic)? The 250 year decline of the Ottomans of course should not be forgotten.
So when US begins its evitable decline, where will it be? Among the poorest nations of the world?
@F_alk:
@Deviant:Scripter:
It’s only ignorance …
they’re the ones who are ignorant …
Have you ever stopped to think that they’re ignorant…?We live in the most just and fair country on this planet. It’s this way … simply becuase of religious beliefs. We support leaders … and knock down those who wish to oppress us.
See what i mean, DS? Please, if you quote, take care that you don’T quote out of context…. And i was so kind to put "…"s in where i cut your text away.
Hehe, that quote almost works better than my original :wink:
It’s all good F_alk, I apologize. :)
sniff . . . the love . . .
its all so BEAUTIFUL . . . sniff sniff
:D
@TG:
[
Read the buisness cycle: areas of recession -> high unemployment, areas of economic boom -> low unemployment
During “regular” periods (economy still grows but not as high > 3%) you’ll be hard pressed to find US unemployment +5%
well in canada we have in some plaes 18 % unemployment but we are making a lot of new jobs
aww that 18% is just Newfoundland. Here in Manitoba it’s down around/<5%.
That the U.S. will eventually fall is common sense.
However, I believe that the U.S. is still in the expanding stage of empire.
I see many parallels between the U.S. now and Rome shortly before the Punic Wars (or maybe during)
thus your “Carthage and Rome” reference
@TG:
How does GDP translate
Gross Domestic Product.
thanks
Through the area they ruled.
And those areas did not rise up in revolt? No spirit of the conuqered?
some did, some didn’t. Most of the time, from what i remember, they didn’t.
So when US begins its evitable decline, where will it be? Among the poorest nations of the world?
Surely not. Such a global destabilization is in no ones interest. None of the dominating powers since 1500 is among the poorest anymore……
@Deviant:Scripter:
Hehe, that quote almost works better than my original :wink:
It’s all good F_alk, I apologize. :)
grins … i hoped i could make a better one, but you didn’t supply me with the words i wanted :D
so, no worries :)
Surely not. Such a global destabilization is in no ones interest. None of the dominating powers since 1500 is among the poorest anymore……
Then what are you suggesting?
@TG:
Surely not. Such a global destabilization is in no ones interest. None of the dominating powers since 1500 is among the poorest anymore……
Then what are you suggesting?
the US will be the next Spain, or Holland if its lucky . . . :)
or portugal
@TG:
Surely not. Such a global destabilization is in no ones interest. None of the dominating powers since 1500 is among the poorest anymore……
Then what are you suggesting?
I suggest to take a look at where the former superpowers (since 1500) stand now.
Were the superpowers of 1500 the sizeand population of the United States?
bigger (russia)
@TG:
Were the superpowers of 1500 the sizeand population of the United States?
sigh Come on TG…. tell me what you aim at, but don’t play dumb…
of course the superpowers at that time where fewer… but there was no artificial fertilizer available, and no phones, cars, computers etc…
The world has changed, true.
But: The world has got faster in more or less everything (called exponential growth … in knowledge, worldwide population etc). I don’t see how you can explain a permanent domination of one country on this basis. Rather i would expect that the rate of change in superpowers will become faster as well…
sigh Come on TG…. tell me what you aim at, but don’t play dumb…
What I am trying to say is that US will remain a superpower given its considerable size.
Rather i would expect that the rate of change in superpowers will become faster as well…
Rate of change?
