That's what I said, dipshit.
Read much?
You're becoming more irrelevant by the minute.
food riots by 2012?
- Thread starter dumb_mother
- Start date
That's what I said, dipshit.
Read much?
You're becoming more irrelevant by the minute.
True. If your parents had done so, this board would be much brighter
You can read???
That's hard to believe!
There were references to China earlier in the thread... those jokers have a long way to go to be the world power they are played up to be.... they have raw sewage in 80% of their waterways for openers.
they've gone through so much trouble to keep their currency low, why the heck would they reverse until their internal economy gets going? they seen what happened to japan in 85...
the pressure on the USD will come from the other areas anyways
Quote from achilles28:
You can read???
That's hard to believe!
When you post, I sometimes wish I forgot how to read. You say less with your words than just about anyone except stock_trad3r. The sad thing is, you don't realize it.
Why would anyone choose to live in an area where food shortages, riots, criminal class rule, etc. could affect their enjoyment of life? If you sincerely believe such a thing is coming, then take prudent action, like getting the hell out of the city?
True, except they have 1bn 300 million people..so their perception of improvement is not the same.
Given they don't have the same perception, they won't stop from pushing US on the edge if it can insure their internal population is looking away from their problems.
Manipulating a population for it, to fight the wrong ennemy is pretty common.
But that should be considered like 20% chance of happening.
More worrying is something we cant control, permanent flooding in bangladesh because of rising sea water, super-virus in Nigeria, Iran mullah feel stuck with doing nuclear bomb to fulfill the prophecy..
Or simply, uranium shortage, food inflation in the summer, hyper-inflation because politician see that growth wont comeback..and they buy time by flooding the market with money with poor values.
No, you said that the anti-federalists opposed ratification of the first draft of the Constitution because of the Bill of Rights.
The reality is that they opposed ratification of the final version of the Constitution because they were opposed to what it proposed; a stronger central government.
They were also opposed to it's definition of the federal judicial system. In the end, the subsequent Bill of Rights was a compromise that was reached in order to get the Constitution ratified.
You also said that it was obvious to anyone that the Constitution was designed to thwart a Tyranny of the Minority, and that is also incorrect.
As I previously mentioned, the Constitution was actually the country's second constitution. It's why they wrote in it "in order to effect a more perfect union."
They recognized that the first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, was not going to keep the country glued together because it had already started to fracture only 10 years into its existence.
Also, it was the anti-federalists who opposed a tyranny of the elite (which your incorrectly applied as something the federalists feared).
In reality, what the federalists feared was a tyranny of the majority, which is why we have a representative democracy at the federal level.
However, they let the states have the decision to implement a direct democracy within their respective constitutions.