Reply With Quote
Good catch. Meant it as 0.5%.
All true and well said.
Doesnt change my opinion in the slightest, however. There is but one way to change. Revolution, peaceful (likely) or violent (unlikely). But revolution in its purest form.
The means of change in use today are meaningless. The Tea Party has been the only real political turnabout in my lifetime (OWS is done) and all it consists of is ultra-conservative white people afraid of brown people.
So, yeah, not much has changed ultimately. If it doesnt change soon, there will be nothing left to change...well, nothing worth changing as it will be a crumpled s of its former self and be of little significance.
Greece, Persia, Rome...all fell. For not-to dissimilar reasons we may fall. Gross over-consumption, political corruption and citizen apathy drenched in elitist nationalistic nonsense.
Good catch. Meant it as 0.5%.
I'm not sure that we're going to fall for a long time, since we have so many natural resources within our borders and great barriers to invasion with two oceans protecting us. If we didn't have tons of natural gas and coal then I might have felt differently.
Honestly, it was a half ass comparison to begin with. Obviously, the mechanics of civilization today are far more conducive to longevity than they were then. Then, their main source of income was military conquest and the subjugation of the natives for slave labor at every level of society. Trade with foreign nations would have been a distant second.
The USA will fall, and by my post, I can see how one would think I was saying ti would be soon. My great-great-great-grandchildren wont see the Fall (unless nuclear war breaks out). Its many, many generations from now.
But as we let our lust for money, power and instant gratification do the thinking for our brains, we only make it harder and harder for those who come later to pick up the mess we leave.
At some point, it will become impossible to "fix" and the decline will be rapid from that point on.
Just an opinion.
"the mechanics of civilization today are far more conducive to longevity than they were then"
really? how so?
contemporary (western) civilization is more vulnerable to resource exhaustion (water, oil, energy) than earlier, less technological civilizations.
"The simulacrum is never that which conceals the truth--it is the truth which conceals that there is none. The simulacrum is true."
Baudrillard
Foreign trade networks, alliances and mutually beneficial hierarchies. Who was Rome allied with? Greece? Persia?
No one significant and only as long as it took to conquer them.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/02/ne...2/#more-138790The new do ent (American Tradition Partnership, et al., v. Attorney General of Montana, docket 11A762) is in the form of an application to put the state Supreme Court decision on hold pending a challenge in the U.S. Supreme Court, but it also asks as an alternative that the stay application be treated as a pe ion for review, that it be granted, and that the state ruling be overturned without briefing or oral argument. The state court had refused on Tuesday to delay its ruling while an appeal went forward. The application and motion were filed by attorneys for the the James Madison Center for Free Speech in Terre Haute, Ind., who also had initiated the Citizens United case.
At issue is a ruling by the Montana court on December 30, upholding a century-old state ban on the use of corporations’ own money to support or oppose any candidate in state elections. One of the dissenters in the 5-2 decision predicted that the ruling would not withstand a challenge in the Supreme Court. (The blog discussed the state court ruling in this post, providing a link to the opinion.)
The application and motion were filed with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who is the Circuit Justice for the part of the country that includes Montana — the Ninth Circuit. It will be up to Kennedy to decide whether to act alone on the controversy, or to share it with his eight colleagues.
The Montana law at issue — the Corrupt Practices Act enacted by the states’ voters in 1912 — was interpreted by the state court as a flat ban on independent spending of corporations’ internal funds to support or oppose specific candidates for state office (independent in the sense that the financial effort was not coordinated with a candidate). The measure thus was nearly identical to the ban in federal law that was struck down by the Citizens United ruling.
The Supreme Court, the state tribunal’s majority concluded, had left open the possibility that a “compelling interest” of the state would allow such a measure, and the majority found such an interest in the state’s past history and its present economic and political climate.
Three private corporations in Montana that want to spend funds independently in state elections urged Justice Kennedy, or the Court, to act swiftly, saying that “immediate relief is needed” because it is “vital that planning begin now for independent expenditures before the election.”
In suggesting that the full Court reach out and overturn the state decision without delay, the new filing argued that the state court’s “refusal to follow Citizens United” is such an obvious, blatant disregard of its duty to follow this Court’s decision that summary reversal is proper.”
"federales"= The Supreme Court of the US
Not quite what I mean. Obama wants this hige money as much as any of them. I meant his lawyers, presenting a case in a way he can spin it to lib s, but still keep large donation money.
or, you put your foot in your mouth again. who besides the SC could possibly overturn the Montana statute?
Obama didn't rule on CU, the VRWC SCOTUS did.
Wanting to compete with CU money, he needs CU money.
Due to the Repugs' total lack of excitement and enthusiasm for Willard Gecko, and with the huge advantage the in bent has, the only reason Willard Gecko could win is through massively outspending Obama.
Obama didn't rule on CU, the VRWC SCOTUS did.
Forced to compete with CU money, he needs CU money.
Due to the Repugs' total lack of excitement and enthusiasm for Willard Gecko, and with the huge advantage the in bent has, the only reason Willard Gecko could win is through massively outspending Obama.
you couldn't bring yourself to edit a single word, so you reposted the the whole thing, changing one word.
are you sweet on yourself, boutons?
so good, you had to post it twice to reflect your brilliant editing
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions