Uh, I meant the 1% who doesn't follow cultural mainstream and is very sceptical what media is saying.

Richard Nixon wasn't that bad.

(Comparatively to the last 3 presidents we've had)

I am in favour of increasing the length of United Statesian presidential terms, as long as they have overall majority representation in the senate, until death do us part.

The USA with a monarch is no USA at all. I'd rather strap a bomb to my chest then see a king in the White House.

Edited 9/5/2015 23:53:09

MGSB: wouldn't it be better to say, rebel against the hypothetical monarch than commit suicide?

The term PC is a bit useless. There are people who are jerks (who whine about people being PC when they can no longer get away with saying crap), and others who are overly sensitive about extremely trivial things that are completely beside the point. You never know which it is when someone complains about something being PC. Sometimes, people are even being a bit PC when calling something/someone PC.

Crap happens. It sucks, but learning to deal with it and with people who disagree with you is part of life. Being kind and considerate isn't PC, but don't be so sensitive on behalf of someone else (or yourself) that you shut down discussions that need to happen.

Edited 9/6/2015 01:28:10

Well the hypothetical is: commit suicide or have a monarch. If the US did suddenly have a monarch then rebellion would be the way to go, but the hypothetical is different.

If I was a socialist, I would kill myself

Enough read already. Don't go to Sweden.

Also, parliamentary kingdom best ruling system (really, I mean it, in today's politic world). The European countries (that still even have kings) have unfortunately reduced their kings to little more than diplomats.

Edited 9/6/2015 02:15:39

Sigh...

the only way of making the poor richer is by making the rich richer, and if you make the rich poorer you will force the poor poorer.

So you're saying if we take money from the poor and give it to the rich, money will magically appear in the hands of the poor?

Under your logic, there can never be any variance in the gap between rich and poor. Explain to me this logic please? How does one make the rich richer, where does the money come from?

Edited 9/6/2015 02:54:37

money is printed.

It is far from being that simple.
Your biggest problem would be inflation, which is already bad enough...

Well the money we usually transact with is worthless. So technically just about 99% of the population is poor paper currency or not. And 99%is being generous. I doubt many people own solid gold.

Your logic is flawed. In reality, solid gold is just as worthless as paper money.

Material only has the value we give it as a society.

Edited 9/6/2015 03:29:07

If you Dutch imma steal yo tulips ya dig?

We cannot reproduce and easily carry around gold like we can with paper currency. Gold has an established rarity, we can't make new authentic gold, we can only mine new sources of it. There are rarer materials, but gold has a particular luster i suppose. Still, gold can always be welded into very durable materials.

wat, do you seriously think just because our ISPs happen to go through new jersey, that I'm clearly The Lord? Bane wouldnt have let me back into MSF anyways

So you're saying if we take money from the poor and give it to the rich, money will magically appear in the hands of the poor?

In his slight defence, he's not really saying that. He's saying that if the rich get richer, the poor will get richer (which I don't agree with, but that's what he's saying).

The question is how the rich are getting richer ?

Working with society or against it

Back on topic please.

I love how Mr. Rape Fan is trying hard to keep the thread on topic, but no one cares what he has to say.

Berdan131 said:

The question is how the rich are getting richer ?

Working with society or against it

Well said. *applauds*