I agree. I don't understand how you could be so irresponsible to let somethign like that happen. Especially if you knew months in advance of what was going to happen.

I feel like if this were the 1700's we would be revolutioning the shit out of this bitch. Then again, this is the 21st century and America has become fat.

You should be revolting, or at least to an extent. If you fired or somehow removed your whole government and held reelections it should at least make them more reluctant to use supply as a way of getting what they want. Or at least it worked for us. God save the Queen.

I feel like everyone in this fucking nation has complaints against our government and how they've been doing shit for a long time. We need another Andrew Jackson as president.

The problem is the people are too fucking lazy to do shit, but that isn't necessarily their fault. Because of technology, I feel like people have become lazy about shit since it's so much easier to interact with people over the internet rather than deal with real issues and real people. People have no problem whatsoever voicing their opinions over the internet. I don't know maybe I'm speculating too much. I seriously feel like every single person I know wants to impeach Obama and fix our "corrupt government". It's like everyone is afraid to do shit about anything. idfk.

Well how about you start off small? Talk to the people at your work. Go around your neighborhood. Maybe organize a few (small) protests. And then have more and more people come around and join you until you can bring this issue to your state government, and eventually the influence will spread and you can actually do something about the entire government.

I know realistically that's easier said than done, and there are a lot of drawbacks to a revolt, country-wise and economically, but you never know until you try. Besides, this is something you're passionate about.

An armed revolt is practically impossible, you would need a vast majority of Americans angry to the point of taking up arms, and if both the military and the rest of the world wasn't on our side it would be a waste of time. Civil War was one of the closest to a revolt and look how well that turned out. Now the U.S Military is practically the largest and most expensive in the world.

Ironically, the Gov't shutdown thing is the sign of a working democracy.

I never said "armed revolt". That's redundant.

All you need are some picket signs, megaphones, and a crowd with unwavering spirit. If Obama dared used the military against you, surely other countries will come to your aid. The thing is the government functions for the people, by the people, with the people, remember? If the people aren't happy, and that shows within the majority, you can practically halt the system or fix it any which way you like.

Btw China has the largest army in the world, although that's of irrelevant.

Protests and revolts (maybe even some coup de 'tats) are more about psychology and intelligent thinking. You want to think about what the Obama will do or how he'll react, much like your every day chess game (any chess players here?). Checkmate and Obama's gone.

And if there's one thing that I'm certain about is that other nations are probably addressing this issue. Even some well-known organizations like the UN are probably trying to come to a resolution. The USA plays a large role in the economy and in the world in general.

Personally, I think a war would boost the economy. With hundreds of factories producing materials for war, there would be more jobs, increased morale, increased productivity, etc. which would potentially mean more money for us. So if the strike on Syria goes through and if it starts a war (which I think Obama might be thinking the same thing) it could save us economically. Look to the World Wars, and you'll see how good it can be for economy. WWII pulled the US out of the Great Depression. So if that's was the president is thinking, then he deserves a bit more credit than we give him.

Quote from GrimmtheReaper

Personally, I think a war would boost the economy. With hundreds of factories producing materials for war, there would be more jobs, increased morale, increased productivity, etc. which would potentially mean more money for us. So if the strike on Syria goes through and if it starts a war (which I think Obama might be thinking the same thing) it could save us economically. Look to the World Wars, and you'll see how good it can be for economy. WWII pulled the US out of the Great Depression. So if that's was the president is thinking, then he deserves a bit more credit than we give him.

If we're going to get into this then there are a lot of factors contradicting this theory.

1. This would be the third time the US has gone into war without UN approval (Iraq, then Afghanistan, and now this). That's bound to set off a lot of sparks with not only Middle-Eastern countries but within the organization in it's entirety because of bias towards the USA.

2. You need to consider Iran.

3. You would need to pay for the production of materials, which you won't be trading or selling. Because of the trillion dollar debt Bush put you in you'll most likely buy the materials, meaning you'll now owe other countries money. Otherwise you won't be producing anything, you'll just go in with the stuff you currently have, and then after the war you'll be paying for the numerous casualties.

So it's pretty much the opposite: another war can kill your economy.

Also that's a really sick, sadistic ideology. People shouldn't have to die for your gains. I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm just saying.

Lastly you need to brush up on your history. Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal plans are what helped you get out of the Great Depression, WWII only occurred at the same time. If you mean WWI, then yeah, that boosted the economy.

I didn't know the government shutdown! XD

Quote from GrimmtheReaper

Personally, I think a war would boost the economy. With hundreds of factories producing materials for war, there would be more jobs, increased morale, increased productivity, etc. which would potentially mean more money for us. So if the strike on Syria goes through and if it starts a war (which I think Obama might be thinking the same thing) it could save us economically. Look to the World Wars, and you'll see how good it can be for economy. WWII pulled the US out of the Great Depression. So if that's was the president is thinking, then he deserves a bit more credit than we give him.

The world wars were good for your economy because you stayed out of them and sold weapons. Fighting a war for yourself boosts employment, yes, because it's a massive investment on the part of the government. It involves racking up an enormous amount of debt. You can get the same effect with massive infrastructure projects, and less people die.

Quote from GrimmtheReaper

Look to the World Wars, and you'll see how good it can be for economy.

or you could look to more recent and relevant examples, like.. I don't know, the war on terror? I'd like to see someone try to explain why that was good for the economy.

Being a sole proprietor this really sucked for me. I had an issue with a tax payment I sent in with a lot of money. With no way to call, contact or even reach out to the IRS my money was literally just up in the air and I was at the whim of a chance without being able to even begin to solve the issue. IT reallly sucks.

Quote from Work in Progress

I never said "armed revolt". That's redundant.

All you need are some picket signs, megaphones, and a crowd with unwavering spirit. If Obama dared used the military against you, surely other countries will come to your aid. The thing is the government functions for the people, by the people, with the people, remember? If the people aren't happy, and that shows within the majority, you can practically halt the system or fix it any which way you like.

Btw China has the largest army in the world, although that's of irrelevant.

Protests and revolts (maybe even some coup de 'tats) are more about psychology and intelligent thinking. You want to think about what the Obama will do or how he'll react, much like your every day chess game (any chess players here?). Checkmate and Obama's gone.

And if there's one thing that I'm certain about is that other nations are probably addressing this issue. Even some well-known organizations like the UN are probably trying to come to a resolution. The USA plays a large role in the economy and in the world in general.

I didn't mean Army in terms of personnel, I meant overall strength but that's still debatable

Any kind of unified revolt is not really feasible, not in the US. The Gov't shutdown was the result of having multiple disagreeing parties, one of which was being held by a "typical" tyrannical majority. The kind of unity needed would've prevented the Shutdown in the first place. Idealism aside the only revolt that would even have a chance of working would either be armed or require an improbable majority. You would literally need to have all the republicans, democrats, independents, and people who don't bother with politics unify against a single administration. Furthermore, this kind of discontent would have to last longer than the amount of years a president could legally serve. You've got a better chance of developing FTL drives using rubber bands at least right now.

People seem to think I was joking when I said you should get yourselves a monarch.

Take it from a nation which has been doing this three times longer than you. It's very simple. You have one elected law-making body, and if they fail to pass a budget you immediately call an election. In the mean time you are governed by someone who has spent their entire life learning how to do this shit.

$28bn off the economy is barely sufficient punishment for rebelling against your betters.

We'll make our own government! With blackjack! And hookers!