Fido 14

That's a nice thought, but not really practical. Do you know the economic impact of not being able to have safe access to the Suez Canal, for example? There's no reason to believe the Suez Canal would be closed off to Europeans due to the repatriation of foreigners.

Nigeria.

Simple solution: expel all foreigners and stay out of their lands.

You don't know your diaspora in the U.S. very well to ask such a a question.

I'm surprised you don't have a Volkswagen, Cuda.

Looks to me like there is two trevors in this screenshot lol, one in the car and one on the bike. That's probably a cop.

The author is currently working on book 6. The books are a must-read. Why? What am I missing?

That ain't happenin', brotha.

Does anyone suggest reading the books? I mean, I've heard that the fat fuck of a creator has health problems and might die, so I don't want to start reading a story that will have no ending.

You know you're still going to buy the damn game, whether the graphics are the same or not, lol. Yeah, brotherman, you're right. I'm just saying the graphics aren't that much of an upgrade, considering all the time they've had. But, yeah, I stand corrected, they probably had to make do with what they were working with, and I hope they exhausted the PS3's potential. I still think it was a dumb decision on their part to not make this GTA for the PS4, since they would've had more freedom to do a lot of shit. It's all good, though. I still prefer VC over SA, so I ain't 'bout that gfx life.

Looks like GTA 4 graphics.

What are you? A skinbyrd?

Wear three pairs of socks so as to deter creases in your air forces, lololol

Walter White is a mad train conductor. His train ain't stoppin'.

I'm on the side of Plato, Confucius, Plethon, Hobbes, Friedrich List, Louis-Ferdinand Céline, Kevin B. MacDonald, Francis Parker Yockey, Ramiro Ledesma Ramos and others of similar mind. If you still have faith in your bastardization/abasement of democracy, then allow it to devour you harmoniously. Okay, you are serious. Let's start with your first instance of batshit inanity: Defaulting would cause interest rates to rise considerably. During a liquidity trap, this would be economic hell. Unemployment would rise sharply. The economy would enter recession. You are an absolute idiot if you think that defaulting would be a good idea. Fuck your name dropping of philosophers (a logical fallacy, by the way), every single economist would be against you in this. The very purpose of fiscal responsibility is to avoid defaulting. I'll avoid going into your not even wrong assertion that the debt will never be repaid, you need to understand this very fundamental and very elementary precept of basic economics first. And I don't have the slightest faith in American democracy. I wax cynical about it all the time. America stopped resembling a representative democracy a long time ago (1973 to be precise). But moving even further away from democracy is stupid. Your description of Lincoln as a dictator is cute, but just that. Sure he exceeded the powers granted to him to arguably absurd degrees, but he still yielded to periodic elections. Lincoln wasn't the first to do this. Adams (the first one) was quite totalitarian with the Alien and Sedition Acts. I'm not in the mood to convince you that democracy is better than dictatorship. Usually when I argue with right-wingers, they're like a mixture of Ayn Rand and Ken Ham, not D.H. Lawrence. You don't get too many of those anymore, though a strong sense of misanthropy and a superiority complex are usually the motivations behind such an asinine opinion. But take a look around you. Look at countries with at least a semblance of representative democracy (I consider America the lowest common denominator in this regard, with Scandinavia as probably the highest). Those countries invariably have the lowest rates of unemployment, the highest standards of living, the highest GDP per capita, the highest human rights ranking. I don't care which philosophers of antiquity are on your side. If your best argument is that old white guys from centuries or millenia ago supported the need of a dictator, most of which never actually saw modern democracy. I have empirical evidence on my side. We have enough disenfranchisement as it is. You take away the right to vote to oppress people. (Take note of the women's suffrage movement and the civil rights movement.) Turning America into a dictatorship would unavoidably take away from what these people fought for. Power would revert back to white men, the disproportionate amount they already control be damned. So not only is your idea of a utopia economically unsound, it's also socially insulting. First and foremost, please, don't bring a supposed adherence to logic into this, because most posts here contain logical fallacies, including yours (loaded words and pooh-poohing among others). Yes, I just committed a tu quoque fallacy. No one on this forum is formulating posts like a logician. Second, the economy would suffer temporarily through a default, and that's inevitable, seeing as we've drifted far away from a protectionist, resource-based economy to a neo-liberal, globalized economy. It is necessary, though, as a nation cannot prosper while indebted and without production. What do you mean when you say the U.S. would enter a recession if a default were to occur? As if we're not already living through a recession... You write highly of fiscal responsibility, yet you seemingly don't have an issue with the continuation of the escalation of the debt. Third, my characterization of Lincoln as a dictator was appropriate, as you've conceded to his autocratic acts. Fourth, I don't care for any attempt on your behalf to dissuade me from non-democratic forms of government, especially coming from a person who acknowledges the abasement of representative democracy the U.S. currently possesses, yet would still rather uphold this plutocratic, kleptocratic system. Fifth, the forefathers of this nation, descending from the gentry of their times, couldn't care less about the fair treatment of the masses. Africans were considered 3/5th's of a person and let's not forget a telling quote of James Madison: "In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability." Lastly, the Scandinavian nations' economies are performing well because their economies are primarily resource-based and have plentiful production -- this economic system does not necessitate a representative democracy. On a side note, if you think I'm aligned with Ayn Rand and Ken Ham, then you don't know my sociopolitical/socioeconomic views.

I'm on the side of Plato, Confucius, Plethon, Hobbes, Friedrich List, Louis-Ferdinand Céline, Kevin B. MacDonald, Francis Parker Yockey, Ramiro Ledesma Ramos and others of similar mind. If you still have faith in your bastardization/abasement of democracy, then allow it to devour you harmoniously.

If you hone in on such a specific issue, perhaps bills are not being passed. In totality, though, you cannot deny that there has been comprise from both parties regarding issues, resulting in several bills being passed. Any sort of compromise is not a trait of ideological purism. The U.S. should default on its debt, it's obviously never going to be repaid -- no point in just elevating the debt ceiling every now and then. And congress should be dissolved, and made way for a benevolent dictatorship (or oligarchy) with a solvent, self-sustaining socioeconomic system ready for implementation. I'm surprised the "democratic process" has endured this long. Anyway, that's obviously not happening, especially in a non-unitary state such as the U.S. But who knows, the malevolent dictatorship of Lincoln was an actuality, so perhaps a benevolent dictatorship (or oligarchy) will someday come to fruition, which I seriously doubt. The powers that be have everything well-orchestrated, they don't take risks.

Thanks to bipartisanship. If there were no comproming, no bills would be passed. You call that a blooper? That displays content of character for me; he obviously doesn't take the role of president or the crises of the nation seriously. To be honest, none of 'em do, but at least Gingrich was kind enough to be public about it.

Bills have been getting passed. There's too much bipartisanship. You know, this is such a monumentally incorrect statement that I have to wonder where you get your information. Which part? Bills getting passed, or the bit about bipartisanship? Why stop at eight? Go full dictatorship. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlW23ul5uv8

Bills have been getting passed. There's too much bipartisanship.

Not really, the pressure would be placed on members of congress if the system becomes stagnate, as the people would start complaining. Congressmen bow to pressure, and would therefore start writing legislations more in line with Paul's thinking. Doubt congress would let 4 years roll by without some sort of cooperation with the president -- that's unrealistic.

True, but he would veto any bill that would come to his desk which is incompatible with his beliefs, as he's stated numerously. He'd take advantage of the bully pulpit. Eventually, the congress would have to swing his way to a certain extent, if anything would be accomplished. Doesn't matter either way now. Paul doesn't even have a brokered convention as an option anymore, considering Santorum and Gingrich withdrew from the race. The vote isn't diluted as it was before.

Known of it since 2004, joined in 2005.

Keep on keeping on, QD! Fight the Establishment!

Fuck combustion, hail convection.