Do you think the US will be a country in 100 years?

[Emerson1]

It was a question on the power of 10, and only %75 of people polled said they thought it would be.

[necks_c/09]

Originally posted by Emerson1
It was a question on the power of 10, and only %75 of people polled said they thought it would be.

I think it will still most likely be the dominant country in the world.

[Daddy D 11]

thats too weird, my professor asked the exact same question today in Government


i vote yes.

but in 500 years...NO :thinking:

[carter08]

Originally posted by necks_c/09
I think it will still most likely be the dominant country in the world.

i doubt that. China is going to have 40 billion people by then. They're gonna get agressive and attack us. We stand no chance against China. No one does.

[mistanice]

no, the US, Mexico, and Canada will only be known as the North American Union.

[Darren]

Without a doubt.

[big daddy russ]

Rome didn't fall in a day. Actually, it didn't fall until more than half a millenium after the height of the Roman Empire.

The United States may not be the superpower in 100 years that it is today, but I seriously doubt we will cease to be as a nation. As of right now, other countries (this means EVERYONE) are so far behind us militarily that there's absolutely zero chance that we're overrun from outside.

I'll put the military side of things into layman's terms: military strength is traditionally measured by a combination of things by political scientists, the most important of which (by far) is gross domestic product, or GDP. The only country in the last 40 years that was even in our stratosphere was the old USSR, and we absolutely rolled the Russians' best, cutting edge military technology, manned by one of the world's most well-trained armies.............









...in the first Desert Storm.

Iraq, at the time, had the world's 18th-largest GDP and was considered the world's 15th-strongest military by most social scientists (it's an inexact science, but there's no question Iraq was top-17). Iraq had tons of money from the country's oil reserves and Saddam used it to buy the most high-tech weapons from the world's foremost centrally-controlled superpower, and he stockpiled these cutting edge tanks, artillery, small arms, and MiGs en masse.

And it didn't matter. Our weapons were so superior to the Russians' that we won the war with minimal casualties and the most precise and technologically-superior offensive the world had ever seen.

Before that war, everyone thought that both countries' military technology was pretty much equal. The first Gulf War dispelled that myth quickly and decisively.

Fast-forward to today (well, 2004). The GDP of the USA is $11.7 trillion, almost three times that of Japan, the world's second-largest GDP at $4.6 trillion. Oh, and Japan maintains a minimal army used "solely for national defense." They're not attacking us anytime soon.

What about China?

They have the manpower, but they don't have the budget to see it through. The World Bank says that although they're the fastest-growing economy in the top 20 nations, they still lag far behind at $1.6 trillion. That makes them the world's seventh-richest country.

Why should that matter?

GDP (or how "rich" a country is) has a direct effect on its military buying power, which has a direct effect on how much they can buy, which has a direct effect on how much they can borrow, which has a direct effect on how long they can afford to stay in a war. This was the reason for the quick decline of France as a superpower both in the late-1700's and then again in the early-1900's (there were actually three French "superpowers"... from the Middle Ages through the 1700's, during Bonaparte's reign, and immediately preceding WWI). They (Louis XIV was notorious for this) had horrible credit among the world's banks, and banks were very hesitant to lend money to France. This trend actually started in the 1300's with the Hundred Years' War and became even more prevalent a few centuries later during the Thirty Years' War.

Because of this, there was one war (I forget which one it was... it may have been the Thirty Years' War) where France just ran out of money and had to basically bring the troops back home. Nobody would lend them any more money for conquest, and they couldn't expand their empire. Meanwhile, England, who had also been at war throughout this period but was in good standing with the world's banks, was able to continue borrowing money and defend it's empire.

Now, why the history lesson?

The United States has both the good credit and the resources to borrow as much money as they can get their hands on. The US military is theoretically stronger than the other ten strongest militaries in the world combined. And that includes China, which stands at number five although it currently boasts the world's largest standing army.

To give you one last example of how far ahead the US is compared to the rest of the world, GDP (as opposed to GNP, or gross NATIONAL product) is the measure of an entire form of currency rather than just a single nation's riches. The other superpower as far as total GDP by currency belongs to the 27 countries in the European Union (the currency is known as the Euro), which include such nations as the UK, Spain, Sweden, Holland, Greece, Denmark, Ireland, Poland, etc, etc, et.

The GDP of the United States is over half a trillion dollars LARGER than these 27 countries. And we're not talking about the Costa Rica's, Guadeloupe's, and Eritrea's of the world-- tiny countries with minimal armies. We're talking about the majority of Europe, sans Russia and Italy.

Sure, China's GDP will grow exponentially over the next half century and they're expected to overtake us sometime between 2050 and 2070, but we WILL NOT be overrun by another country, even China, anytime within the next century.

If you're talking about disentigration from within, that, too, won't happen. As of right now, we haven't developed enough complacency and apathy for that to happen, and it's extremely unlikely that it would happen over 100 years. It took the Roman Empire 600 years. It's never happened to England, France, and Russia.

So to answer your question, the chances of seeing the US dissolve within the next century are slim to none.

[crabman]

Wow.

[Old Tiger]

The real question is will humanity be here in 100 years? The end of the world is set for 2012.

[sinton66]

Lets be sure NOT to elect Carter08 to any offices. (He must be French somehow).:D

[TheDOCTORdre]

all i know is in the Bible there is no mention of the US or any country resembling it in the end times

[JR2004]

I like this BDR fella and his lengthy explanation. Seems like he might be a bit of a history buff after reading that.

[big daddy russ]

Originally posted by Go Blue
The real question is will humanity be here in 100 years? The end of the world is set for 2012.
You been checking out the Mayan calendar?

[Old Tiger]

Originally posted by big daddy russ
You been checking out the Mayan calendar? :D :cool: :D

[buff4life]

he should be a professor....

[tortilla_man]

russell you should give up PR and another two years of school and do history/poli sci instead maybe economics.

[big daddy russ]

Originally posted by JR2004
I like this BDR fella and his lengthy explanation. Seems like he might be a bit of a history buff after reading that.
I'm just a big nerd who's minoring in Political Science in college right now. I could tell you tons of mostly-useless information I've learned about politics over the years, from the way Louis XIV's court made the Rolling Stones look like choirboys (Apparently, there's some 400-year-old yellow stains running down the marble staircases in the Palace at Versailles from where they used to get drunk and high on absinthe and other drugs and have pissing contests... and not the kind where you're arguing with each other.) to the real culprits behind the FEMA mess in New Orleans (buff up on the reasons Reconstruction ended, specifically the reasons the South allowed Republican Rutherford B. Hayes to become president... Then re-read the press releases between the Blanco/Nagin faction in Louisiana and the White House leading up to FEMA finally being allowed to cross the border from the already-recovering Mississippi to Louisiana... It may change your mind a little about who really hates the black people down in the Big Easy).



And Danny, I'd love to major in Poli Sci, but most of the jobs out there require too many hours in a cubicle and too many TPS reports.

[g$$]

Originally posted by big daddy russ
Rome didn't fall in a day. Actually, it didn't fall until more than half a millenium after the height of the Roman Empire.

The United States may not be the superpower in 100 years that it is today, but I seriously doubt we will cease to be as a nation. As of right now, other countries (this means EVERYONE) are so far behind us militarily that there's absolutely zero chance that we're overrun from outside.

I'll put the military side of things into layman's terms: military strength is traditionally measured by a combination of things by political scientists, the most important of which (by far) is gross domestic product, or GDP. The only country in the last 40 years that was even in our stratosphere was the old USSR, and we absolutely rolled the Russians' best, cutting edge military technology, manned by one of the world's most well-trained armies.............









...in the first Desert Storm.

Iraq, at the time, had the world's 18th-largest GDP and was considered the world's 15th-strongest military by most social scientists (it's an inexact science, but there's no question Iraq was top-17). Iraq had tons of money from the country's oil reserves and Saddam used it to buy the most high-tech weapons from the world's foremost centrally-controlled superpower, and he stockpiled these cutting edge tanks, artillery, small arms, and MiGs en masse.

And it didn't matter. Our weapons were so superior to the Russians' that we won the war with minimal casualties and the most precise and technologically-superior offensive the world had ever seen.

Before that war, everyone thought that both countries' military technology was pretty much equal. The first Gulf War dispelled that myth quickly and decisively.

Fast-forward to today (well, 2004). The GDP of the USA is $11.7 trillion, almost three times that of Japan, the world's second-largest GDP at $4.6 trillion. Oh, and Japan maintains a minimal army used "solely for national defense." They're not attacking us anytime soon.

What about China?

They have the manpower, but they don't have the budget to see it through. The World Bank says that although they're the fastest-growing economy in the top 20 nations, they still lag far behind at $1.6 trillion. That makes them the world's seventh-richest country.

Why should that matter?

GDP (or how "rich" a country is) has a direct effect on its military buying power, which has a direct effect on how much they can buy, which has a direct effect on how much they can borrow, which has a direct effect on how long they can afford to stay in a war. This was the reason for the quick decline of France as a superpower both in the late-1700's and then again in the early-1900's (there were actually three French "superpowers"... from the Middle Ages through the 1700's, during Bonaparte's reign, and immediately preceding WWI). They (Louis XIV was notorious for this) had horrible credit among the world's banks, and banks were very hesitant to lend money to France. This trend actually started in the 1300's with the Hundred Years' War and became even more prevalent a few centuries later during the Thirty Years' War.

Because of this, there was one war (I forget which one it was... it may have been the Thirty Years' War) where France just ran out of money and had to basically bring the troops back home. Nobody would lend them any more money for conquest, and they couldn't expand their empire. Meanwhile, England, who had also been at war throughout this period but was in good standing with the world's banks, was able to continue borrowing money and defend it's empire.

Now, why the history lesson?

The United States has both the good credit and the resources to borrow as much money as they can get their hands on. The US military is theoretically stronger than the other ten strongest militaries in the world combined. And that includes China, which stands at number five although it currently boasts the world's largest standing army.

To give you one last example of how far ahead the US is compared to the rest of the world, GDP (as opposed to GNP, or gross NATIONAL product) is the measure of an entire form of currency rather than just a single nation's riches. The other superpower as far as total GDP by currency belongs to the 27 countries in the European Union (the currency is known as the Euro), which include such nations as the UK, Spain, Sweden, Holland, Greece, Denmark, Ireland, Poland, etc, etc, et.

The GDP of the United States is over half a trillion dollars LARGER than these 27 countries. And we're not talking about the Costa Rica's, Guadeloupe's, and Eritrea's of the world-- tiny countries with minimal armies. We're talking about the majority of Europe, sans Russia and Italy.

Sure, China's GDP will grow exponentially over the next half century and they're expected to overtake us sometime between 2050 and 2070, but we WILL NOT be overrun by another country, even China, anytime within the next century.

If you're talking about disentigration from within, that, too, won't happen. As of right now, we haven't developed enough complacency and apathy for that to happen, and it's extremely unlikely that it would happen over 100 years. It took the Roman Empire 600 years. It's never happened to England, France, and Russia.

So to answer your question, the chances of seeing the US dissolve within the next century are slim to none.

I'm siding with him. Very impressive Russ, I actually feel smarter for reading that. Seriously! Great post.

[g$$]

Originally posted by tortilla_man
russell you should give up PR and another two years of school and do history/poli sci instead maybe economics.

Agreed, be a college professor & make a difference. You would be a darn good one & entertaining too.

[IHStangFan]

Originally posted by necks_c/09
I think it will still most likely be the dominant country in the world. WOW...you're either brainwashed, or pay no attention to the economy and/or politics. This country is in it's decline. We reached our peak and are now on the descent. In 100 years China will be the world's super power (heck..make that 10 years) and we will be beggin for their table scraps in a 3rd world status. We are like every other great civilization that came before us. We started out based on good ideas and principals.....politicians were allowed to go unchecked, got greedy, spread their country and military too thin, over-extended their budgets, etc. Then as a society we have become weak, lazy and let this PC "don't hurt anyone's feelings" crap erode the core of this country and what we used to stand for from the inside out. Don't kid yourself. In 100 years we'll be lucky if we're not all speaking Spanish as our gov. is basically giving this country as we speak to Mexico....and we've been groomed to believe we have to "help" these people and that this is the right thing to do...so basically we're all just going to sit here and watch it happen because we couldn't POSSIBLY actually enforce immigration laws and secure our borders...that'd be MEAN! :mad:

[LH Panther Mom]

Originally posted by big daddy russ
but most of the jobs out there require too many hours in a cubicle and too many TPS reports.
Uhm, yeah......I'm gonna need you to work on Saturday, 'kay? :devil:

[Blastoderm55]

Watch Idiocracy if you want a glimpse into this country's future. :D

[mistanice]

Originally posted by LH Panther Mom
Uhm, yeah......I'm gonna need you to work on Saturday, 'kay? :devil:


lol, i actually had a boss that talked this way. great movie!

[44INAROW]

Originally posted by g$$
Agreed, be a college professor & make a difference. You would be a darn good one & entertaining too.

and you could be the cool professor that wears Kakhis and flip flops ;)

[Sweetwater Red]

Originally posted by big daddy russ
You been checking out the Mayan calendar?

Or watching the History channel? They just referred to that a
night or to ago on the show "Universe".

[crzyjournalist03]

better question:

Will Texas be a country in 100 years?

[ToroChingon]

Originally posted by mistanice
no, the US, Mexico, and Canada will only be known as the North American Union.

RATHER...

It will be known as "El Union Norteamericano."


How many kids do you Caucasions have in your family?

Latinos AVERAGE 6-9 kids PER 'familia' so...


Hacen los matematicos!


VIVA VILLA!
VIVA LA RAZA!
VIVA EL UNION NORTEAMERICANO!
VIVA LA RECONQUISTA!

AYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAA!

[ToroChingon]

You must remember...

The United States Of America has ALREADY suffered the largest land-based invasion of its sovereign territory by another nation in History!

Over 20 Million soldados dressed as civilians have poured over the border from Mejico already, and millions more are on the way.
They all have those little cricket clickers like the Allies used to hook-up in The Longest Day. One day soon they will start clicking them and begin to assemble. Then?

AYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAA!

Preparense Gringos!

VIVA LA REVOLUCION!













Originally posted by big daddy russ
Rome didn't fall in a day. Actually, it didn't fall until more than half a millenium after the height of the Roman Empire.

The United States may not be the superpower in 100 years that it is today, but I seriously doubt we will cease to be as a nation. As of right now, other countries (this means EVERYONE) are so far behind us militarily that there's absolutely zero chance that we're overrun from outside.

I'll put the military side of things into layman's terms: military strength is traditionally measured by a combination of things by political scientists, the most important of which (by far) is gross domestic product, or GDP. The only country in the last 40 years that was even in our stratosphere was the old USSR, and we absolutely rolled the Russians' best, cutting edge military technology, manned by one of the world's most well-trained armies.............









...in the first Desert Storm.

Iraq, at the time, had the world's 18th-largest GDP and was considered the world's 15th-strongest military by most social scientists (it's an inexact science, but there's no question Iraq was top-17). Iraq had tons of money from the country's oil reserves and Saddam used it to buy the most high-tech weapons from the world's foremost centrally-controlled superpower, and he stockpiled these cutting edge tanks, artillery, small arms, and MiGs en masse.

And it didn't matter. Our weapons were so superior to the Russians' that we won the war with minimal casualties and the most precise and technologically-superior offensive the world had ever seen.

Before that war, everyone thought that both countries' military technology was pretty much equal. The first Gulf War dispelled that myth quickly and decisively.

Fast-forward to today (well, 2004). The GDP of the USA is $11.7 trillion, almost three times that of Japan, the world's second-largest GDP at $4.6 trillion. Oh, and Japan maintains a minimal army used "solely for national defense." They're not attacking us anytime soon.

What about China?

They have the manpower, but they don't have the budget to see it through. The World Bank says that although they're the fastest-growing economy in the top 20 nations, they still lag far behind at $1.6 trillion. That makes them the world's seventh-richest country.

Why should that matter?

GDP (or how "rich" a country is) has a direct effect on its military buying power, which has a direct effect on how much they can buy, which has a direct effect on how much they can borrow, which has a direct effect on how long they can afford to stay in a war. This was the reason for the quick decline of France as a superpower both in the late-1700's and then again in the early-1900's (there were actually three French "superpowers"... from the Middle Ages through the 1700's, during Bonaparte's reign, and immediately preceding WWI). They (Louis XIV was notorious for this) had horrible credit among the world's banks, and banks were very hesitant to lend money to France. This trend actually started in the 1300's with the Hundred Years' War and became even more prevalent a few centuries later during the Thirty Years' War.

Because of this, there was one war (I forget which one it was... it may have been the Thirty Years' War) where France just ran out of money and had to basically bring the troops back home. Nobody would lend them any more money for conquest, and they couldn't expand their empire. Meanwhile, England, who had also been at war throughout this period but was in good standing with the world's banks, was able to continue borrowing money and defend it's empire.

Now, why the history lesson?

The United States has both the good credit and the resources to borrow as much money as they can get their hands on. The US military is theoretically stronger than the other ten strongest militaries in the world combined. And that includes China, which stands at number five although it currently boasts the world's largest standing army.

To give you one last example of how far ahead the US is compared to the rest of the world, GDP (as opposed to GNP, or gross NATIONAL product) is the measure of an entire form of currency rather than just a single nation's riches. The other superpower as far as total GDP by currency belongs to the 27 countries in the European Union (the currency is known as the Euro), which include such nations as the UK, Spain, Sweden, Holland, Greece, Denmark, Ireland, Poland, etc, etc, et.

The GDP of the United States is over half a trillion dollars LARGER than these 27 countries. And we're not talking about the Costa Rica's, Guadeloupe's, and Eritrea's of the world-- tiny countries with minimal armies. We're talking about the majority of Europe, sans Russia and Italy.

Sure, China's GDP will grow exponentially over the next half century and they're expected to overtake us sometime between 2050 and 2070, but we WILL NOT be overrun by another country, even China, anytime within the next century.

If you're talking about disentigration from within, that, too, won't happen. As of right now, we haven't developed enough complacency and apathy for that to happen, and it's extremely unlikely that it would happen over 100 years. It took the Roman Empire 600 years. It's never happened to England, France, and Russia.

So to answer your question, the chances of seeing the US dissolve within the next century are slim to none.

[JasperDog94]

The border with Mexico is like 1 way road spikes. You can drive across it from Mexico into the US with no problem, but if you try to cross into Mexico from the US, you're going to blow out all of your tires.:(

[mustang04]

Originally posted by ToroChingon


How many kids do you Caucasions have in your family?

Latinos AVERAGE 6-9 kids PER 'familia' so...


Hacen los matematicos!




yeah...and where i come from alot of those families are on welfare, the kids are thugs, parents drug users who have a kid every 2 years for more welfare.....GREAT future to look forward too
:rolleyes:

[big daddy russ]

Originally posted by Sweetwater Red
Or watching the History channel? They just referred to that a
night or to ago on the show "Universe".
Is that why it's been such a big topic lately? Man, I wish I had cable. It's interesting stuff, I just don't know much about it.

[big daddy russ]

Originally posted by mustang04
yeah...and where i come from alot of those families are on welfare, the kids are thugs, parents drug users who have a kid every 2 years for more welfare.....GREAT future to look forward too
:rolleyes:
Here are some statistics you might find interesting. Not trying to change your or his mind about anything, just throwing them into the conversation...

The rate of Hispanics and blacks living in poverty who commit crimes and the rate of Hispanics living in poverty who commit violent crimes are pretty much the exact same as the percentage of whites living in poverty who commit crimes.

Now here are some percentages, by race, of the total population who lives below the poverty line:

HISPANIC- 22.09%
BLACK- 23.5%
WHITE- 13.17%

That's where the disparity lies, not in the crime rates. You look at crime rates from a socio-economic standpoint, they're pretty much the same. Hardly any difference among the different races. Then you look at the percentage of minorities living in poverty, and you realize that maybe that plays a role in the reputation they've received.

Again, you can take this info and use it for both sides. One side would use this information as a crutch for minorities while the other would use it to blast away at minorities.

This info probably isn't going to change anyone's mind, whether you want to use it as a crutch for criminals, as a way to hate them even more, or (for most everyone else) you're somewhere in between.

[big daddy russ]

PS: And Reg, that hate quote wasn't directed at you at all. You seem much more middle-ground conservative on this issue. Likewise, the crutch issue wasn't directed at anyone in particular, either.

[Sweetwater Red]

I would like to know what precentage by race is the current
prison polulation.:thinking:

[mustang04]

Originally posted by big daddy russ
PS: And Reg, that hate quote wasn't directed at you at all. You seem much more middle-ground conservative on this issue. Likewise, the crutch issue wasn't directed at anyone in particular, either.

its cool i understand...and i am pretty much middle ground

[espn1]

Originally posted by Go Blue
The real question is will humanity be here in 100 years? The end of the world is set for 2012. Man you've been watching too much Coast to Coast.
Thy didn't say the world was going to end they say things will be drastically different. But who knows. Calendars are man made. Life isn't. Worry not, I have a 2013 Calendar on my computer.:D :D :D

[big daddy russ]

Originally posted by Sweetwater Red
I would like to know what precentage by race is the current
prison polulation.:thinking:
Now you're getting into some meaty stuff.

Is it culture? Is it racism? Is it luck? Is it all of the above? Does socio-economic status play a part? What are all the factors surrounding this statistic?

In 2005, roughly 3.15% of the black population was sentenced to jail time, compared to 1.24% of Hispanics and .47% of whites.

So if 23.5% of blacks are living below the poverty line any given year, and 3.15% were incarcerated throughout 2005, that means that roughly 13.4% of the population of blacks living under the poverty line were convicted (though it DOESN'T mean that everyone convicted was living below the poverty line). That number dips 5.6% for Hispanics (22.09% in poverty vs. 1.24% incarcerated) and 3.6% for whites (13.7% in poverty vs. 0.47% incarcerated).

But then, I don't have data on what crimes were committed. Were the majority of blacks convicted for violent crimes? Were the majority of whites convicted for white-collar crimes?

Who knows? Like I said, there's a lot of meat under that topic. Racism may play a part. Ethnic culture may play a part. There are tons of issues to get into there.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by big daddy russ
Now you're getting into some meaty stuff.

Is it culture? Is it racism? Is it luck? Is it all of the above? Does socio-economic status play a part? What are all the factors surrounding this statistic?

In 2005, roughly 3.15% of the black population was sentenced to jail time, compared to 1.24% of Hispanics and .47% of whites.

So if 23.5% of blacks are living below the poverty line any given year, and 3.15% were incarcerated throughout 2005, that means that roughly 13.4% of the population of blacks living under the poverty line were convicted (though it DOESN'T mean that everyone convicted was living below the poverty line). That number dips 5.6% for Hispanics (22.09% in poverty vs. 1.24% incarcerated) and 3.6% for whites (13.7% in poverty vs. 0.47% incarcerated).

But then, I don't have data on what crimes were committed. Were the majority of blacks convicted for violent crimes? Were the majority of whites convicted for white-collar crimes?

Who knows? Like I said, there's a lot of meat under that topic. Racism may play a part. Ethnic culture may play a part. There are tons of issues to get into there. you have excellent insight, im seeking my ph.d in sociology and will have a concentration on deviance. you are absolutely correct with the multitude of variables involved in the prison system and its racial make-up. as well as the crime rates. This is a very interesting subject! I can't wait to begin my dissertation.

[espn1]

Originally posted by big daddy russ
Now you're getting into some meaty stuff.

Is it culture? Is it racism? Is it luck? Is it all of the above? Does socio-economic status play a part? What are all the factors surrounding this statistic?

In 2005, roughly 3.15% of the black population was sentenced to jail time, compared to 1.24% of Hispanics and .47% of whites.

So if 23.5% of blacks are living below the poverty line any given year, and 3.15% were incarcerated throughout 2005, that means that roughly 13.4% of the population of blacks living under the poverty line were convicted (though it DOESN'T mean that everyone convicted was living below the poverty line). That number dips 5.6% for Hispanics (22.09% in poverty vs. 1.24% incarcerated) and 3.6% for whites (13.7% in poverty vs. 0.47% incarcerated).

But then, I don't have data on what crimes were committed. Were the majority of blacks convicted for violent crimes? Were the majority of whites convicted for white-collar crimes?

Who knows? Like I said, there's a lot of meat under that topic. Racism may play a part. Ethnic culture may play a part. There are tons of issues to get into there.
Ok let's look at some other stats. I wonder about football Pro and College.
Out of the people that get into trouble or do stupid thing, I wonder how that breaks down racially.

[big daddy russ]

Originally posted by espn1
Ok let's look at some other stats. I wonder about football Pro and College.
Out of the people that get into trouble or do stupid thing, I wonder how that breaks down racially.
Alright, let's start out with stupid.

Michael Vick.


OK, that's 100% black. Discuss.

[Sweetwater Red]

Originally posted by big daddy russ
Alright, let's start out with stupid.

Michael Vick.


OK, that's 100% black. Discuss.

Uhh..

Marcus Vick kicked out of VT.
Maurice Clarett a long list
Romance "Any body got some papers?" Taylor.

All stupid.

Not quite as bad as a white guy stabbing his competition for
the punter job.

[big daddy russ]

Originally posted by Sweetwater Red
Uhh..

Marcus Vick kicked out of VT.
Maurice Clarett a long list
Romance "Any body got some papers?" Taylor.

All stupid.

Not quite as bad as a white guy stabbing his competition for
the punter job.
I think white guy stabbing the punter falls more closely to the "psycho" category, although it double-dips in "stupid" as well.

[Sweetwater Red]

Originally posted by big daddy russ
I think white guy stabbing the punter falls more closely to the "psycho" category, although it double-dips in "stupid" as well.

True. Most college athletes get in trouble for fighting(assault),
drinking(DWI),possession, or theft I would think.

[crzyjournalist03]

did you guys read about the punter that the Patriots just released who turned his anger and assaulted his father?

[g$$]

Originally posted by crzyjournalist03
did you guys read about the punter that the Patriots just released who turned his anger and assaulted his father?

Just heard that on the radio. Bauer was his name I believe. He said after his release that "he was having a hard time dealing with it". Charged with assaulting his father.

Really Mr. Bauer?

[crzyjournalist03]

interesting...our results are showing exactly what the show did too!

[necks_c/09]

Originally posted by Go Blue
The real question is will humanity be here in 100 years? The end of the world is set for 2012. December 23, 2012 to be exact:D

[Old Tiger]

we as a country could have an economic boom. I think that is what it's called.

[Johnny 5]

Originally posted by IHStangFan
WOW...you're either brainwashed, or pay no attention to the economy and/or politics. This country is in it's decline. We reached our peak and are now on the descent. In 100 years China will be the world's super power (heck..make that 10 years) and we will be beggin for their table scraps in a 3rd world status. We are like every other great civilization that came before us. We started out based on good ideas and principals.....politicians were allowed to go unchecked, got greedy, spread their country and military too thin, over-extended their budgets, etc. Then as a society we have become weak, lazy and let this PC "don't hurt anyone's feelings" crap erode the core of this country and what we used to stand for from the inside out. Don't kid yourself. In 100 years we'll be lucky if we're not all speaking Spanish as our gov. is basically giving this country as we speak to Mexico....and we've been groomed to believe we have to "help" these people and that this is the right thing to do...so basically we're all just going to sit here and watch it happen because we couldn't POSSIBLY actually enforce immigration laws and secure our borders...that'd be MEAN! :mad:

+1