At 9/1/06 05:49 PM, gooze_bump wrote:
At 8/31/06 06:41 PM, Anti_Noob wrote
Yes but who is to say if the Roosevelts did not get elected somone ebtter could have lead us?
Like who?
IF you dont learn from the past, you are doomed to repeat it.
Well you already prove that theory correct.
The roman empire fell because of aristocracy and the senators becoming corrupted.
That was the Roman Republic. The Roman Empire fell because of its military becoming to corrupt and the Emperors becoming more and more insane.
JUst like a business if there is really no c ompettiton what is the insentive to get better?
Better about what? It would benefit like a monopoly. The only people that would disbenefit are the costumers, especially if they completely rely on the merchandise and that merchandise price was increased 50 fold.
They go into office, their family gets into office, they feel like they are ebtter than anyone else
That sounds like prejudicism.
and can do whatever they want.
Sounds like envy to me...
I'm sorry but without FDR, you wouldn't be alive right now. Just face facts man... who do you think would run this country better than FDR?
The man was so popular he won election four times in a row... He was in no means a dicator or a king.
Thats exactly why Family memebrs usually do not get into business with each otehr
A business and a country are two different things and good business leaders make bad presidents.
Oh blah blah blah blah dribble dribble dribble
That was a nice try, but you were far too off from making a point. Would you care to try again?