American Civil War Expected

[Psycho_Laughs]

Originally Posted by wum

i listen. but i'm just saying that the word is meaningless and a Red Herring. Everyone associates the word with Nazi Germany but i think as a society if it becomes taboo to even talk about Race or acknowledge it then we haven't progressed at all.

that's like you trying to say something insightful to me and then i just nullify it by calling it another "Myra-ism" simply because it came from you. Likewise, to dismiss any statement concerning race as "racism" is just as useless. it doesn't mean anything. it's all nomenclature. we should get away from that.

:059:

the problem is that you are not saying anything insightful. you are simply regurgitating rethoric.

[wum]

Originally Posted by Psycho_Laughs

the problem is that you are not saying anything insightful. you are simply regurgitating rethoric.

uhh, no

[Senior]

Wum I know that hate anything that might come off as being (liberally) educated but here goes.

Your entire argument is based on non sequiturs. For example you argue that, because the US is exercising poor fiscal policy the NWO must be in control.

Just because one thing is true does not mean the other is true. If you don't want to get a formal education that's fine but shunning the ideas of everyone that has done so is exceedingly pompous.

If you want to find some rational answers to what's going on in this world try reading Chomsky's books. They offer well researched and written views of what's happening in the world.

As for the UN invading the US, are you kidding me? If the UN was a country and you said the US was going to invade them I would laugh less. As it stands and was already pointed out by SEAN the UN doesn't have an army. Of the member nations that do supply peace keeping forces Canada has contributed the most troops... Are you laughing yet? You should be.

If you want to try and understand why Bush and the boys are so crazy do some research on them. In short they are fundamentalists like Bin Laden that see the World in black and white or good and evil. Is there really anyone that isn't a little scared when the most powerful person in the world is praying to god for the solution to the US foreign policy and economic problems?

[wum]

Originally Posted by Senior

Wum I know that hate anything that might come off as being (liberally) educated but here goes.

Originally Posted by Senior

Your entire argument is based on non sequiturs. For example you argue that, because the US is exercising poor fiscal policy the NWO must be in control.

Poor fiscal policy? Dude, that’s only the tip of the iceberg. Tell me, what justifies Bush giving AMNESTY to the 10+ million illegal aliens when in every single survey Americans have reacted strongly to both legal and illegal immigration? The government hypocritically talks about ‘terrorists’ while doing nothing to secure one of the most porous borders in the world.

The US has had plenty of time to observe the handy work of it’s fiscal policy and yet even after a decade of trading losses it still out sources to China and in Clinton’s case, gives them ICBM’s for long range nuclear capabilities.

All of these moves are not simply inept they are SUICIDE. Conspiracy theories and an NWO shadow government is the only thing that will make sense.

Originally Posted by Senior

Just because one thing is true does not mean the other is true. If you don't want to get a formal education that's fine but shunning the ideas of everyone that has done so is exceedingly pompous.

Critics: “Well, we shouldn’t question any of this since our governments, 100% of the time, have our best interests involved. There are NO CONSPIRACIES. The most powerful people in the world are giving interviews on 20/20 to Barbara Walters and the truth is laid bare on CNN nightly.”

Me: uhh…

Originally Posted by Senior

If you want to find some rational answers to what's going on in this world try reading Chomsky's books. They offer well researched and written views of what's happening in the world.

Admittedly, I don’t read a lot of his stuff. Doesn’t he just chalk up everything to US imperialism?

Originally Posted by Senior

As for the UN invading the US, are you kidding me? If the UN was a country and you said the US was going to invade them I would laugh less. As it stands and was already pointed out by SEAN the UN doesn't have an army. Of the member nations that do supply peace keeping forces Canada has contributed the most troops... Are you laughing yet? You should be.

German and Russian troops are already stationed at various military bases. Can’t be proven yet, sorry. :(

Originally Posted by Senior

If you want to try and understand why Bush and the boys are so crazy do some research on them. In short they are fundamentalists like Bin Laden that see the World in black and white or good and evil. Is there really anyone that isn't a little scared when the most powerful person in the world is praying to god for the solution to the US foreign policy and economic problems?

Bush has already admitted that he was a part of Skull and Bones and Bin Laden was under the payroll of the CIA. How convenient then that he’s impossible to catch and yet claims responsibility for all these ‘terrorist’ happenings that are the inevitable pretext for a US military invasions. Hmmm…..

[Psycho_Laughs]

Originally Posted by wum

woah, i never claimed to be a prophet. But while you're singing about peace, love and joy in the churches, you might as well try to prepare yourself for what's coming. i'm not using this thread to announce my Presidency of the World Republic, relax.

well, i don't believe the faithful will go through the years of tribulation. the faithful will be removed from earth. when the rough gets really tough, i won't be here to see it.

[wum]

Originally Posted by Psycho_Laughs

well, i don't believe the faithful will go through the years of tribulation. the faithful will be removed from earth. when the rough gets really tough, i won't be here to see it.

I'm not so sure about the rapture. It was only taught in the last 200 years. it's origins seem extremely dubious.

[djmarkpaul]

"If a path to the better there be, it begins with a full look at the worst"

- Thomas Hardy, 1887


Now with this quote alone, you would hope that anyone concerned about the state of the world would offer open hands to those trying to simply identify the problems.

In this thread, that is simply not the case.

Instead, as outlandish as the claims may seem (and quite a few are out there, and yeah I'm one to talk), they aren't met with questions for greater insight on the matter.

What is abundantly obvious, is the use of fallacy to either strengthen counter statements, or discredit the original statement.

I hope we can all agree, if there is any truth to the original claims in this thread, it must be given the attention, atleast for the case of debate, that what is said on these matters is assumed to be neither true, nor false, therefore investigation in the sources of said claims is necessary. If one can't do this, they come into the arguement with a bias, and quote me on this, *THE BELIEF WILL DEFEND ITSELF.

*When one is in this mindset, the unwilling stubbornness is more involved in arguement than debate. The purpose of individuals in this mindset is to appear correct at all costs. This is usually done while using any means possible to discredit the original point (staying on topic is quite uncommon if not impossible for these individuals), the main giveaway is that they don't directly deal with the subject matter, and when questioned on this, the questions are avoided.

If one wants to disagree with what is said and do so in a civil manner, this unbiased assumption is followed by a careful examination of the evidence, referencing, followed by a critique that stays focused on the original topic.

Since this is simply not happening, I am wasting my time getting involved when all I have waiting, with the exception of a few individuals, will be the harping of beliefs too stubborn to question their own origins followed by ad hominems that make fallacious rebuttals.


***

That will be my official disclaimer from now on when I enter a thread that is filled with childish name calling against the thread's original author and/or obfuscation of the original topic.

Now to address just a few points:

Originally Posted by SEAN!

Did you happen to know that the UN has no army of its own? The UN's armed forces are comprised entirely of there member countries, and these member countries VOLUNTEER to send their forces.

Hold on, they have no army, but they have armed forces, that seems to make the point contrary of itself. So NATO doesn't have a role in occupation these days? I would disagree with you on this, they do have an army, and yes they primarily work on countries volunteering to send in their forces, but what if countries impose a draft? Doesn't that throw the volunteering clause out the window as aesthetic rhetoric?

Originally Posted by SEAN!

for all intents and purposes the united states dollar serves as the global currency already you fuckin retard, thats why theres such a hooplah over the decline in its relative value.

there will never ever be globalized central bank planning, EVER! Most countries in this world dont even have properly established and functioning central banks or the financial infrastructure that is necessary before a national CB is even developed, much less a intranational one. Plus, no economists even hardcore globalists (myself included) or ones involved with NGO's like the IMF would ever advocate a global central bank. Any "messiah" who advocates such change would likely fierce stiff resistance if they are not entirely discredited. You are completely out to lunch on this.

So much anger. I suggest that if you are to continue on in this thread you stop using such vulgarities as they don't strengthen your points. As for globalized central banking, how can you ignore the IBRD? The World Bank (and its sister organization, the International Monetary Fund) is a closed system; that is, the decision-making processes are shielded from those who, in fact, fund the projects: primarily the taxpayers in the member nations. The number of votes allocated to member countries are linked to the size of its shareholding. Membership in itself gives certain voting rights that are the same for all countries but there are also additional votes. The additional votes depend on financial contributions to the organisation implying undemocratic decisionmaking. As of November 1, 2004 USA held 16.4% of total votes, Japan 7.9%, Germany 4.5% and UK and France 4.3% both. For more insight, see the Bill Hicks quote on the bottom. BTW, being a "hardcore" globalist, what do you see as so farcical about a one world government (ie: New World Order) as a viable means to sway this agenda?

You also mean to say that even pro-globalist economists wouldn't advocate a central banks system, but in the event of a crisis, say, THE BULLCURVE OF PEAK OIL PRODUCTION making it's final plummet, this could easily sway the tides in the favor of centralized banking to counter a new depression. Once anyone that knows what they are talking about comes to the realization that natural gas supplies are in decline, then you immediately have to jump to the next available consequence. We HAVE TO grow electricity, or we WILL NOT grow our economy. There isn't any serious economist out there that could argue, that our economy could grow say 2-3% percent a year while keeping electricity use flat. Economic growth is predicated on more electricity. You probably don't know who Matthew Simmons is (energy advisor for Dick Cheney), but someone of his stature I would hope you could take seriously. I would hope you read this article as it seems up your ally somewhat, then if you will, please come back and tell me your take on this.

Originally Posted by SEAN!

you need to be medicated.

You're for forced medication, eh? Even if you're joking, that seems pretty fascist coming after what you've said in your previous quotes.

Originally Posted by ~*goddessa*~

I really want george and mark-paul to see this thread,they`ll get teh lizard people involved!

ITS ALL BECAUSE OF TEH LIZARD PEOPLES AND TEH GREYS!!!!!!!

E.T. involvement is so splayed out in our entertainment industry that any serious discussions on the matter has become laughable in regards to a community like fnk. Let's drop all preconcieved notions on identifying the specific races of E.T. and focus on one point, why does every organized religion and ancient text known to man speak of or mention E.T. involvement? Is it all just a conspiracy to have fancy hollywood blockbusters like Aliens VS Predator? Inquiring minds want to know.

Originally Posted by wum

This is all word play. What you call racism, I call freedom of association. What the media cheerfully dubs 'multi-culturalism' is nothing other than an unarmed invasion of foreign races and cultures to what only applies to white western countries.

This land was stolen from native Indians. You don't know about the story of the Haida indians I assume, visit the museum of anthropology at the Vancouver UBC campus for starters. I do however fully agree with you on the rhetoric that is being spouted on "multi-culturalism". It is nothing more than a melting pot to dessimate bloodlines and destroy the foundations of culture, some proof is you try saying that to people and they will call it as "racism". The problem of a grey race is something they unfortuantely ignore.

Originally Posted by Senior

Your entire argument is based on non sequiturs. For example you argue that, because the US is exercising poor fiscal policy the NWO must be in control.

Gimmie a break Nolan, this guy has made plenty of points the least of which I would say is poor fiscal policy. You seem to be scanning for a reason to disagree, and this is a poor reason out of what I would say are the errs in his claims. A little off topic, I have offered you plenty more evidence in regards to a NWO agenda, and you have shunned it each time without proper investigation, if a NWO agenda is the correct assumption on the state of globalism, I feel you would be in denial of it.

Originally Posted by Senior

Just because one thing is true does not mean the other is true.

I wish you would practice what you preach my friend, as I do admire your ability to keep civil in such debates.

Originally Posted by Senior

If you want to find some rational answers to what's going on in this world try reading Chomsky's books.

I have some recommended reading for you aswell for some rational answers. I think you would really enjoy the works of John Zerzan. It may be a bit of a streach to where you are coming from, but he comes off as a fairly capable linguist aswell, and I would think if you like Chomsky's work you would also enjoy Zerzan's for relatively the same reasons.


***

Finally there is just a little more I can say, and it's that people need to stop being bothered with the extremity of other's opinions. I want peace for this planet, and the diversity of cultures to remain authentic, if you love this planet as I do I hope if you disagree that you can keep it civil. Thanks for your time and remember that Shriners don't just wear cool hats and drive little cars.

"Freedom of expression is for the highest bidder, God bless the New World Order, and you are free to do as we tell you...Everyone's getting screwed now, and it's become so transparent that they're lying, that it's fucking laugable."

- Bill Hicks

[SockPuppet]

Do any of u conspiricy heads have any insight on why the U.S government hates rap music?

cuz they are the ones who killed biggie and 2pac and are respondsible for todays "cliche" rap lyrics....

[Wood]

^that's right d00d... didn't you know, Karl Rove wrote the entire 'G Unit' album?

[Senior]

Originally Posted by djmarkpaul

Gimmie a break Nolan, this guy has made plenty of points the least of which I would say is poor fiscal policy. You seem to be scanning for a reason to disagree, and this is a poor reason out of what I would say are the errs in his claims. A little off topic, I have offered you plenty more evidence in regards to a NWO agenda, and you have shunned it each time without proper investigation, if a NWO agenda is the correct assumption on the state of globalism, I feel you would be in denial of it.

Mark if you take maybe half an hour and read through what this guy has written in past threads, then apply your own standards to him you might have a different view. You are correct in stating that I picked two points of disagreement but I fail to see how I didn't clearly state my opinion and provide factual evidence to back it up. Just to add further context to what Wum said in regards to the UN invading the US, it's basically impossible. The US has more military capability than the rest of the World combined. That's in terms of military spending annually, WMD, and technological advantage. The only instances of the US losing a military conflict in the last 100 years have been on foreign soil and involved asymmetric warfare.

If you guys want to talk about a NWO order read up on the "Project for the New American Century" http://www.newamericancentury.org/ This is not a conspiracy theory and clearly outlines what is happening. It also clearly outlines what we can expect of the US (more war, big surprise eh) for the foreseeable future. Beyond that the WTO (try reading WTO W.ho's T.rade O.rginization http://www.citizen.org/publications/release.cfm?ID=7304) has already succeed in a defacto coup of the World's nation states in many ways. They are an unelected, undemocratic body that has more control than nation states over global trade policies that cover everything from labour, food production, health services, and intellectual property. So really, why do you need to look for a hidden agenda when it's right in your face?

If you want to play your own game it's easy enough to say that you are doing the same thing you accuse others of. In trying to defend conspiracy theories in general you din't even bother to critically analyze what Wum has asserted before you started defending it. He's put a lot of his opinions into to print on FnK so you might want to take a look over them.

The article by John Zerzan is very long, I started reading it (about 1/8) but don't really see what it has to do with this whole conversation. Maybe you'd like to pm me a summary?

Is the history of evolution from the last 3 million years really that relevant to the current situation we are in? I've been reading the European Dream (Jeremy Rifkin) and it goes into quite some depth on more recent history to try and explain where we find ourselves. Basically it is looking at the transformation of western society through the medieval, modern and then post modern era's. The only real complaint about John Zerzan that I have is that he doesn't provide foot notes for any of his sources which would make it a lot of work to verify any of his claims.

[Grapes]

As the Senate commences it's session to count the Electoral College votes it will be determined there will be a defector vote that puts Kerry as the true winner and Kofi Annan and his hundred election observers will say that election fraud was committed.

The media will fan the flames and promote civil war.

Any more predictions?

[wum]

Originally Posted by Grapes

Any more predictions?

nooooo :(

[pbreak]

wow...

[dre420]

Originally Posted by Grapes

Any more predictions?

I guess we can let this thread die now :)

[Grapes]

My take on the whole situation:

If enough Americans voted for George W. Bush that the election COULD be in his favour, then the country is so fucked that they deserve him whether he actually technically won or not.

With apologies to those who tried to get him kicked out =(

[djmarkpaul]

Originally Posted by Senior

Mark if you take maybe half an hour and read through what this guy has written in past threads, then apply your own standards to him you might have a different view. You are correct in stating that I picked two points of disagreement but I fail to see how I didn't clearly state my opinion and provide factual evidence to back it up.

Nolan, wum was coming way out of left feild when speaking of an american civil war breaking out due to electoral fraud. To me, that was just downright conspiracy theorizing with no grounds in evidence, something I shun believe it or not. You didn't provide any factual evidence on how a poor fiscal policy was bringing together a NWO agenda in accordance to what wum claimed, or you should be more specific if you want because I didn't see the connection. If you were to mean outsourcing to China in regards to developing and exporting raw materials, I agree with wum that this is happening, but it has little to do with US fiscal policy. It has everything to do with the state of police/military control and how it's run in China (like the use of what's been dubbed as non-lethal force, something that makes a mockery out of freedom of expression), how currency is practically non-existant in China as it's been replaced with e-money aka credit/debit cards for everything including subway and phones, and how this is to serve as a blueprint to getting a cashless society control grid over the seas into the westernized developing world and Europe.

Originally Posted by Senior

Just to add further context to what Wum said in regards to the UN invading the US, it's basically impossible. The US has more military capability than the rest of the World combined. That's in terms of military spending annually, WMD, and technological advantage. The only instances of the US losing a military conflict in the last 100 years have been on foreign soil and involved asymmetric warfare.

Yeah the UN invading the US under these circumstances is indeed laughable. However, I am surprised that NATO was completely missed out on during this entire debate. NATO is already a huge occupying force in this world and although some critics speak of their decline in activity I say just wait and see what will happen the next time there is an urban terrorist attack. Urban warfare projects has already had NATO troops working with police on US soil. It's not an outright invasion, it's already happening slowly and surely underneath our noses.

Originally Posted by Senior

If you guys want to talk about a NWO order read up on the "Project for the New American Century" http://www.newamericancentury.org/ This is not a conspiracy theory and clearly outlines what is happening. It also clearly outlines what we can expect of the US (more war, big surprise eh) for the foreseeable future. Beyond that the WTO (try reading WTO W.ho's T.rade O.rginization http://www.citizen.org/publications/release.cfm?ID=7304) has already succeed in a defacto coup of the World's nation states in many ways. They are an unelected, undemocratic body that has more control than nation states over global trade policies that cover everything from labour, food production, health services, and intellectual property. So really, why do you need to look for a hidden agenda when it's right in your face?

I don't say the agenda is hidden, people are just to conditioned to see beyond the symbolism that makes this agenda stunningly obvious. In regards to examples like this one,m you're right. It is our in our face and I am well aware of PNAC. They started in 1990 or so and I believe they still have the manifesto of needing a Pearl Harbour like terrorist attack to kick start their agenda. This being written before sept 11th and looking at how events have followed, one can see they really do serve as a blueprint for the age of the war on terrorism. Coincidence, conspiracy, or domineering agenda?

Originally Posted by Senior

If you want to play your own game it's easy enough to say that you are doing the same thing you accuse others of. In trying to defend conspiracy theories in general you din't even bother to critically analyze what Wum has asserted before you started defending it. He's put a lot of his opinions into to print on FnK so you might want to take a look over them.

What makes you think I haven't? I find many loopholes in what wum has claimed in this thread, however, he isn't trying to preserve a false hope that this society isn't a society hell bent and centralized control and militarization. For that alone I have not critiqued the faults in his claims, as there is already a majority of the board doing that and I feel no need to jump on the bandwagon. Perhaps you need to read or re-read my disclaimer as to why I didn't analyze his faults. I could set the tone and do what nobody did and ask him on his faults with concern and an open mind, but when I try to shed light on these troublesome matters with more evidence and less theorizing then wum has had, people give me the same amount of disrespect as wum has gotten, so I ask, why bother?

Originally Posted by Senior

The article by John Zerzan is very long, I started reading it (about 1/8) but don't really see what it has to do with this whole conversation. Maybe you'd like to pm me a summary?

Is the history of evolution from the last 3 million years really that relevant to the current situation we are in? I've been reading the European Dream (Jeremy Rifkin) and it goes into quite some depth on more recent history to try and explain where we find ourselves. Basically it is looking at the transformation of western society through the medieval, modern and then post modern era's. The only real complaint about John Zerzan that I have is that he doesn't provide foot notes for any of his sources which would make it a lot of work to verify any of his claims.

In that article, no, there aren't foot notes. He has many in his books, and in this article you have author names and dates as to where the information is sourced from. Granted it isn't nearly as convienent as footnotes, but you can follow the information according to the author names and dates if you really wanted to do the sourcing. Read Against Civilization if you want footnotes and a grounded doctrine on where this man is coming from.

In short for summary, both Chomsky and Zerzan are proclaimed anarchists. I find it laughable to say Chomsky is as an anarchist as he considers himself to be a conservative (Chomsky's Politics, pp. 188) presumably of the classical liberal variety and admitably has endorsed members of state in regards to policy. He has further defined himself as a Zionist; although, he notes that his definition of Zionism is considered by most to be anti-Zionism these days, the result of what he perceives to have been a shift (since the 1940s) in the meaning of Zionism (Chomsky Reader), which I find again to be laughable. Zerzan takes you completely outside of the political spectrum and focuses on the development of culture based on civilization as inherently oppressive, and advocates drawing upon the ways of life of prehistoric humans as an inspiration for what a free society should look like. Some of his criticism has extended as far as challenging domestication, language, symbolic thought (such as mathematics) and the concept of time. Again, with Chomsky's profile, he has much more to loose compared to Zerzan if the revamp of the structure of our society was to play out according to Zerzan's insights. I would say Chomsky is much more of a materialist than Zerzan and it clouds his judgement because of it, the man is pro-globalist afterall, as Zerzan is anti-globalist. If you want to see a great film with an interview with John Zerzan, watch Surplus, it really is up your ally, and you'll be glad you watched it.

[djmarkpaul]

Originally Posted by Grapes

My take on the whole situation:

If enough Americans voted for George W. Bush that the election COULD be in his favour, then the country is so fucked that they deserve him whether he actually technically won or not.

With apologies to those who tried to get him kicked out =(

What do you think the difference in policy would be if John Kerry made office instead?

[Mr Ektion]

Originally Posted by Grapes

My take on the whole situation:

If enough Americans voted for George W. Bush that the election COULD be in his favour, then the country is so fucked that they deserve him whether he actually technically won or not.

With apologies to those who tried to get him kicked out =(

Ahh, this is sort of how I feel too. From what I understand about the American Government, Bush barely won the election by 1 percent. 51%. That's pretty fucking amazing to me. That means, of the people who voted, 1/2 of the country does not agree with their leader. What Wum is professing does sound very John Titor'ish but, Civil War doesn't sound too unbelievable to me.

I don't think anyone in the entire world has the ability to predict the future. There's too much to consider for anyone to be able to guess what's going to happen. Someone's inconsequencial blabbering may somehow trigger the unbelievable. The single flap of a butterfly's wing can start a tornado on the other side of the world. Or something like that. I personally don't believe that the idea of a 3rd world war should be ruled out. Life is unpredictable and humans are amazingly rash creatures. If a war happened, we probably wouldn't hear about it until it was already in full swing anyway.

To me, it's unbelievable to think that there won't be another war in North America. War has been shaping the world since before each country even knew other continents existed! We're a very civilized World Wide Community, but our wants and needs remain the same as they were 100 or even 1000 years ago. Wars have started over the most rediculous reasons. Land, resources/money, even religion. Why WOULDN'T there be civil unrest in the US when half of the country doesn't agree with the way it's being led. If the US government is killing it's country (morally, economically & politically), i do hope that the people of the country will rise up against it's leaders for the sake of it's own survival.

And if not now, it might happen in 30 or 40 years after more change has happened. War is not unbelievable.

Also, just watching you guys debate about this topic makes me wonder what your interest in this topic actually are. The subject of the thread? or simply arguing. When debating or arguing about ANYTHING, things should never be taken to a personal level. If you can't stay on topic and you gotta diss one another's thoughts or beliefs before, during or after you've explained your angle in the conversation, than you should probably keep your say out of the conversation. It's easy to understand that not every single point that a person brings up will be accurate. But, you can't rule out every good point a person says just because they say 1 rediculous thing. That's nieve. So, if you want to have a good conversation, don't diss one another. You're point won't be heard that way.

Conspiracy what. World Wide Peace sounds like just as conspiratory as World War. It obviously doesn't exist right now. But, we pray so much that peace exists that the idea of war has been abandonned. Since we can't tell what is fact and what is propoganda (from the televisions, to the news papers, to even our history books) how can you guys be so sure who's more right or who's more wrong. Why not just listen to all of the facts (the right AND the wrong) and figure it out together. It's not like we can do anything about (i think) but atleast we can combine our learnings to rid ourselves of a little of this ignorance. PLUR mother fuckers.

[wum]

^ you sound like an idiot.

To everyone else, i like to rant about everything and see what sticks. it's great fun :)

[NinjaBoy]

I think what a lot of people fail to see discuss in this thread is human nature.

How many americans would it take to fuel a civil war? A lot. Most American's are too lazy to even write letters to the government, how many do you think will rise against?

Just a thought.

[wum]

Originally Posted by NinjaBoy

I think what a lot of people fail to see discuss in this thread is human nature.

How many americans would it take to fuel a civil war? A lot. Most American's are too lazy to even write letters to the government, how many do you think will rise against?

Just a thought.

the goal is not to rouse people, it's to find a pretext to take away their representative powers/sovereignty and bring in a dictatorship. Civil war is just a ruse.

[Mr Ektion]

Originally Posted by NinjaBoy

I think what a lot of people fail to see discuss in this thread is human nature.

How many americans would it take to fuel a civil war? A lot. Most American's are too lazy to even write letters to the government, how many do you think will rise against?

Just a thought.

too true.

[miss.myra]

Originally Posted by NinjaBoy

I think what a lot of people fail to see discuss in this thread is human nature.

How many americans would it take to fuel a civil war? A lot. Most American's are too lazy to even write letters to the government, how many do you think will rise against?

Just a thought.

They're too lazy to even vote even if their president really, really pisses them off.

[Grapes]

What do you think the difference in policy would be if John Kerry made office instead?

How about a less brazenly evil administration?

It's like David Cross said.. at this point, Dubya doesn't know what the hell he has to do to piss people off and actually suffer consequences. He could eat a Jewish baby and no-one would do anything.

A bit before the 2004 US election, the Georgia Straight compiled, in one rock solid article, a list of all the hideously unethical actions and policies of the current administration over the previous 4 years. It was mind boggling to read them all gathered in a concise, matter-of-fact style of presentation. I should have clipped the fucking thing so I could type it up and post it whenever someone tried to be all "lateral thinking" and said:

"Do you really think Kerry would have been any better?"

Yes. Yes I do. Because though he's not Clinton.. he's also not Satan.