Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
With the way the Republican fascists and Democrat fascists are battling each other, and with reality that both sides are eagerly seeking complete and total destruction and submission of the other side (especially with the conservatives rampant desire to take up arms)...
How long is it before we get full scale widespread violent conflict in this country? Political battles unseen in America, but yet common in other parts of the world?
If we're to draw historical comparison, I'm thinking we're at like 1859 or 1860. There's no secession movements actually getting strong enough steam, no shots fired, no massive armies coming against each other.
2010 and 2011 don't look promising if history is to repeat itself.
With the way the Republican fascists and Democrat fascists are battling each other, and with reality that both sides are eagerly seeking complete and total destruction and submission of the other side (especially with the conservatives rampant desire to take up arms)...
How long is it before we get full scale widespread violent conflict in this country? Political battles unseen in America, but yet common in other parts of the world?
The "violence" will occur in the form of walking into the voting booth and casting a ballot.
If we're to draw historical comparison, I'm thinking we're at like 1859 or 1860. There's no secession movements actually getting strong enough steam, no shots fired, no massive armies coming against each other.
2010 and 2011 don't look promising if history is to repeat itself.
Understand - a "civil war" does not have to involve shooting. Although, I fear that some may take it to a violent level.
It's started, but most of the minority who are extremists are also bullies and cowards at heart. So it will all be just bad language. The silent majority will be in control but it will be like a Adam Sandler movie, with a lot stupidity, insanity, and swearing (which is hilarious).
The sheeple are collared, shorn, and too well fed. But toss them a trinket, and they will oooh and aaah then head to Wal Mart.
TV announcer Big Brother style :
"Well, sheeple. Would you rather go kill a liberal, or get a bag o tube sox, a bucket o fried chicken, 2 litres of green soda, a free DVD, and a sexy girl poster for 99 cents ?"
Way too many of us have got life too good here in the US to go postal.
I agree. One must certainly weigh benefits vs risks and I think that the standard of living in the US is way too high to precipitate armed conflict. Things can change, of course. I think that many times these concepts sound appealing, but death is real in wars and there are probably only a few wars that were viewed as worth the sacrifice in retrospect.
I am definately a right winger, but feel as though any decisions for armed conflict should be taken very cautiously, as lives will be lost and one should not risk lives for issues not relevant to the survival of the country.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
