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.
Corporations have stolen our money and left us to fight over the scraps.
The people who are "looking to take our country back" should look long and hard at who stands to gain when we allow ourselves to get riled up by the Glenn Becks and Rush Limbaughs of the world.
Who sponsors each of the political parties?
Follow the money.
You are being used.
Both sides are primarily servants of the corporations and elite, not the people.
And the same people in multiple topics praise Europe and Canada, yet there were no wars when the Czechs and Slovaks split up, and no threats of it when Scots consider independence or the people of Quebec voted on the topic of independence.
EXACTLY! The entire idea of scorched earth is nonsense. It won't happen. The federal government can't afford the expense first of all as it's way too deeply in debt. Much to the dismay of these internet commando authoritarians, the government will make the objective decision to allow them to secede.
I think that it won't be a revolution ... at least not the kind that many of you might be imagining.
I think that for the sake of economics, and geopolitical reasons, the nation, as we know it, will shift, albeit ever so slowly, to accomodate it's own regions.
One day, everyone will wake up to discover that though we all share a common bond, we also share common borders.
As for the here and now? .. Everyone is too wrapped up in their iPods, Oprahs, or mortgage payments to be too concerned about anything else.
EXACTLY! The entire idea of scorched earth is nonsense. It won't happen. The federal government can't afford the expense first of all as it's way too deeply in debt. Much to the dismay of these internet commando authoritarians, the government will make the objective decision to allow them to secede.
That's a very cute picture, but still doesn't change the fact that America is in far worse financial straits than it was in 1861. Far too broke too mount a nationwide imprisonment and military occupation on domestic soil. Keep wishing Rambo...
On the other hand, it is how change can be effected. Such was the case in the Civil Rights movement.
One can win without chaos out of peaceful protests. Mahatma Gandhi was proof of that, while many who were working for the same cause, resorted to violence.
A few months ago, Texas governor Rick Perry was in news talking about secession. Only 25% of Texans polled shortly after, shared his views. And as a result, I would say very few share the extremist view. For them violence is the only rescue, to create chaos and get hold over a democratic set up that exists today.
Afghanistan was a thriving democracy before the Soviets invaded. Then, the Soviets were defeated, with help from Mullahs and the rest of radical right wingers in that country (AKA Al Qaeda). We left Afghanistan into the capable hands of these radicals, who were a minority and hated at the time, but they could organize based on religion and had tools to go with it (arms and ammunition provided to them during the war). They had everything to overrule the relatively calm minority, and overtook the country.
This, BTW, is a view held by an Afghani political refugee I met a few years ago in San Francisco. He was a government official, who had to run for his life with his wife (daughter was killed), on foot at night thru Pakistan and into India where he sought asylum. Eventually, he was able to move to the USA. He told me quite a bit about this chaos I speak of, and can see a few parallels between that and the mindset of a loud fringe group of people here.
Keep up the good work, showing your true colors as violent, power-thirsty...anyone who wishes death on people because they desire a change in government, is violent and should not be tolerated.
Keep up the good work, showing your true colors as violent, power-thirsty...anyone who wishes death on people because they desire a change in government, is violent and should not be tolerated.
Only the fringe elements are in agreement with him. Most rational people in Washington will allow secession as they do not crave violence and bloodshed (at least on US soil). Even if some violence begins, it won't be long before the money and manpower drain take their toll.
One can win without chaos out of peaceful protests. Mahatma Gandhi was proof of that, while many who were working for the same cause, resorted to violence.
A few months ago, Texas governor Rick Perry was in news talking about secession. Only 25% of Texans polled shortly after, shared his views. And as a result, I would say very few share the extremist view. For them violence is the only rescue, to create chaos and get hold over a democratic set up that exists today.
Afghanistan was a thriving democracy before the Soviets invaded. Then, the Soviets were defeated, with help from Mullahs and the rest of radical right wingers in that country (AKA Al Qaeda). We left Afghanistan into the capable hands of these radicals, who were a minority and hated at the time, but they could organize based on religion and had tools to go with it (arms and ammunition provided to them during the war). They had everything to overrule the relatively calm minority, and overtook the country.
This, BTW, is a view held by an Afghani political refugee I met a few years ago in San Francisco. He was a government official, who had to run for his life with his wife (daughter was killed), on foot at night thru Pakistan and into India where he sought asylum. Eventually, he was able to move to the USA. He told me quite a bit about this chaos I speak of, and can see a few parallels between that and the mindset of a loud fringe group of people here.
Afghanistan was NOT a Democracy before the Soviets invaded. It was a medievil Kingdom, then the King was overthrown by a Pro Soviet Military Coup. It was then years later when the Soviets invaded during infighting between Socialist groups
Why do I get the impression that some here that think another Civil War is possible are stupid enough to think it would simply be North vs. South again?
For starters, even if a second Civil War would occur, it would be literally neighbor vs. neighbor if the current political climate is any indication. I don't think we'd have specific borders or boundaries to attack or defend.... It would be a war fought strictly along ideological lines and not as much regional (though some regions would tend one way or the other).
Honestly, I think the break-up of the United States WILL occur sometime in the next 50-100 years and will more or less be smaller nations under different spheres of global influence (New England would be influenced more by Europe, The Northwest would be more Asian influenced, etc...). I don't think we'll go away in one big KABOOM!! I think it will be a gradual fade into a loose confederation of former American states at best.
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.
