Lucky us! 4th amendment just got weaker.

[SlowLX]

Well said!!

I just think that if people who want to be one of US let them do it through legit means. Let them come, work, PAY TAXES, and do everything by the book. The rest of the heard can eat a bag of dick.... My simple fix to immigration would be mirror Mexicos own policy.. If you have no income get out. You can't own land get out. etc etc


We spend way to much time worrying about others borders and politics then we do our own.


Sorry back to G-ma and her prunes.....

Not exactly what I was getting at, I meant it more like Hollywood is our greatest export. Everyone wants to be like America. They want the instant gratification that comes with a flat screen, they want to wear all of our designer clothes, etc. I still hold the islamic threat against America has nothing to do with religion, they're just scared of losing their power base as the principle of modernity begins to take hold in the middle east. They know at the very least in their subconscious their antiquated system is failing to keep pace with the times and that's their only means of control.

[Forever_frost]

My answer

[Sean88gt]

Ya, but an argument can be said about the South if they won as well. That was such a lose/lose situation.

On a side note, I really hate that people only look at the Civil War was only fought over slavery. Pisses me off to no end. The whole slavery debate became an issue as soon as the we declared our independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The truth is that the North and South had their differences until action was actually taken to secede by the 11 southern states. While slavery was the vehicle used by both sides to make their stances, The Civil War was about not letting the South move in its own direction.

This country is nothing more than a large corporation and the heads of this corporation will do anything to keep its assests. Unfuckingbelievable.

So would a properly executed revolt attack Wall Street or the heads of the mega banks?

Until those that are considered have's join the have not crowd I don't see anything changing.

[Couver]

We built our empire on intervention, isolationism would require a return to a less powerful and more unstable country. Our economy is dependent on our intervention, people the world over secretly want to be American because they think we can project ourselves and our identity anywhere with impunity.

Well said!!

I just think that if people who want to be one of US let them do it through legit means. Let them come, work, PAY TAXES, and do everything by the book. The rest of the heard can eat a bag of dick.... My simple fix to immigration would be mirror Mexicos own policy.. If you have no income get out. You can't own land get out. etc etc


We spend way to much time worrying about others borders and politics then we do our own.


Sorry back to G-ma and her prunes.....

[SlowLX]

I used to think so as well, until I thought about their large agricultural influence on the rest of the nation at the time. I think once lines were firmly drawn, the South could have had more of an economic impact than most think. I also believe the shot-callers in the North kinda knew it too. That and losing a big tax base... heaven forbid! LOL

I don't believe so by 1870 the South had lost it's agricultural edge. UK had found cheaper sources of high grade cotton, rice, indigo, and tea from within its own colonies. The north by 1870 was beginning to pace southern grain growth in the Midwestern states which weren't a part of the Confederacy due to a higher population, better technology, a vastly more developed industrial complex, and better land.

[Taylor]

I think if you were to make the decision to draw down on a bunch of cops who already have the jump on you, odds are you two would probably die.

Uniformed officers, no. Plain clothes, yes.

You can bend over and take it all you want, I for one, wont.

[Denny]

I firmly believe the south would have been forced to re-integrate into the union even if they had won. They had zero industrial complex and Mexico circa mid 19th century couldn't support themselves much less their neighbor. The south would have been economically subjugated by the North eventually regardless of the military outcome.

I used to think so as well, until I thought about their large agricultural influence on the rest of the nation at the time. I think once lines were firmly drawn, the South could have had more of an economic impact than most think. I also believe the shot-callers in the North kinda knew it too. That and losing a big tax base... heaven forbid! LOL

[SlowLX]

Ya, but an argument can be said about the South if they won as well. That was such a lose/lose situation.

On a side note, I really hate that people only look at the Civil War was only fought over slavery. Pisses me off to no end. The whole slavery debate became an issue as soon as the we declared our independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The truth is that the North and South had their differences until action was actually taken to secede by the 11 southern states. While slavery was the vehicle used by both sides to make their stances, The Civil War was about not letting the South move in its own direction.

This country is nothing more than a large corporation and the heads of this corporation will do anything to keep its assests. Unfuckingbelievable.

I firmly believe the south would have been forced to re-integrate into the union even if they had won. They had zero industrial complex and Mexico circa mid 19th century couldn't support themselves much less their neighbor. The south would have been economically subjugated by the North eventually regardless of the military outcome.

[Denny]

Try the end of the civil war. To the national govt that win will always provide justification for overriding the rights of the states.

Ya, but an argument can be said about the South if they won as well. That was such a lose/lose situation.

On a side note, I really hate that people only look at the Civil War was only fought over slavery. Pisses me off to no end. The whole slavery debate became an issue as soon as the we declared our independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The truth is that the North and South had their differences until action was actually taken to secede by the 11 southern states. While slavery was the vehicle used by both sides to make their stances, The Civil War was about not letting the South move in its own direction.

This country is nothing more than a large corporation and the heads of this corporation will do anything to keep its assests. Unfuckingbelievable.

[SlowLX]

At LEAST since 1910, if not earlier.

Try the end of the civil war. To the national govt that win will always provide justification for overriding the rights of the states.

[Denny]

Add in the two bolded words and I agree. Now, whether tyranny has been the norm in the U.S. democratic process since circa 1900 is open to debate.

At LEAST since 1910, if not earlier.

[Couver]

We built our empire on intervention, isolationism would require a return to a less powerful and more unstable country. Our economy is dependent on our intervention, people the world over secretly want to be American because they think we can project ourselves and our identity anywhere with impunity.

Hence the reason I said Kinda... I don't want to give up the ability to project power at all. It is what my "company" does. I just feel we are a little to much up in others shit when we have enough problems of our own that need to be delt with...

[Denny]

You're still pandering with illogical statements that have no historical precedent for your argument. You're now equating the supreme discipline of the military with a malleable 18 year old being a criminal because he follows the order of his Lt or his Capt? You're also assuming the military is in cahoots with the government at the upper echelons for some purpose hidden from the American public. There are a shit ton of Generals in the last 15 years who have taken stands against the direction this nation is headed, but they're not mouthing a revolution. I guess they're criminals because they aren't carrying the cause of American liberties far enough?

Never said that shit. Now you're trying to put words in my mouth. Shame on you. The criminals are the ones that would act against a revolt to remove the other criminals in office. I never said the military was in cahoots either, just ignorant if they would continue to follow the orders of the Federal government that would call for the termination of the revolt. They could support, stand aside or intervene. 18 or 35, age doesn't matter. If they're old enough to raise their right hand, then they're old enough to exercise their discretion.

And those stars aren't criminals for not calling for a revolt either. Just the ones trying to stop it.

[01yz2nv]

In the words of Jim Carrey in Liar Liar- " Stop breaking the law, asshole!!"

[The King]

Agreed. I pulled the date out of my ass because I didn't feel like looking up the exact date the Progressives gained a foothold in American Politics.

No problem, much of what you've posted in this thread is good stuff.