PDA

View Full Version : Is Obama Really Preparing For Civil War?



megimoo
12-15-2009, 02:50 AM
Is Obama Really Preparing For Civil War?

http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u205/Crowcaller/obama_iraq2.jpg

According to an obscure report in the European Union Times (EUTimes.net), “Russian Military Analysts are reporting to Prime Minister Putin that US President Barack Obama has issued an order to his Northern Command’s (USNORTHCOM) top leader, US Air Force General Gene Renuart, to ‘begin immediately’ increasing his military forces to 1 million troops by January 30, 2010, in what these reports warn is an expected outbreak of civil war within the United States before the end of winter.


Even one of Goldman’s poster-boys, Henry Paulson, US Treasury secretary and former Goldman CEO, admitted that the American people were fed up.

“According to these reports, Obama has had over these past weeks ‘numerous’ meetings with his war council abut how best to manage the expected implosion of his Nation’s banking system while at the same time attempting to keep the United States military hegemony over the World in what Russian Military Analysts state is a ‘last ditch gambit’ whose success is ‘far from certain.’”

The EU Times article continues by saying, “To the fears of Obama over the United States erupting into civil war once the full extent of the rape and pillaging of these peoples by their banks and government becomes known to them, grim evidence now shows the likelihood of this occurring much sooner than later.”

The Times story goes on to say that there are “over 220 million American people armed to the teeth and ready to explode.”

The Times article concludes by saying, “Though the coming civil war in the United States is being virtually ignored by their propaganda media, the same cannot be said of Russia, where leading Russian political analyst, Professor Igor Panarin has long warned that the economic turmoil in the United States has confirmed his long-held view that the US is heading for collapse.”

http://current.com/items/91664396_is-obama-really-preparing-for-civil-war.htm

djones520
12-15-2009, 02:55 AM
God this thing again? It's total bullshit. And thats my professional opinion on the matter. The US Air Force is dumping 3,700 jobs in 2010, a good majority of them Officers. We are not building up. This story was "broke" by a Russian tabloid, and I'm amazed how wide spread I'm seeing it on the internet.

linda22003
12-15-2009, 05:23 AM
Well, we have our own little rumor-spreader here, doing his bit to splatter the internet with it. I haven't seen anything in Inside Defense about it, oddly enough.

obx
12-15-2009, 08:41 AM
It is hard to ignore stuff like this after what happened at Waco and Ruby Ridge. I still think Janet Reno should get the chair for that. This bunch of idiots in Washington are more concerned with with the welfare of illegals and terrorists than the American people. Obama and his brown shirts would like nothing better than a reason to do away with whats left of the Bill of Rights and the banking problem may be it. They would not have to use the Army untill after the FBI and ATF went in and murdered the" leaders" as they did in Waco.
________
BUY VAPORIZER (http://vaporizers.net/vaporizers)

stsinner
12-15-2009, 09:30 AM
This bunch of idiots in Washington are more concerned with with the welfare of illegals and terrorists than the American people. Obama and his brown shirts would like nothing better than a reason to do away with whats left of the Bill of Rights and the banking problem may be it. They would not have to use the Army untill after the FBI and ATF went in and murdered the" leaders" as they did in Waco.

You are absolutely right about all of that! Easily the worst and most anti-American administration of my lifetime, if not American history.. Show me another U.S. President who went around the world apologizing for America being great.

obx
12-15-2009, 09:40 AM
stsinner- Thanks. I think one of the lowest times in American history was when that dyke Reno pinned a medal on the chest of a fed. agent, who had shot a 12 yr old boy in the back ,and called him a hero. I am stunned the agent who shot and murdered Ms. Weaver while she held an infant did not get one also.
________
Portable Vaporizers (http://vaporizer.org/portable)

Speedy
12-15-2009, 10:07 AM
I served in the Army and I ask my fellow vererans this, would you have fired upon fellow Americans if ordered to if they were in the right? I have no doubt that the FBI or BATF or Homeland Security would launch an assault on Americans, but the Military at large would not. What would be their motivation? There is no reason to stay in the Military forever in the states. In countries where the Military is weilded as a blunt instrument against it's own people, life is better for those in the Military than it is for those outside of it. Not so here. Seriously, do you think that our Military would kill Americans for Obama? Many who would have liked to have made the Military a career are getting out because of Obama.

noonwitch
12-15-2009, 10:42 AM
It is hard to ignore stuff like this after what happened at Waco and Ruby Ridge. I still think Janet Reno should get the chair for that. This bunch of idiots in Washington are more concerned with with the welfare of illegals and terrorists than the American people. Obama and his brown shirts would like nothing better than a reason to do away with whats left of the Bill of Rights and the banking problem may be it. They would not have to use the Army untill after the FBI and ATF went in and murdered the" leaders" as they did in Waco.



You know that Ruby Ridge occurred before Janet Reno was AG, and before Clinton was president, right?

Waco happened on Clinton's watch, but Ruby Ridge was when GHW Bush was president.

stsinner
12-15-2009, 11:09 AM
stsinner- Thanks. I think one of the lowest times in American history was when that dyke Reno pinned a medal on the chest of a fed. agent, who had shot a 12 yr old boy in the back ,and called him a hero. I am stunned the agent who shot and murdered Ms. Weaver while she held an infant did not get one also.

Or how about us charging our own soldiers with giving a terrorist POS, who is allegedly responsible for the deaths of 4 Americans, a bloody lip?? It's absolute insanity. (http://minx.cc/?post=295103)

FlaGator
12-15-2009, 11:12 AM
God this thing again? It's total bullshit. And thats my professional opinion on the matter. The US Air Force is dumping 3,700 jobs in 2010, a good majority of them Officers. We are not building up. This story was "broke" by a Russian tabloid, and I'm amazed how wide spread I'm seeing it on the internet.

We know how trustworthy those Russians are... I'm buy more ammo today :rolleyes:

stsinner
12-15-2009, 11:12 AM
I served in the Army and I ask my fellow vererans this, would you have fired upon fellow Americans if ordered to if they were in the right? I have no doubt that the FBI or BATF or Homeland Security would launch an assault on Americans, but the Military at large would not. What would be their motivation? There is no reason to stay in the Military forever in the states. In countries where the Military is weilded as a blunt instrument against it's own people, life is better for those in the Military than it is for those outside of it. Not so here. Seriously, do you think that our Military would kill Americans for Obama? Many who would have liked to have made the Military a career are getting out because of Obama.

I, too, am an Army veteran, and I won't say that I wouldn't fire on an American citizen, because there are some citizens that would like to see America fall, but I would not fire on any American citizen for this President, because I question his motives for everything he does. He has not earned my trust-in fact, he has earned my suspicion.

Worth re-posting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zf2K4-BQYAI

obx
12-15-2009, 11:20 AM
noonwitch- You are correct about when Ruby Ridge happened, but Reno did pin the medal . speedy-First, thank you for your service, I do not think the Army would take up arms against the American public. I am not so sure about Gen. Wesley Clark. But then again, I never thought the FBI would set fire to a building and roast about 70 people, mostly women and children.
________
XY FALCON (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Ford_XY_Falcon)

Goldwater
12-15-2009, 11:22 AM
This topic could be from a DU forum during the Bush years with the partisanship reversed.

lacarnut
12-15-2009, 12:28 PM
This topic could be from a DU forum during the Bush years with the partisanship reversed.

Bullshit. It is the opinion of the author that civil unrest will break out because of economic conditions. We are at 10% unemployment (actually 20% if you count those that have quit looking and those underemployed). If we went into a depression (which would be over 40%), civil unrest is a possibility. Also, it is his opinion that our financial system is cracking. Our debt is rising and the dollar is sinking. That is something to be concerned about.

I doubt that Obama is boosting the military to combat unrest but him and that idiot for Homeland Security did state that returning veterans were more of a threat along with right wingers than terrorist. So, this Administration does have a fear, unjustly, that these groups do threaten the US Government. If you are too stupid to understand that, I can not help you.

As pointed out, the government has used excessive force. Example, Ruby Ridge, Waco and the kid sent back to Cuba. I do believe this government, Democrat or Republican, would use force on its citizens to remain in power if an uprising took place.

Milly
12-15-2009, 12:40 PM
I do believe this government, Democrat or Republican, would use force on its citizens to remain in power if an uprising took place.

What sort of force could the government bring to bear if the military sides with the citizens?

Gingersnap
12-15-2009, 01:00 PM
Are these the same Russians that predicted the U.S.A. would splinter into 5 or 6 little countries?

Get a grip people. We can't even believe what our own elected officials tell us - why in hell would we put any credence into some kind of foreign Internet gossip? :confused:

lacarnut
12-15-2009, 01:26 PM
What sort of force could the government bring to bear if the military sides with the citizens?

There is nothing like being prepared if civil unrest does takes place in order to defend yourself, have enough food, guns and ammo, money and a 2nd passport if all hell does break out.

I doubt that the military would obey an order to clash with it's own citizens. However, I am not so sure that would be the case with union thugs, Acorn, etc.

FlaGator
12-15-2009, 01:29 PM
Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
You step out of line, the man come and take you away

lacarnut
12-15-2009, 01:41 PM
I betcha those 17 million and rising that are unemployed or underemployed think everything is just peachy.

Speedy
12-15-2009, 01:46 PM
I doubt that the military would obey an order to clash with it's own citizens. However, I am not so sure that would be the case with union thugs, Acorn, etc.

The chance that it would be SEIU and ACORN thugs in my sights is more than enough to make me stay.

FlaGator
12-15-2009, 02:06 PM
I betcha those 17 million and rising that are unemployed or underemployed think everything is just peachy.

I'll bet that they aren't willing to go to war over things.

lacarnut
12-15-2009, 02:15 PM
I'll bet that they aren't willing to go to war over things.

Did I say they were? However, crime such as robbery and murder do rise when unemployment increases.

Oceander
12-15-2009, 03:10 PM
While it's fun to engage in apocalyptic thinking, particularly now, it's highly unlikely that any of the alleged actions of the current administration are actually going on - the Russians have a whole bunch of other peculiar, mostly internal, reasons for wanting everyone to think that the US is about to go belly up. In particular, the use of U.S. military forces on domestic soil against U.S. citizens is highly unlikely, even putting aside for a moment that liberal Democrats are, almost to a one, cowards when it comes to it.

Granting that one should always be careful about citing to sources such as Wikipedia, nonetheless, there is a decent article there on the Posse Comitatus Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act) which highlights why such a use of U.S. military forces is rather unlikely. The quickie summary is this: The Posse Comitatus Act more or less prohibits the use of the U.S. military to enforce the law within the geographic boundaries of the U.S. (I know I'm oversimplifying, but not so much as to misrepresent things); there is not a hard, bright line dividing actions into those that are permissible and those that are not, but as a matter of institutional belief within the U.S. military itself, the institutional view appears to be that the military cannot operate as such within the geographic boundaries of the U.S. - that, as much as anything else, would tend to make the military very averse to deploying within the U.S. to attack U.S. citizens.

Beyond that, however, in a somewhat ironic set of moves, it was actually George W. Bush who urged Congress to weaken the Posse Comitatus Act, which the Congress did in October of 2006. See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act#Recent_legislative_events). The ironic bit is, and the bit that tends to suggest that the Democrats - including Zero-bama - are not inclined to have the cojones to deploy the U.S. military against U.S. citizens domestically is that in 2008 the Democrat-controlled Congress repealed those changes in their entirety and reverted to the original language. Credit must be given where credit is due - and at the very least, the Democrats, who may very well have simply repealed those changes merely to spite Geo. W. Bush, did us a favor by putting back up one of the legal barriers that would now resist their attempts to use the U.S. military against us.

CorwinK
12-15-2009, 11:55 PM
1776, when it became painfully obvious that the colonies could not persuade their king to hear out their greivences and address the issues they wanted heard using established procedure, is the year the colonists rebelled and declared their independance.

1860, when it became painfully obvious that the southern states could not vote their views in accordance with the established procedure, is the year that the states seceded.

History repeats itself when people dont learn it, and there arent but maybe a handful of people here who would argue that our education system is what it was during the cold war. Only when it becomes painfully obvious that we the people cannot vote our views will we act upon rebellion. When it becomes PAINFULLY obvious that the people we send to washington refuse to acknowledge the will of the people (painfully obvious...not blindingly obvious as it is now) will we the people go to that extreme. Until that day, this topic is nothing more than the same useless retoric that is spewed from both sides of the political spectrum.

stsinner
12-16-2009, 12:00 AM
This topic could be from a DU forum during the Bush years with the partisanship reversed.

Yeah, I suppose you'll always have that...

Rockntractor
12-16-2009, 12:17 AM
"And you shall hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be famines, pestilences, and earthquakes in various places."
An old book.

Sonnabend
12-16-2009, 03:46 AM
Is Obama Really Preparing For Civil War?

No.

And Meg, you should know better. Leave this lunacy to the DUmmies :rolleyes:

malloc
12-16-2009, 04:35 AM
Is Obama really preparing for Civil War?


I can only hope.

djones520
12-16-2009, 04:40 AM
Is Obama really preparing for Civil War?


I can only hope.

Care to expound on that? Cause it sounds like you're hoping for such an event, and that would just be insane.

megimoo
12-16-2009, 06:45 AM
No.

And Meg, you should know better. Leave this lunacy to the DUmmies :rolleyes:I'll bet that The British advocated censorship just as you do before Lexington and Concord.Please allow me ask you a question Sonno.

Will an uprising in outrage of a people always be a lunacy to an law abiding Australian citizen like you .Have you a breaking point or does history tell you nothing ?If your own country was seized by group of Powerful Socialists or Islamicist's determined to seize control of your great country and change it's government by force of that elected power would that be your 'tripping point'?

Would you advocate an uprising to put them out if they changed the election rules in order to stay in power ?

Several of America's greatest men would disagree with you if they were alive and heard you .I am merely re posting pieces that others have written and seem to enter into the realm of possibility.

We Americans have been warned by our founders to preserve our Independence from that tyranny that seems to crops up from time to time when those in power in America decide to push the envelope of their power too far into tyranny.

We've had other men in our American history who's mind ran it the direction of total control of the people such as Hamilton,Burr,Lincoln,MacArthur,FDR and several others.

Such men aren't content to lead or govern as appointed or as elected but eventually decide they know whats best for those who elected them and defy their collective wishes.We have been fortunate to have had other men elected to office that were content to serve and to govern as elected. Men like Washington,Jefferson,Madison and Truman to name a few .

And now in our times we have a renegade Congress and an Socialist President bent on changing our form of government and establishing absolute control over those who voted them into office.

We now have some of those types of men and a woman in high office in America.America is presently faced with an 'run away' government who's whose sole purpose is force a change in our Constitutional form of government that they swore an oath to preserve when they were elected .

It has happened before in America and a truly free people must always preserve the spirit of revolution in order to remain truly free don't you think ?

Sonnabend
12-16-2009, 06:55 AM
'll bet that The British advocated censorship just as you do before Lexington and Concord.Please allow me ask you a question Sonno.

Kindly show me where I advocated anything of the kind. I have defended you before, megs...dont make me change my mind.


Will an uprising in outrage of a people always be a lunacy to an law abiding Australian citizen like you .Have you a breaking point or does history tell you nothing ?If your own country was seized by group of Powerful Socialists or Islamicist's determined to seize control of your great country and change it's government by force of that elected power would that be your 'tripping point'?

I have seen this meme before and it had no basis in reality. Note the election held last year?


Would you advocate an uprising to put them out if they changed the election rules in order to stay in power ?

Several of America's greatest men would disagree with you if they were alive and heard you .I am merely re posting pieces that others have written and seem to enter into the realm of possibility.

When pigs fly.


We Americans have been warned by our founders to preserve our Independence from that tyranny that seems to crops up from time to time when those in power in America decide to push the envelope of their power too far into tyranny.

So vote him out later.


We've had other men in our American history who's mind ran it the direction of total control of the people such as Hamilton,Burr,Lincoln,MacArthur,FDR and several others.

Megs...you are going to have to show me just where and when they said this...MacArthur was a General and NEVER President. Care to elaborate?

FDR wanted total control? Huh?


Such men aren't content to lead or govern as appointed or as elected but eventually decide they know whats best for those who elected them and defy their collective wishes.

..and just when did these men do what you suggest?


We have been fortunate to have had other men elected to office that were content to serve and to govern as elected. Men like Washington,Jefferson,Madison and Truman to name a few .

You're making no sense


And now in our times we have a renegade Congress and an Socialist President bent on changing our form of government and establishing absolute control over those who voted them into office.

..and in a few years they will be voted out.


We now have some of those types of men and a woman in high office in America. America is presently faced with an 'run away' government who's whose sole purpose is force a change in our Constitutional form of government that they swore an oath to preserve when they were elected .

Wasnt this what DU said about Pres. Bush?


It has happened before in America and a truly free people must always preserve the spirit of revolution in order to remain truly free don't you think ?

.....:rolleyes:

Linda?

Anyone?

linda22003
12-16-2009, 08:49 AM
Kindly show me where I advocated anything of the kind. I have defended you before, megs...dont make me change my mind.

It's not where the smart money is, as a rule.


.....:rolleyes:

Linda?

Anyone?

Dunno, unless he's referring to the Civil War, there. And the right side won that one. Jefferson's quote "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure" comes to mind, but does that really apply in this situation? It seems to me that an election would suffice, and there's one coming up next year.

FlaGator
12-16-2009, 08:56 AM
No.

And Meg, you should know better. Leave this lunacy to the DUmmies :rolleyes:

There seems to be an appetite for the lunatic fringe right here at CU. :D

megimoo
12-16-2009, 09:10 AM
Kindly show me where I advocated anything of the kind. I have defended you before, megs...dont make me change my mind.



I have seen this meme before and it had no basis in reality. Note the election held last year?



When pigs fly.



So vote him out later.



Megs...you are going to have to show me just where and when they said this...MacArthur was a General and NEVER President. Care to elaborate?

FDR wanted total control? Huh?



..and just when did these men do what you suggest?



You're making no sense



..and in a few years they will be voted out.



Wasnt this what DU said about Pres. Bush?



.....:rolleyes:

Linda?

Anyone?
Are you actually asking old numbers to come to your aid,how low can you go ?

Your retorts are starting to be very shallow.You seem to make a habit of rejecting any opinions
but your own .

" We've had other men in our American history who's mind ran it the direction of total control of the people such as Hamilton,Burr,Lincoln,MacArthur,FDR and several others. "

"Megs...you are going to have to show me just where and when they said this...MacArthur was a General and NEVER President. Care to elaborate?" ..."FDR wanted total control? Huh?"
...........................
Watch my lips, I never said that Hamilton,Mac Arther or Burr were presidents .Perhaps they don't teach American history in detail in Australia.

FDR Tried to stuff the Supreme Court in order to dilute their impact on his policy's and he had a habit of stepping beyond his Constitutional boundaries.

As for defending me, I am quite capable of defending myself and in the future don't bother !
............................
Roosevelt's animosity toward the Supreme Court emerged in his first presidential term. Overwhelmingly elected in 1932, he promised a New Deal of social and economic involvement by the government in an America ravaged by the Great Depression. But the court, most of whose justices were appointed by Republicans, soon began to undo his work by ruling his New Deal laws unconstitutional on 5-4 votes.

"In May 1935, the court attacked two laws. First, it invalidated the Railroad Retirement Act of 1934, a law that had established pensions for railway workers. Then in a blow to the cornerstone of the New Deal, the court gutted the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933. Roosevelt lambasted the justices for those rulings. "We have been relegated to the horse-and-buggy definition of interstate commerce," he complained. But his contempt for the conservative-minded court of "Nine Old Men" -- six justices were age 70 or older, and the youngest was 61 -- did not deter them. In January 1936, the court ruled the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 unconstitutional."

snip

On Jan. 30, 1937, Roosevelt's 55th birthday, the president disclosed to his closest aides a draft bill to reorganize the federal judiciary. The measure -- mischievously linked to a long-ago proposal by 75-year-old Justice James C. McReynolds -- called for all federal judges to retire by age 70. If they failed to do so, the president could appoint another judge to serve in tandem with each one older than 70.

The practical effect of the proposal: Roosevelt could have appointed six more Supreme Court justices immediately, increasing the size of the court to 15 members. A Congress dominated by Democrats undoubtedly would have appointed judges friendly to Roosevelt and his New Deal agenda.

snip
Everyone claimed some measure of victory. But in the end, the American people won the most because the Senate did exactly what its Judiciary Committee had recommended. The Senate "so emphatically rejected" FDR's court-packing scheme that no similar plan ever has been, or likely ever will be, "presented to the free representatives of the free people of America."
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0799fdrcourt.htm
.................................

Sonnabend
12-16-2009, 03:45 PM
Are you actually asking old numbers to come to your aid,how low can you go ?"Old"?


Your retorts are starting to be very shallow.You seem to make a habit of rejecting any opinions but your own
I know bullshit when i smell it.


Watch my lips, I never said that Hamilton,Mac Arther or Burr were presidents Perhaps they don't teach American history in detail in Australia.
1. Thank you, I know who they are.
2. I asked you to explain this


We've had other men in our American history who's mind ran it the direction of total control of the people such as Hamilton,Burr,Lincoln,MacArthur,FDR and several others.The context is that Obama is President and MacArthur never was, so again I ask you, HOW did MacArthur want "total control"?


FDR Tried to stuff the Supreme Court in order to dilute their impact on his policy's and he had a habit of stepping beyond his Constitutional boundaries.Seems to be a national pastime...didnt Clinton also try to "stack the deck"?

He wanted the judges to retire at 70? Good Lord, like THAT conversation has never been held since? :rolleyes:


First, it invalidated the Railroad Retirement Act of 1934, a law that had established pensions for railway workersI'd be pretty pissed they did this too.


On Jan. 30, 1937, Roosevelt's 55th birthday, the president disclosed to his closest aides a draft bill to reorganize the federal judiciary. The measure -- mischievously linked to a long-ago proposal by 75-year-old Justice James C. McReynolds -- called for all federal judges to retire by age 70. If they failed to do so, the president could appoint another judge to serve in tandem with each one older than 70.A Bill that was never submitted to the Congress. In case it had escaped you, megs, FDR had a large mean streak and a wicked sense of humour...this was SO in character for him....you dont get it do you? The Bill was him having a very large dig at the "nine old men", he was well aware the fact it existed would be leaked.

FDR gave the Supreme Court the finger.....in a VERY subtle manner indeed.

LMAO.


" We've had other men in our American history who's mind ran it the direction of total control of the people such as Hamilton,Burr,Lincoln,MacArthur,FDR and several others.HOW did
Hamilton
Burr
Lincoln
MacArthur want "total control?"


Watch my lips, I never said that Hamilton,Mac Arther or Burr were presidents .Perhaps they don't teach American history in detail in Australia...the sad part, Megi, especially for you, is that I know more about your nation and its people than you do of mine.

If you care to start a small discussion on the topic, I will be more than happy to show you just how little you are aware of the outside world.

If I were you...I would not go there....you will find it extremely embarrassing. For starters Megs, and I want you to do this without Google , name the four main political parties in Australian politics at the moment, and name me the current leader of the Opposition.


As for defending me, I am quite capable of defending myself and in the future don't bother !Noted and logged.

megimoo
12-16-2009, 05:03 PM
"Old"?


I know bullshit when i smell it.

1. Thank you, I know who they are.
2. I asked you to explain this

The context is that Obama is President and MacArthur never was, so again I ask you, HOW did MacArthur want "total control"?

Seems to be a national pastime...didnt Clinton also try to "stack the deck"?

He wanted the judges to retire at 70? Good Lord, like THAT conversation has never been held since? :rolleyes:

I'd be pretty pissed they did this too.

A Bill that was never submitted to the Congress. In case it had escaped you, megs, FDR had a large mean streak and a wicked sense of humour...this was SO in character for him....you dont get it do you? The Bill was him having a very large dig at the "nine old men", he was well aware the fact it existed would be leaked.

FDR gave the Supreme Court the finger.....in a VERY subtle manner indeed.

LMAO.

HOW did
Hamilton
Burr
Lincoln
MacArthur want "total control?"

...the sad part, Megi, especially for you, is that I know more about your nation and its people than you do of mine.

If you care to start a small discussion on the topic, I will be more than happy to show you just how little you are aware of the outside world.

If I were you...I would not go there....you will find it extremely embarrassing. For starters Megs, and I want you to do this without Google , name the four main political parties in Australian politics at the moment, and name me the current leader of the Opposition.

Noted and logged.Why don't we end this crap on a civil note then.

MountainMan
12-16-2009, 11:04 PM
Are these the same Russians that predicted the U.S.A. would splinter into 5 or 6 little countries?

Get a grip people. We can't even believe what our own elected officials tell us - why in hell would we put any credence into some kind of foreign Internet gossip? :confused:

Thank you...Finally someone sane....

And no, the FBI, BATF and Homeland Security wouldnt help to put down an uprising.....for fucks sake people.

Rockntractor
12-16-2009, 11:07 PM
We in good hands! Bama won't hurt us.

Speedy
12-16-2009, 11:21 PM
We in good hands! Bama won't hurt us.

Oh yes. We are completely safe in Obama's hands. I am pouring super glue down the barrels and into the receivers of every weapon I own. I am sure that should anything ever come up, Obama can fix it with a speech.

Rockntractor
12-16-2009, 11:44 PM
Oh yes. We are completely safe in Obama's hands. I am pouring super glue down the barrels and into the receivers of every weapon I own. I am sure that should anything ever come up, Obama can fix it with a speech.

He give us mo bama money.

LoZoccolo
12-16-2009, 11:49 PM
You're all fucking morons. What civil war? The blue states and cities have all the money. Have fun living in Wyoming, Idaho and Utah, idiots.

lacarnut
12-16-2009, 11:49 PM
He give us mo bama money.

More like funny money the way thing are going.

Rockntractor
12-16-2009, 11:52 PM
You're all fucking morons. What civil war? The blue states and cities have all the money. Have fun living in Wyoming, Idaho and Utah, idiots.

Have you ever had sex with Barney Frank?

LoZoccolo
12-16-2009, 11:58 PM
Have you ever had sex with Barney Frank?

This isn't about me, assclown. I'm wondering if you sexually repressed idiots not so secretly fantasize about him.

Rockntractor
12-17-2009, 12:01 AM
This isn't about me, assclown. I'm wondering if you sexually repressed idiots not so secretly fantasize about him.
Your real name is Ass clown?

lacarnut
12-17-2009, 12:33 AM
This isn't about me, assclown. I'm wondering if you sexually repressed idiots not so secretly fantasize about him.

It's all about your feeble minded pathetic self.

Speedy
12-17-2009, 12:37 AM
Your real name is Ass clown?

I think it is. He admitted as much so we should not call him anything else.

Apache
12-17-2009, 12:03 PM
Umm wow...

Can I get the 15 minutes of my life, that it took to read this thread, back? :(

Speedy
12-17-2009, 12:18 PM
Umm wow...

Can I get the 15 minutes of my life, that it took to read this thread, back? :(

NO!

Apache
12-17-2009, 12:34 PM
NO!

But bbut I I I really want it back .....

Speedy
12-17-2009, 12:36 PM
But bbut I I I really want it back .....

You can have 6 minutes back. We have to keep the rest to cover taxes, mandates and fees.

Apache
12-17-2009, 12:48 PM
You can have 6 minutes back. We have to keep the rest to cover taxes, mandates and fees.

Done and done...

Dan D. Doty
12-18-2009, 01:35 AM
You're all fucking morons. What civil war? The blue states and cities have all the money. Have fun living in Wyoming, Idaho and Utah, idiots.

So LoZoccolo, you believe the advantage would belong to those who hold the cities?

Sonnabend
12-18-2009, 02:29 AM
The blue states and cities have all the money. Have fun living in Wyoming, Idaho and Utah, idiots.

Where have we heard this before? :rolleyes:

lacarnut
12-18-2009, 05:41 AM
Where have we heard this before? :rolleyes:

MSNBC did a poll (1.3 million people) for the happiest states. Guess what; the blue states like NY, CA were dead last along with most of the northeastern and blue states. The happiest states were in sunny states like FL and LA.

Sonnabend
12-18-2009, 10:11 AM
That's satanica's schtick


The blue states and cities have all the money

Jfor
12-18-2009, 10:49 AM
Where have we heard this before? :rolleyes:

Was trying to remember who the lizard eye's name was before.

noonwitch
12-18-2009, 01:00 PM
The blue states and cities have all the money.


Tell that to Jennifer Granholm, or any blue state governor! I don't think that's really been true since the 1970s, when the industrial states first started losing their population to the warmer environs to the south.

lacarnut
12-18-2009, 01:57 PM
Tell that to Jennifer Granholm, or any blue state governor! I don't think that's really been true since the 1970s, when the industrial states first started losing their population to the warmer environs to the south.

CA & NY are about to go bankrupt. If they have all the money, how could this be? Answer for birdbrain LOCO: because they tax the living shit out of their citizens and spend like drunken sailors. Many high income earners have left these corrupt blue states. Awwwwwwww