Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/13/12 03:57 AM, CaveStoryGrounds wrote: Increasing polarization of politics and in effect the people of America, with the added out of control gun ownership leads me to believe another civil war could potentially happen. Thoughts?

Related

There would be no as you say civil war but more so a Civil Slaughter. Do you grasp the man power and WMDs and crowd control that the Military and police have in America. I am sorry but to bare arms against the tyrant that has become the American empire cannot be won with what amounts to pop guns and slingshots LOL.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause

Yup none of that going on here at (NGS) forums.

At 10/13/12 01:18 AM, Kwing wrote:

Then why don't we elect an engineer, tradesman, architect, scientist, mathematician, properly trained teacher or philosophers?

You seem to think we have a choice in the matter as voting citizens LOL.

Republicans have voted against everything Obama has done or tried to do, moreso than with any other president. You're talking about dictatorship? Why don't you go criticize a president who was given the means to do whatever they wanted to? Namely Bush and his spying on the American people...

There all to blame and there all the same man.

At 10/13/12 12:27 AM, Slacker013 wrote:

Sure we fought them and people died but they did more running then fighting.

This is not a fight it is a slaughter and I hope you realize that wars are not fought with courage and valor like the movies try and brainwash you into thinking on the contrary wars are won by machines and bombs dropped from many moons away in the comfort of an arm chair. When you say fight that means two willing opponents that both have an equal chance and if you think the Arabs have an equal chance than you are sadly mistaken.

At 10/13/12 12:12 AM, Slacker013 wrote:

At 10/13/12 12:04 AM, leanlifter1 wrote:

The point is that I have just irrefutably proven that politicians lie to you to get into wars and then they lie to you some more to stay in them.

We're just gonna have to wait and see how this plays out. This could be it, the last deployment. If not, then you are 100% right about Obama and I wouldn't argue about it. He still has a little bit of this term to go so we can wait and see. Maybe they'll be back before Christmas. Elect Romney and we can say hello to Iran!

It's not justifiable as the War on Afghanistan is where it all started 10 years ago and officially it has ended but then what is the justification of this current war on Iraq and why would Obama bring the troops home from Iraq and "End the War" when he already did what he said he would do which was to end the war on Afghanistan. We seem to forget to fast.

At 10/13/12 12:04 AM, Warforger wrote:

At 10/12/12 08:34 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: That is such a flawed statement on your part. LemonCrush says "Don't like RP oh that means you must be a fascist" I say
LOL ok sure bud ;-) That's called an invalid argument on your part as well it is a logical fallacy.

So you're saying he has an invalid argument and a logical fallacy. You could probably build skyscrapers with the amount of irony in that statement.

What does that have to do with the facts that LemonCrush statement was full of shit when he posted that in his opinion I am a fascist because I do not agree with Ron Paul's ideals.

At 10/13/12 12:01 AM, Slacker013 wrote:

At 10/12/12 11:54 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

Obama is proof that the majority of the public or many of them are gullible.

Have you ever watched the South Park episode where the kids were voting on a new mascot and they only could choose between a giant douche or a turd sandwich? That's kind of how things have been going down lately... I don't believe an independent is going to win the election. I sure as hell don't want Romney to win though... you talk about the end of a war then you can't wait till he is in office!

The point is that I have just irrefutably proven that politicians lie to you to get into wars and then they lie to you some more to stay in them.

At 10/12/12 11:53 PM, Slacker013 wrote:

And the first 2 said exactly my point "between nations" we aren't at war with the nation of Afghanistan. Geneva code would agree as well as the people we are fighting.

What a weak stance and are you serious really.

At 10/12/12 11:46 PM, Slacker013 wrote:

At 10/12/12 11:39 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

Hi, Obama's been president for 4 years

And I hope he stays elected so we don't end up backing Israel in a war that will lead to WW3. Bush was president at the start and his family made a buck or 2 war profiteering... we've had chances to kill Bin Laden during his term in office but I think he was just stalling.

Obama is proof that the majority of the public or many of them are gullible.

At 10/12/12 11:33 PM, Slacker013 wrote:

do you recall voting to go to war against Iraq?

I don't recall people ever "voting" to go to war however I do recall let it was yesterday people voting for some well known first black president that said he would bring the troops back home as his campaigning cornerstone rhetoric.
As I said people are to gullible here is proof.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kr9ywEFRQkQ

At 10/12/12 11:20 PM, Slacker013 wrote:

At 10/12/12 11:15 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

See the hard part was already done and over with 10 years ago mission accomplished which is to get the public behind another false war.

You can blame the Bush administration for that one...

No that's to easy not to mention the sole reason Bush was put into power. See I don't blame Bush I blame the mass public for being so gullible.

At 10/12/12 11:07 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

Ron Paul is a fascist and even he may not know it let alone his flock of sheep and even his opposition.

Well, I mean, he's spent his entire career going against "fascism".....but you say he is...I mean what can be believed? Actual observed facts, or a kook on the internet?

I know you're trolling, but you're not very good/believable.

See it's kind of like trying to get a Military man to admit he does not support and advocate and work for fascism.

At 10/12/12 11:11 PM, Slacker013 wrote:

At 10/12/12 10:56 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

and everything will be alright sorta well maybe not but it will be better than it was.

We can only wish that it was that easy...

See the hard part was already done and over with 10 years ago mission accomplished which is to get the public behind another false war.

At 10/12/12 11:04 PM, Dimitrilium wrote: A gun and some bullets. Plus the will to do whatever you want.

I would say that's an easy recipe for an 8x10 accommodation + 3 squares a day on the governments dollar for 25 to life.

At 10/12/12 10:34 PM, TheMason wrote:

My main point to you was that Afghanistan would've still been seen as necessary...nothing except 9/11 NOT happening could've changed that.

Why would you think anything you say would hold even a grain of salt with a name like The Mason LOL at you and the Fascist little boyscout for grown men club.

At 10/12/12 10:37 PM, Slacker013 wrote:

At 10/12/12 10:27 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

Helicopter pilots are still getting shot down in Afghanistan, and bases are rocketed almost daily. The war is very much real, people are still dying.

Okay then... if all that is happening what do you think would happen if we told our men to drop their post and report to a C-5 Galaxy for evacuation? You've lost more troops in a hour then the entire war! Falling back isn't easy, we've only had to do it once.

If the War Machine that is the US Military had orders to pull out they could do it in record time no problem. Remember the US Military are the aggressors so once they go away the Arabs will be just happy to have them the fuck out of there country and homes man. The Arabs will commence back to throwing rocks at each other meanwhile the Americans back on the home front will continuing eating there Mc cheese burgers and texting on there new iphone 5 and everything will be alright sorta well maybe not but it will be better than it was.

At 10/12/12 08:56 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

I'm just going off of what YOU yourself have said. You say you tihnk America is being run as a fascist nation. Ron Paul does not support these alleged "fascist policies". There for, by normal human logic, you should support someone who stands in opposition to the same things you do. Right?

Ron Paul is or was the "Opposition" just like Obama was the opposition toward Bush RP is the opposition toward Obamney.
Remember the "13 key signifiers of Fascism." &
point #13 Denial of any or all of the above

Ron Paul is a fascist and even he may not know it let alone his flock of sheep and even his opposition.

At 10/12/12 09:53 PM, TucoM wrote:

Not voting because one loses trust in the system is a form of voter apathy.

Apathy is a very inaccurate word to use as it does not reflect all non voters as most of the public is not able to vote for a varying array of causes such as but not limited to as you say potential voter indifference to politics and as well many others such as law, age, retarded mental function, incarceration, work, out of the country during voting period, health issues in general both mental and physical etc .....

I believe in the non-aggression principle as it is one that can not be argued against without admitting that you condone the initiation of violence. An eye for an eye leave's "US" all blind.

And.........if that fails?

Move to safe location it's very simple really meanwhile let the retards use there archaic primal part of the brain and there bullets until they kill each all other off "god willing". Then the people that are left over and that want to use there working and still in tact brains will be free to do so in relative peace after the rift raft wipe each other out by way of there ignorant and primal learned and indoctrinated EGOs, Pride, Hate, Greed, and Selfish 1 dimensional ideals that ultimately lead them to there own demise.

At 10/12/12 09:47 PM, Slacker013 wrote:

At 10/12/12 09:41 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

What the hell are you talking about.

I'm talking about the war he promised to "bring our boys back" that you seem to have forgotten about even though that was your only reason to create this post...

Ending the war does not mean sending 30,000 more troops to the war.

At 10/12/12 09:22 PM, Slacker013 wrote:

We can't just turn our back on them and walk away cause they're the kind that will take advantage of that.

What the hell are you talking about.

At 10/12/12 08:12 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 10/12/12 11:23 AM, leanlifter1 wrote:

That's because Ron Paul is a crazy old man with his archaic beliefs and painting of sinking ships.

Ah, so YOU'RE the fascist

That is such a flawed statement on your part. LemonCrush says "Don't like RP oh that means you must be a fascist" I say
LOL ok sure bud ;-) That's called an invalid argument on your part as well it is a logical fallacy.

At 10/12/12 06:58 PM, Dawnslayer wrote:

At 10/12/12 05:08 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 10/11/12 11:10 PM, Dawnslayer wrote: Afghanistan, I think, would have been seen as unnecessary.

I think this is where you're completely wrong. 9/11 would've happened since there was no conspiracy (and IF there had been one Clinton and Gore would've been involved since it would take longer than 9 months to plan and execute it.

I'm sorry, have I been confused for Leanlifter? I never said 9/11 was a conspiracy; I was answering the original question, which was how history would have been different if the events of 9/11 never took place.

People would not have been killed in the 100,000s and laws would not have been passed shutting down the boarders and American's rights and freedoms would not have been taken away one by one under the "guise" of national security. Not to mention the "War economy" would have remained stagnant and lets not forget about all the millions jobs and money being generated by "war of terror".

At 10/12/12 07:47 PM, SenatorJohnDean wrote: To Everybody who doesn't like Obama in power: let's all go back to anarchy. You start.

What ?

At 10/12/12 05:09 PM, Bolo wrote:

At 10/12/12 03:30 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Nothing to lose but the lives of there loved ones, there homes, there country, and there culture other than that LOL ya nothing to lose.

Did you read what I posted? From the standpoint of fanaticism, there is nothing to lose, and everything to gain. How can you not understand that? When a man crashes an airplane into a building as an act of terrorism, he knows it will provoke a response, but feels the reward of his action outweighs the consequences. Essentially, he has the prospect of "eternal salvation" (which is of course false to the rest of us, but very real to him or to his ilk), to greet him after he dies, and believes that his entire family will be likewise saved.

The only thing that's fanatic is killing 100,000s of people under the guise of an unconfirmed and highly controversial threat threat. All wars started in the past which are many by the states all started on the premise of "False Flag propaganda" why is this any different.

That is the very danger of religion. It devalues reality in favor of imagined alternate realities.

How many US enlisted kill in name of "God" and country I don't want to even fathom.

That's an opinion not based on fact as we only know what the media told us which is worthless . For a fact all we know is a few buildings were hit with planes that day and that a 4th one "Trade Tower 7" went down the same day without being hit by a plane.

No. It is a fact. Proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Watched live on television by a billion people. Admitted by Osama bin Laden himself, and gloated-about. There is no logical reason that has ever been stated (much less supporting evidence!) to suggest why the government would go to the most extreme extent in the history of civilization to cover up this event that inflicted such serious self harm. Occam's razor. Look it up. Why would we assume a more complex answer (conspiracy) is the truth in the absence of any supporting evidence?

It's fact only in your mind but the reality is all that we actually know for a fact is some buildings went down but we don't actually know who made them go down.

At 10/12/12 02:30 PM, Bolo wrote:

Honestly, it's not hard to understand why the Islamic terrorists were willing to commit the attack. From their perspective, they had nothing to lose

Nothing to lose but the lives of there loved ones, there homes, there country, and there culture other than that LOL ya nothing to lose.

9/11 was not a conspiracy.

That's an opinion not based on fact as we only know what the media told us which is worthless . For a fact all we know is a few buildings were hit with planes that day and that a 4th one "Trade Tower 7" went down the same day without being hit by a plane.

At 10/12/12 11:25 AM, Ericho wrote: I don't know of any bad things that were really going on, but I heard that we were in fact being pressured to invade another country. Then again, Bush didn't take any action until an actual attack. I kind of doubt it, because there are plenty of corrupt countries like Zimbabwe and South Korea and we wouldn't invade them unless we thought they were attacking us. Then again, there was Libya, but that was more because we had a lot of support.

Hard to believe that anyone would attack the largest most powerful Military Industrial Complex in the world that's kinda tantamount to asking your family and people to get wiped off the face of the Earth.. Death toll in the Middle East well into the 100,000s+ but of course you guy's do not see the death and stink on the TV Media BLOCKED.

At 10/12/12 11:17 AM, Ericho wrote:

At 10/12/12 02:18 AM, Feoric wrote: It's okay guys Romney will win because his supporters have the most thumbs up on youtube videos.

Ron Paul was extremely popular on the Internet (probably had the most subscribers) and he didn't get very far.

That's because Ron Paul is a crazy old man with his archaic beliefs and painting of sinking ships.

At 10/12/12 01:26 AM, Cootie wrote:

Most crime revolves around poverty. Eradicating that would cut crimes drastically, and it is also not a bad idea in and of itself.

Dam you are one of the few around here that speak true logic. Crime is enabled by poverty and lower income classes so IMO if we abolish poverty and raise the minimum wage and make good jobs or rather "Careers" more readily available then people have no excuse to turn to crime for income supplementation. On the other hand the judicial system is if not the biggest money maker for the government so I can't see solutions happening with these current tyrants in power.

At 10/12/12 12:56 AM, TucoM wrote:

At 10/11/12 09:44 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

People not voting is actually an expression of having no trust in the system.

That is.........a good description of one reason behind voter apathy.

You say apathy but that is not the right word at all as a choice to not vote took at leased as much thought but more than likely more than the choice to vote. Trust and as you say apathy are very different. There are many people who could give a dam about politics because they are to busy living and enjoying life and to you that is apathy which is a complete false statement. To loose trust in the system means one is actually thinking and using there brain functions therefore not voting is contrary to apathy.

You could say that low voter turnout is as legitimate as high turnout as long as the right to vote exists but that is very highly dictatorship like and as well it is very pretentious. I choose not to vote and that is my right and I expect you to respect it just as I respect your right to vote.

I'm not telling you whether or not you should vote. Your choice on the matter is just that......your choice. All I'm saying is that boycotting elections will be seen by the powers that be as mere voter apathy. Your first sentence in your post says exactly that.

As I said trust and apathy are very very different words so please look up the meanings. Just by you saying that they will see low voter turnout as apathy which is an erroneous statement to begin with should be enough for you to see how corrupt it goes. We have never even had "high" voter turnout as most of the population due to an array of reasons cannot vote ether bylaw or otherwise so what is left is a bunch of mindless sheep who only do what they are told and a bunch of crazy gun toting pro military, religious, fascists turning out to vote to do there part to usher in the "fascist utopia".

Real radical changes in our system may require armed revolution........and that's a big can of worms that might best be left unopened.

I believe in the non-aggression principle as it is one that can not be argued against without admitting that you condone the initiation of violence. An eye for an eye leave's "US" all blind.

At 10/11/12 09:18 PM, TucoM wrote:

Boycotting the vote isn't going to help. They'll write it off as apathy instead of protest.

People not voting is actually an expression of having no trust in the system. You could say that low voter turnout is as legitimate as high turnout as long as the right to vote exists but that is very highly dictatorship like and as well it is very pretentious. I choose not to vote and that is my right and I expect you to respect it just as I respect your right to vote.