Ballot Box… Soap Box… Cartridge Box?
It seems pretty clear that there are a lot of politicians who will not be satisfied until America is destroyed. Voting doesn't seem to accomplish anything because the average voter is a moron. How else can you explain that our candidates have been Bush, Romney, Gore, Kerry, McCain and Obama over the past 4 cycles?
The Founding Fathers suffered the insults of the crown as long as they were tolerable - then they revolted. They didn't revolt by saying, "Pretty please, may I keep what I've earned?" They did it by shooting the enemy.
I've often wondered what the most effective means of revolt against our current (unconstitutional) government might be. Is it unarmed protests like the ones to block buses full of criminal aliens in Kalifornia? Is it armed obstruction of the sort that took place at the Bundy ranch? (You didn't think the Feds backed down because they were being NICE, did you?) Or is to going on the offensive - perhaps a few hundred sniper teams taking out filthy politicians across the Country? One thing the Virginia area snipers taught us was that even two dimwits can terrorize a substantial part of the Country by shooting from inside a car. What would the politicians do? Would it be a successful means of forcing a return to Constitutional values?
I know many here are "anti-violence". They don't have a problem with the government repeatedly raping them. And women especially seem to be willing to give up freedom for the illusion of safety. But consider: Everything you love about our government as it was founded first came out of bloody revolution. What are the alternatives?
Discuss.
The Founding Fathers suffered the insults of the crown as long as they were tolerable - then they revolted. They didn't revolt by saying, "Pretty please, may I keep what I've earned?" They did it by shooting the enemy.
I've often wondered what the most effective means of revolt against our current (unconstitutional) government might be. Is it unarmed protests like the ones to block buses full of criminal aliens in Kalifornia? Is it armed obstruction of the sort that took place at the Bundy ranch? (You didn't think the Feds backed down because they were being NICE, did you?) Or is to going on the offensive - perhaps a few hundred sniper teams taking out filthy politicians across the Country? One thing the Virginia area snipers taught us was that even two dimwits can terrorize a substantial part of the Country by shooting from inside a car. What would the politicians do? Would it be a successful means of forcing a return to Constitutional values?
I know many here are "anti-violence". They don't have a problem with the government repeatedly raping them. And women especially seem to be willing to give up freedom for the illusion of safety. But consider: Everything you love about our government as it was founded first came out of bloody revolution. What are the alternatives?
Discuss.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
What I think is this. Who's the guiltiest man in the room for the current state of men and women in this country? Who started all the welfare programs?Was it women? These started before females were even allowed in politics. So me thinks men started walking on their hands right about that time and made a mess of things. The notion that the gov will take care of women and replace men was started by, ... well, men. The earliest of the pussified men. So I guess to sum it up. The chicken came before the egg.
So they overreact. Massively.
Do you think that would help them hold on to power? Or cause their enforcers to have second thoughts?
For example, imagine a pilot tasked with bombing "insurgents", who gets word that another unit has just wiped out his home town. When he takes off with his load of 500 pound bombs, will he:
A) Drop them on targets as ordered, or,
B) Drop them on the aircraft on the flight line, or,
C) Drop them on the bunkers of the "overlords"?
Generally speaking, I think the only hope of the dictator-wannabees is to deal with the patriots while their numbers are small without allowing the conflict to expand.
Picture Afghanistan - but with the indigenous people being much more educated and generally better armed. Now imagine the US military having substantial sympathy (and relatives) among the "enemy".
Women voted for Obama by a 20% gender gap over men. Do you not recognize that as INSANE?
Women also have long been the champions of the illusion of security over freedom. Women ARE the Demoncrap party. (The Republicans are nothing to cheer about these days - except for the Constitution wing - but they're nowhere near as bad as the party of women.)
Now you can huff and puff and swear and scream and rip your hair out and even wear pants and pretend you're as capable as some low-level man - but the bottom line is, you're just another woman, and apparently part of the problem because you don't have your eyes open.
So go ahead and sit on it. And spin.
Wow! There you are slamming women for being incapable of discussion and avoiding the subject! ;-) I view the stupidity of voters in general, and women specifically, as the greatest danger facing this Country. They WILL be educated… perhaps as they starve, or take their last breath after being shot by a statist enforcer. Might be nice if it didn't take that long - but the majority of people are so stupid as to be little more than apes that wear clothes.
On the Pussification of western males - I've written on that subject before. Someone once commented that if women liked sex upside-down, men would learn to walk on their hands. A book I've cited to ("Men on Strike"), goes further, making the point that our society has so devalued men that they decline to fill the traditional roles. Instead of being the hardworking breadwinner and defender of the home, many men today are simply opting out. A man requires far less maintenance than a woman. He can be happy living in a shack with little in the way of property. The author makes the point that men are retreating from universities, taking low-wage jobs and replacing women with video games and pornography. This has the unhappy (for women) side-effect of drastically reducing the number of "eligible" males (those with a higher social status) and greatly reducing the number of men who are willing to commit to marriage and children (the latter being primarily a female desire.) As has often been said, "Why should a man marry? Why not just find someone he hates and give them half his stuff?" Today's laws are decidedly anti-male. It's a holdover from an era when advantages in legal results were accorded to women because of their lack of legal standing. Today women want to have the cake and eat it too. But what they're finding is that men won't play that game.
So, the independent women have won. They now not only can run the house (alone), raise the kids (alone), earn the income to pay for these things (alone) and defend the home (alone), they don't have to even put up with those smelly old nasty men. Once they have their sperm sample anyway.
The pussification of men is a direct result of their not seeing any reason to be brave, or assertive or courageous or decisive. Women are in the drivers seat. Men are just along for the ride. I think it will be a spectacular crash. What do you think?
The North Vietnamese lost as many as 3.3 million people (civilians and military on both sides). If the government killed that many people, would it be enough for the military to turn on its masters? For the average gun owner to enter the fray? For the people preparing meals for the politicians in the bunkers to poison their meals?
The idea of politicians hiding in bunkers sort of appeals to me. ;-)
Until I got to the bottom, where you wrote...
"I know many here are "anti-violence". They don't have a problem with the government repeatedly raping them. And women especially seem to be willing to give up freedom for the illusion of safety."
I am going to call a big stinking truckload of steamy BS on that crap. Obviously, you don't know women, you have NO idea what or how women think, process information, or just how dangerous (literally, not figuratively) we get when someone f**ks with us.
I don't know where you got your flawed and faulty information, or what sheeple urban legend you choose to take as gospel, but I can guarantee you that out of all the women I know and acquaint myself with (and that's a god awful lot nationwide) not a single one - correct, not one - fit your hokey stereotype.
It's too bad you have to end what would be an amazing and insightful post with bovine excrement... it's like a defendant at trial who tells the perfect story, perfect alibi - then tells such a blatant lie at the end you throw the whole thing out and convict him.
My granddaddy (Rest his soul) used to use this about people who write propagandistic blather like liberals, politicians, attorneys (and apparently BambiB) in general - This guy talks so much out the side of his neck that he'll never see the forest from the trees.
Bottom line - as you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about when it comes to women, why not sit back and pour yourself a nice, hot cup of STFU.
Who said I had a solution and why do you ignore the wussification of males that's going on in this country? And what did you mean by "maybe"??!!
What would follow?
It could be that by wiping out the traitors, the rest can actually function as they should - might even take note and clean up their acts - or resign from politics.
Conversely, they might try to crack down - confiscate firearms, further ignore the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. At that point, it seems to me that people would either comply - or rebel. If the latter, it could rapidly become 4,000 or even 40,000 people taking out the trash.
There's the question of whether it would even be publicized. Would the elites actually advertise the success of such a campaign?
As one who claims not to be of that sort - what is YOUR solution for dealing with all the women who would be perfectly happy to enslave us all if it meant they could "feel" safe?