When did Flint ever say he favored a civil war?

Chris wrote >

"When somebody wins election and then breaks the constitution it aint democracy anymore.
i don't know how political violence is inconsistent with a foriegn policy of political violence."

oh ok. Like when Bush 'won' the first election? Or like when we invaded a country for oil under the guise of them having WMDs?

i was once a republican, but i have since denounced them in the last 2 years. They are nothing more than rich old men representing other rich folk. They care nothing about the average US citizen or for democracy. They only care about lining their pockets and gaining more wealth for the lobbyists and companys that have them paid off.

I said this in a different post: Senators and congressmen should wear patches on their suits, like NASCAR drivers do. This way we know who they are actually representing. LOL

We need a revolution. But not the kind Chris or Einstien is hoping for.

I specifically said I do not want a civil War.

I am warning it will happen if Democrats do not stop.

I never enlisted sir!

So not mutiny.  Nor will I fight you.

you live in a capitalist state where the governemnt cares about shareholders not stakeholders. and it won't change

Flint,
there obviously is a lot of  anger  in us about recent HC reforms with a lot of people. But to say the US is on the edge of a civil war? Please.

I declare the Monarchy of Paul Emery Washington! Long live the King!

http://www.newsweek.com/id/162914

People point out that social security is bankrupt. Others respond with outrage, suggesting that elimination of the social security entitlement is being proposed.

What's lost in the clutter of idiots is that no argument is the point. The point is that social security is broke. The point is that social security will not continue to exist without massive additional funding. The point is that you can only tax a nation so much until it becomes counter-productive and ruins the entire nation. There's a much bigger problem than debate over entitlements and what is reasonable/ideal. When they literally become unaffordable, holding the ideal that everyone deserves social security, welfare, health care, an education, etc. is worthless and you're left with a bankrupt government with no credit and anarchy, REGARDLESS that you hold the position that "everyone deserves them."

Those who are outraged at cutting back entitlements now are in for a rude awakening when basic math takes its toll and unsustainable spending eventually stops. Because, make no mistake, it will stop.

Double posted because I'm just that cool, and my posts contain like 5x your wisdom already. Ha ha ha. That's a joke. Get over it.

even after the passing of universal healthcare, you still insist the US is capitalist? Please

Key,

No I haven't read SST. Although, I like many of the themes espoused in the first movie. 2nd sucked. 3rd was ok, it was saved by the good ending.

But yes, I would like the military to take over and clean house. A Republic that is controlled by private interests is no different from tyranny imo.

>>We all still believe in the American Dream.<<

Bullshit. Pansies believe in sharing misery equally. Unless they're the party/elite. Then they believe that we should share misery and they should share control of society. Just like the healthcare bill--it's for us, not them and their staffs.

> flipmode wrote:

> avogrado, there are many forms of capitalism. The states remain anglo-saxon capitalist even with the healthcare. Then you got Continental capitalism, France Germany Italy. Asian capitalism Japan and korea and soon China. And also the Nordic capitalsim Sweden Denmark and others. Very different but still all capitalists

with the many different definitions people have for capitalism, your use of the word is purely a buzz word until you state a definition to go with it.