Generation Terrorists » Forum
Sign up   |   Start new thread   |   Lost password?   |   Edit profile   |   Member List   |   myGT   |   Blog
Keyword
From
To
 

Calling all students of the 60s
socialyD Posted: Thu Dec 18 16:28:38 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I am often confused at the reasoning behind the violent anti-war demonstrations of the 60s and 70s.

Any insight?



 
addi Posted: Thu Dec 18 17:14:53 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Hif and I pretty much grew up right in the middle of the whole shabang (I think he's just a year or so younger than me). I could write and write on this and maybe not end up telling you what you wanted to know. Could you be a little more exact in your question so I don't end up boring you to death?

One of my favorite songs from that era..

Artist: Thunderclap Newman
Song: Something in the Air Lyrics

Call out the instigators
Because there's something in the air
We've got to get together sooner or later
Because the revolution's here, and you know it's right
And you know that it's right

We have got to get it together
We have got to get it together now

Lock up the streets and houses
Because there's something in the air
We've got to get together sooner or later
Because the revolution's here, and you know it's right
And you know that it's right

We have got to get it together
We have got to get it together now

Hand out the arms and ammo
We're going to blast our way through here
We've got to get together sooner or later
Because the revolution's here, and you know it's right
And you know that it's right

We have got to get it together
We have got to get it together
Now


 
socialyD Posted: Thu Dec 18 18:10:25 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Sure, I was talking with a guy today who thought that America's college students should rise up again and put and end to Bush's needless war, using force and protesting simlar to that of the Kent State incident. I have always been a big fan of peaceful protests (ya know Martin Luther King Jr. kind)and think that he's a little bit of an extremist. But in 1960 thousands upon thousands of students protested the war and protested violently. I was just hoping for some insite on the violent reaction to the war. Why?



 
misszero Posted: Thu Dec 18 18:35:56 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  i'm not a student of the 60's, but all I can think of is the whole 'fight fire with fire' philosophy. kinda bring the violence home to some people who were so distanced from the actual thing, despite their tv's.


 
JAZER Posted: Thu Dec 18 18:50:02 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Protest are going to make a difference in this war. Dubya has got to much riding on this war and its to late to pull out now. Besides, were doing the right thing


 
JAZER Posted: Thu Dec 18 18:51:54 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  JAZER said:
>Protest are going to make a difference in this war. Dubya has got to much riding on this war and its to late to pull out now. Besides, were doing the right thing

Protest ARENT... sorry


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Dec 18 19:31:29 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  this war has absolutely nothing in common with vietnam.
one thing that has come to light since the vietnam era, is that most of the anti-war protesters were unwittingly organized by communist sympathizers.
this is not a myth but a verifiable fact.(see david horowitz - radical son)
That doesn't necessarily make the protesters wrong, but it is interesting, and there can be no doubt that the protesters did cost american lives over there.
That being said, the way we fought that war was wrong. We let the politicians fight it instead of letting the soldiers fight it. We never lost a major battle the whole time we were there, yet we lost the war. That's politics.
Our boys were coming home an average of 22 body bags every day. That is certainly fodder for any anti-war protester and should give even the most hawkish hawk something to think about.
At the same time we had so many anti-war protesters, we also had hundreds of thousands of civil rights protesters. Sometimes they joined hands with each other and made their respective causes even stronger.
Hippies were always looking for a cause, that's for sure.
Everybody actually thought that music could save the world from itself. That's why the big music festivals were born. Not to make money but to save the world. Times have changed somewhat in that respect.
However because of that ideal, a tremendous amount of truly awesome music came out of that era.



 
addi Posted: Thu Dec 18 23:25:17 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>this war has absolutely nothing in common with vietnam.
People questioned whether we should have gone into Vietnam.
People questioned whether we should have invaded Iraq.
Something in common
>one thing that has come to light since the vietnam era, is that most of the anti-war protesters were unwittingly organized by communist sympathizers.
>this is not a myth but a verifiable fact.(see david horowitz - radical son)
The millions of students that protested the war were all dupes brainwashed by the commies. None of them had an origonal opinion formed on their own.
>That doesn't necessarily make the protesters wrong, but it is interesting, and there can be no doubt that the protesters did cost american lives over there.
Had they not protested and put pressure on Nixon to withdraw our troops and find "peace with honor" thousands of soldiers would have remained there much longer. Of course, none of those soldiers would have been killed though so I can't say the protesters saved any lives. I guess the guilt of our fallen soldiers doesn't lie solely with the politicians, but also with those damn protesters trying to end the war.

>That being said, the way we fought that war was wrong. We let the politicians fight it instead of letting the soldiers fight it. We never lost a major battle the whole time we were there, yet we lost the war. That's politics.
We fought very few major battles over there. It was mostly guerilla warfare and jungle scirmishes. Had we fought the war "correctly" and won it it would have been a justified war.
>Our boys were coming home an average of 22 body bags every day. That is certainly fodder for any anti-war protester and should give even the most hawkish hawk something to think about.
Had it only been 21 body bags per day it would have been much easier to take.
>At the same time we had so many anti-war protesters, we also had hundreds of thousands of civil rights protesters. Sometimes they joined hands with each other and made their respective causes even stronger.
Many racists and Hawks thought the two groups were secretly gay when they joined hands. No other explanation for it.


>Hippies were always looking for a cause, that's for sure.
Hippies didn't really hate the war deep down. It just gave them the cause fix they were addicted to. If the government was forcing them to vacation in Hawaii they would have made it a cause to protest.

On a much less sarcastic note much of the focus of protests were against the war, but the protests of the 60's were also a rebellion against the control and authority that came out of the post war Ozzie and Harriet mentality of the older generation. Thus came the embracing of things their parents hated; rock n' roll and wild clothes to name just two.

>


 
addi Posted: Fri Dec 19 06:49:02 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  wrote the above late last night. musta been suffering from a nic fit. It came out a little more caustic than necessary. Sorry, hif.


day 5


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Dec 19 06:50:01 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>this war has absolutely nothing in common with vietnam.
>People questioned whether we should have gone into Vietnam.
>People questioned whether we should have invaded Iraq.
>Something in common

wow, that's really profound, in that case virtually every war ever fought has something in common with all other wars.

>>one thing that has come to light since the vietnam era, is that most of the anti-war protesters were unwittingly organized by communist sympathizers.
>>this is not a myth but a verifiable fact.(see david horowitz - radical son)
>The millions of students that protested the war were all dupes brainwashed by the commies. None of them had an origonal opinion formed on their own.

actually that's pretty much true. read the book.

>>That doesn't necessarily make the protesters wrong, but it is interesting, and there can be no doubt that the protesters did cost american lives over there.
>Had they not protested and put pressure on Nixon to withdraw our troops and find "peace with honor" thousands of soldiers would have remained there much longer. Of course, none of those soldiers would have been killed though so I can't say the protesters saved any lives. I guess the guilt of our fallen soldiers doesn't lie solely with the politicians, but also with those damn protesters trying to end the war.
>>That being said, the way we fought that war was wrong. We let the politicians fight it instead of letting the soldiers fight it. We never lost a major battle the whole time we were there, yet we lost the war. That's politics.
>We fought very few major battles over there. It was mostly guerilla warfare and jungle scirmishes. Had we fought the war "correctly" and won it it would have been a justified war.
>>Our boys were coming home an average of 22 body bags every day. That is certainly fodder for any anti-war protester and should give even the most hawkish hawk something to think about.
>Had it only been 21 body bags per day it would have been much easier to take.

had the war been fought by the military instead of the politicans, it would have been over in 2yrs or less instead of the 8yrs we were there, and the cost in lives would have been much less.

>>At the same time we had so many anti-war protesters, we also had hundreds of thousands of civil rights protesters. Sometimes they joined hands with each other and made their respective causes even stronger.
>Many racists and Hawks thought the two groups were secretly gay when they joined hands. No other explanation for it.

now that's just funny
>
>>Hippies were always looking for a cause, that's for sure.

>Hippies didn't really hate the war deep down. It just gave them the cause fix they were addicted to. If the government was forcing them to vacation in Hawaii they would have made it a cause to protest.

true true true




 
addi Posted: Fri Dec 19 07:06:16 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Nice pic, hif. Is that Renoir "Sunday in the park"? Can't remember for sure.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Dec 19 07:57:07 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>Nice pic, hif. Is that Renoir "Sunday in the park"? Can't remember for sure.

renoir - luncheon of the boating party
one of my favorites.


 
FN Posted: Fri Dec 19 10:34:00 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  JAZER said:
>Besides, were doing the right thing


Cause the government says so?


 
JAZER Posted: Fri Dec 19 10:45:04 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  On the anniversary of 9-11, does anyone remember that we Americans are still at war and in a struggle for our very national survival?

Most Democrats are playing politics with the security of the U.S. In their zeal to discredit President Bush, they are covering over the fact that we are at war with a determined enemy who is motivated by religious passion to destroy us.

The Muslim fundamentalists do not hate us because of something we did or will do to them. They hate us because of who we are. They believe we are the world bastion of Judeo-Christian civilization, whether the liberals in this country think so or not. In their view, this places us as the number one threat to their Islamic culture.

The Koran and the Hadith, the two foundational holy books of Islam, teach that there is a fight to the finish between their civilization and ours. Muhammad taught that the world is divided into two spheres: Dar al Islam and Dar al Harb "the house of peace and the house of war." Mohammad believed everything outside of Islamic control is Dar al harb or "the house of war."

The so-called "moderate Muslims" can only be moderate as long as they do not take literally what Muhammad, the Koran and the Hadith teach. The fundamentalists do take them literally and therefore have a much stronger basis of their faith that endures the challenges of other cultures.

For the liberals to be arguing over the $87 billion to secure Iraq is like two people arguing over how much to tip the waiters on the Titanic after it hit the iceberg.

For Sen. Hillary Clinton to allege that we have created more enemies by invading Iraq is not only irresponsible, but reflects a total ignorance of the enemy that threatens us.

We did nothing to provoke the wanton attacks of the Muslim terrorists who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993. The only reason they didn't destroy it then was because of a technical miscalculation, not lack of desire. But the same group did succeed Sept. 11, 2001, when they also hit the Pentagon. The only reason they didn't hit the White House is because of some courageous passengers on another hijacked airliner that was caused to crash short of its target in Pennsylvania.

The liberals are so intent upon destroying President Bush, that they have completely dismissed the danger that Iraq posed to the U.S. Iraq was a supporter of Islamic terrorism and developed weapons that would have been used by terrorists against the free world.

The successful war on Iraq has also served as a clear warning to other Islamic nations who continuously support and supply Islamic terrorists including al-Qaida such as Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Libya.

The war on Iraq is just one battle in a long war that we must fight against Islamic terrorism. We did not choose this war. But we have no alternative but to fight it. So $87 billion in light of the danger we face is not a great sum of money. After all, isn't it far better to fight the terrorists there and rebuild Iraqi cities than to fight them here and rebuild American cities?

Some of the Democratic presidential hopefuls are crying that since al-Qaida is now in Iraq, we need to get our troops out as fast as possible. They say our troops are now "sitting ducks" to be picked off by al-Qaida. Their solution is to turn tail and run. How cowardly and irresponsible can they get? They are certainly not qualified to lead America and provide security in this perilous time.

It's the terrorists and al-Qaida who are becoming sitting ducks. We now know where to find them. Our troops have either killed or captured many of them. The liberal media only report our casualties, not the tremendous damage our troops are inflicting on them.

President Bush said this would be a long and tough war against worldwide Islamic terrorist organizations. We have done well in this war in the two years since 9-11. We do not have the alternative to give up and run. Any sign of weakness any signs of lack of resolve in facing our determined enemy will be interpreted by them as weakness. The Muslim fundamentalists will see it as a sign to move in for the kill.

Sen. Ted Kennedy keeps calling for an exit strategy. He needs to remember that our enemy is resourceful, numerous and relentless. We are not just fighting a couple of nations. We are fighting a religious movement that is multinational and numbers in the millions. There is no way to exit from the threat they pose. We need to remember that we still have troops in Japan and Germany who are there as a result of World War II. Where is the exit strategy there?

So we must stay the course and fight with all our might and resources. The alternative is to be destroyed as a world power. And don't think they cannot do that if left unchallenged.



 
addi Posted: Fri Dec 19 12:55:22 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Jazer
Carefully put down "Rush Limbaugh's Why Liberals Are All Scumbags" book and slowly back away. : )


 
JAZER Posted: Fri Dec 19 16:22:04 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Addi, Are you implying that liberals arent scum?


 
Malik Posted: Fri Dec 19 16:36:48 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Hey now, not all liberals are scumbags... only those that don't turn and repent from their evil leftist beliefs. :) But seriously now, I've got some things to say.

First of all, just because we jump out of Iraq, we lose all our standing as a world power? That seems pretty absurd jump to me. What about Korea or Vietnam? We pulled out of there, and we didn't even defeat the countries we were fighting. I'm sure that the terrorists you talk about will be sure to attack us more, but we can just pass more laws. That should make everything better, right?

But the part of your argument that really rubs me the wrong was is when you said that the only alternative was to be destroyed as a world power. So then it's okay to do something solely in the intrests of self-preservation?

When we make the statement that a certain course of action must be followed, and the impact of not following that action is the decline of an empire, we have justified Jingoism. My country, right or wrong, good or evil; I will stick with my country and agree with her actions and beliefs no matter what the circumstances are, because the raw survival of my country and her political standing is the highest priority.

And that, my friends, leads to a jihad, a holy war, where the glory is not given to an intangible god but a living, breathing country - a much easier deity to digest for the masses. The enemy becomes anyone who disagrees with the fundamental beliefs of the empire, quickly leading to the termination of essental liberties and freedoms. Already the American government has declared that free speech can be curbed not only if it is slander or inflamatory, but in wartime as well. Currently, the police can easily wiretap or infiltrate suspects that are suspected of terrorism without getting a search warrant from a judge. Essental rights, such as the right to testify, have been denied to prisoners suspected terrorists, yet the death penalty is still being considered. Laws in the future such as the Patriot act II, which would give the government to de-naturalize U.S. citizens convicted of terrorism, and deny essental rights of due process to those suspected of terrorism, are expected to come into being soon, once the public is blind to their rights. All we need are a few pushes towards totalatarianism, and it won't matter how many rednecks with shotguns we have, the well-regulated militia will not be able to stand up to the army to form a revolution.

But, coming off of that rant, and back onto the main point, empires are not the most stable structures in world politics. Empires (and yes, America is an empire) reach a point in which they are at their height, and then decline and fall. America, just like the Egyptian, Mongolian, Roman, Macedonian, Aztec, and British empires, will not have the control over the world that they do now. It is foolish to believe that preservation of an empire is worth /any/ action, because no empire lives forever.

Just remember that even your empire, Muad'dib, must live its time and then die...


 
addi Posted: Fri Dec 19 17:11:24 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  JAZER said:
>Addi, Are you implying that liberals arent scum?

No. I would never want to be guilty of implying anything of the sort. We are scum, but a nice, lovable sort of scum


Malik thank you for adding some sanity to this.






 
JAZER Posted: Fri Dec 19 17:15:28 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>JAZER said:
>>Addi, Are you implying that liberals arent scum?
>
> No. I would never want to be guilty of implying anything of the sort. We are scum, but a nice, lovable sort of scum
>
>
>Malik thank you for adding some sanity to this.
>
>
>
>
I will admit also that "ALL" liberals arent scum. I have a few friends that are liberal and they arent bad people just like I am sure the the liberals here in Gt arent straight up scum. I dont have the right to judge a person based on their political orientation. However, I can still believe that your liberal beliefs are scum. My next question... Addi, were you implying that my above post was "insane"?


 
misszero Posted: Fri Dec 19 18:25:23 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Jazer, I suppose there's always exceptions to every rule. Generally, I dislike humanity. Specifically, there are people I like very much.

I went to a party which descended into political debate at 2 am, I'm way too tired to go into this again, as much as I'm tempted to.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Dec 19 19:53:48 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Malik said:
>Hey now, not all liberals are scumbags... only those that don't turn and repent from their evil leftist beliefs. :) But seriously now, I've got some things to say.
>
>First of all, just because we jump out of Iraq, we lose all our standing as a world power? That seems pretty absurd jump to me. What about Korea or Vietnam? We pulled out of there, and we didn't even defeat the countries we were fighting. I'm sure that the terrorists you talk about will be sure to attack us more, but we can just pass more laws. That should make everything better, right?

we haven't yet pulled out of korea, and the north koreans were most definitely defeated. we did pull out of vietnam, but for political, not military reasons.
And in doing so, we left the south vietnamese to suffer the onslaught of communism and the north vietnamese.
>
>But the part of your argument that really rubs me the wrong was is when you said that the only alternative was to be destroyed as a world power. So then it's okay to do something solely in the intrests of self-preservation?

If not self-preservation, then what ?
I can't think of a better reason to act on anything.
>
>When we make the statement that a certain course of action must be followed, and the impact of not following that action is the decline of an empire, we have justified Jingoism. My country, right or wrong, good or evil; I will stick with my country and agree with her actions and beliefs no matter what the circumstances are, because the raw survival of my country and her political standing is the highest priority.

Pretty much, yeah.
I do believe in the American way of life and will fight to preserve it. I did military service just for that reason.

>And that, my friends, leads to a jihad, a holy war, where the glory is not given to an intangible god but a living, breathing country - a much easier deity to digest for the masses. The enemy becomes anyone who disagrees with the fundamental beliefs of the empire, quickly leading to the termination of essental liberties and freedoms. Already the American government has declared that free speech can be curbed not only if it is slander or inflamatory, but in wartime as well. Currently, the police can easily wiretap or infiltrate suspects that are suspected of terrorism without getting a search warrant from a judge. Essental rights, such as the right to testify, have been denied to prisoners suspected terrorists, yet the death penalty is still being considered. Laws in the future such as the Patriot act II, which would give the government to de-naturalize U.S. citizens convicted of terrorism, and deny essental rights of due process to those suspected of terrorism, are expected to come into being soon, once the public is blind to their rights. All we need are a few pushes towards totalatarianism, and it won't matter how many rednecks with shotguns we have, the well-regulated militia will not be able to stand up to the army to form a revolution.

So, you think our govt. is going to become a tyrant ? Kind of stretching things a bit there aren't you dude ?
Maybe in a book but this is real life.
>
>But, coming off of that rant, and back onto the main point, empires are not the most stable structures in world politics. Empires (and yes, America is an empire) reach a point in which they are at their height, and then decline and fall. America, just like the Egyptian, Mongolian, Roman, Macedonian, Aztec, and British empires, will not have the control over the world that they do now. It is foolish to believe that preservation of an empire is worth /any/ action, because no empire lives forever.

True enough, but we are only a little over 200yrs old, we have a long way to go.
It is foolish not to preserve our way of live merely because we cannot last forever.
Empires are not made through capitulation.
So, by your logic, it would be foolish to create anything, merely because it won't last forever.


 
addi Posted: Fri Dec 19 20:07:06 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  JAZER said:
However, I can still believe that your liberal beliefs are scum. My next question... Addi, were you implying that my above post was "insane"?

LOL! I don't know you well enough yet to know if you're pissed at me or just joking. I guess the right way to answer that is to say that I believe you are very sane, but your beliefs are insane. Does that work?


 
JAZER Posted: Fri Dec 19 23:52:12 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Well I can tell ya this much man. Im not gonna get mad about anything on this post. I will however not hide anything and tell my full opinion. I like to argue and plan on going into law school so dont worry about making me mad. i can take it.


 
Malik Posted: Sat Dec 20 05:19:47 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Hey man, no hard feelings about anything argument wise. I'm a debator, and I just have an inclination to try and debate whatever arguments I come across. I get into arguments asserting opinons opposite of my beliefs just because someone had something I could speak on. Like this argument. As of right now, I think that pulling out out Iraq /right now/ would be a bad idea. I think we should wait until some kind of government (no matter how puppetish it is) is established.

I only get mad when people get too emotional in their arguments, losing sight of logic. So we're on equal terms then, Jazer ;)

Oh, and hif, I'm saying that it's foolish to violate essental freedoms to keep anything, because it won't last forever. But, I do believe that with the way things are going, with the rapid increase in survailence technology, the governments of the world will increase the big brother eye.
*smiles*


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Dec 20 08:20:39 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Malik said:
>Oh, and hif, I'm saying that it's foolish to violate essental freedoms to keep anything, because it won't last forever. But, I do believe that with the way things are going, with the rapid increase in survailence technology, the governments of the world will increase the big brother eye.
>*smiles*

I understand your argument, it's a very old one. People have been fearing this since the 50's, but It's never really happened. Even though the technological resources are available, there is really no good reason to watch everybody and everything. Putting up security cameras in most businesses has had only a positive effect on society for the most part.
Surveillance takes a huge amount of effort and money and that is just another reason it won't happen to society as a whole.


 
Asswipe Posted: Sat Dec 20 15:15:48 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  socialyD said:
>I am often confused at the reasoning behind the violent anti-war demonstrations of the 60s and 70s.
>
>Any insight?
>

similar to the war on Iraq today, that war was fought to stop the spread of tyranny. The US would crop everyone who was against the US under the label of communists but it was mostly tyrannical gov's. carter was the first one to actually note this, I think.

so yeah... we were over there to stop commies... but why stop commies? Cause we thought it'd fuck up our trade system if the anti capitalist government ever got to places we cared about. If vietnam fell, we thought the next uprising of the plague of communism would be Japan, and we couldn't have that.

so vietnam, under Ho Chi Minh, was allied w/ the US in WW2. After that France was trying to take over for whatever economic/political reasons. Ho Chi Minh asked the US to help 'em out, but we couldn't go against the newly formed nato pact and lose standings w/ france, so we backed france and said F' ho chi minh. France soon ran out of money fighting and called for our help. We go in to aid some southern asshole christian who shouldn't have been trying to govern the vietnamese, and tell them that in 2 years the people of vietnam can vote, and whoever they pick, ho chi minh or our guy, wins and we're getting out. So 2 years later there's no way in fuck ho chi minh's gonna lose so we decide to bomb the place.

so the war breaks out and we're trying to prevent something that's not even sure of happening and to be nice guys to the french. after a few years, shit's looking pretty grim. a bunch of people are dying, and no real progress is being made, we're just losing a lot of lives and money, fighting for an unsure reason. oh, also, LBJ lied to the US, saying shit was looking good over there, and it should be over any time. He said this a few times while we were getting no where, this def dragged down moral when acts never met words. Nixon comes into office and ups the ante some, sending in more troops and dropping more bombs but still to no avail, so people get more pissed.








 
Asswipe Posted: Sat Dec 20 15:26:38 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  all wars have some shit in common. power, justice and human nature. mostly power, fed by human nature w/ justice given as the excuse.


 
Cayce Posted: Thu Aug 10 23:29:57 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Where do we begin. The V.N. war is in full play, young men being drafted because they are 18, yet they are still in their senior year of high school. Legal age was 21, so they couldn't vote, unable to buy beer, unable to get married with out parents signature. All you need to do is be very open minded, looking at the country and what was happening in America. Riots in large cities, with commerical buildings being burnt down in Detroit and other major mid west cities. Curfews for every citizen in town, while groups like the Black Panther's created terror in our American cities. Everyone was fighting a war of some kind. At the time our President is a criminal, with ties to the Mafia. National Guardsmen in Ohio killing student [ shot in the back ], now look at the National Guard at the Mexican border ---- they are not allowed to use their guns, if I remember correctly they do not possess guns of any type, now that is horrific --- to say the very least. Now does this make you think. Our government as seen in the 1960's, we knew that social security would be dried up ---- and we knew that the USA would always be fighting wars in other countries and our military being killed, loosing arms, legs or both. The United States is close to a total break down. People who lived their teen years in the 60's and 70's now see all the lies and lack of responsiblity in our government, that goes all the way to the top. It was clear as day when I was a young person, I worried the day I graduated from high school, just how much longer this country could be held together. Now, all the tax breaks are for those in the million dollar incomes, we are controlled by interest rates, gas prices at record high. The middle class will be wiped clean from this country. We have only those with the million dollar plus incomes and those who have very little. We are the tax payers, the burden of all this is in on our backs. Either we correct our government by voting in people that are the least of the two evils, at the same time we need to unite and stand tall --- or we will be in a country with a different name than the United States of America.


 



[ Reply to this thread ] [ Start new thread ]