Moneynews says OBama should resign before unrest erupts

[Prepper]

http://www.moneynews.com/StreetTalk/Jim ... ode=C7A9-1
:agree:

[Prepper]

Another related article says:

FerFAL: Yes, eventually there’s an event where there’s going to considerable unrest, there’s going to be looting, rioting, and such. It may happen in one city or in a few. These things are viral in terms of they show it on the news that its happening in L.A. and then it starts happening in Washington D.C. and the guy in Texas says, “Okay, I’m fed as well so I’m going to be taking this as well and making my opinion heard because obviously no one cares about it. So I’m going to make it extremely clear what it is that’s upsetting me.” That appears to be extremely bad and it is to a point, but it’s more impressive to the eye than it actually is in social and economic terms. What has happened in social and economic terms has been happening already for years. It’s not just because there was suddenly looting over in L.A. or in Washington. It happens because it had been going on for a good amount of time now. But the scenes of the people protesting and looting and rioting are a bit staggering for most people. And Americans, in general, will feel like that’s the breaking point in spite of this having been provoked through a number of years. These things may last maybe a couple of weeks, something like that, but in the end when you look at the cold numbers that’s not the worst part. The worst part is not the looting and the rioting and whatever. The worst part is the loss of quality of life and the suddenly becoming poor for a lot of middle class people. That’s the real tragedy.
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article28786.html

[Llagoud]

[f3rr37]

You do understand that people have been trying to force unrest, right? You can come to your own conclusion as to whether the President is involved in that.

[Prepper]

You do understand that people have been trying to force unrest, right? You can come to your own conclusion as to whether the President is involved in that.

So if 10,000 people protesting had Obama calling for the President of Egypt to step down, what do you think he would do if there were 100,000 ( or 1,000,000) people in the US protesting?
:ponder:

[f3rr37]

You do understand that people have been trying to force unrest, right? You can come to your own conclusion as to whether the President is involved in that.

So if 10,000 people protesting had Obama calling for the President of Egypt to step down, what do you think he would do if there were 100,000 ( or 1,000,000) people in the US protesting?
:ponder:

Call it a success.

[Cyberfly]

I have a question.
Has anybody considered this?
Remember when Obama stated that Israel should withdraw to pre-1967 boundaries and give 'back' the land to Palestine, etc?
Wouldn't that be a lot like Obama going to say...I dunno, England. And the Prime Minister saying that the U.S. should give back the American Southwest to Mexico? It's rightfully ours and even though there are factions claiming it was taken illegaly and they are going to take it back and there are border skirmishes and drug wars and blah, blah, blah...nobody ELSE has the right to tell a soverign nation what to do with their own dadgummed borders!
Or is it just me?

[Wollychop]

I have a question.
Has anybody considered this?
Remember when Obama stated that Israel should withdraw to pre-1967 boundaries and give 'back' the land to Palestine, etc?
Wouldn't that be a lot like Obama going to say...I dunno, England. And the Prime Minister saying that the U.S. should give back the American Southwest to Mexico? It's rightfully ours and even though there are factions claiming it was taken illegaly and they are going to take it back and there are border skirmishes and drug wars and blah, blah, blah...nobody ELSE has the right to tell a soverign nation what to do with their own dadgummed borders!
Or is it just me?

It's a very slippery slope no matter how you define it. Those territories "belonged" to Mexico for a very short period. Before that, what power had claim? Interesting thing about history.

You can always find someone with an ethnic gripe or claim to one thing or another.

And when it comes to arguments about ancestral homelands and borders, where does it end? What about the Kurds? What about Pakistan being carved out of India by mandate? What about... It goes on and on.

The borders of a nation are never stagnant. They always change, expand, contract -- it's what brings about those changes (swaps, wars, purchases, etc) that becomes interesting. Do you honestly believe that the borders of the US will always be as they are now? I don't.

I could see a regional breakup caused by financial collapse among other things, similar to the "end" of the USSR. Who knows?

Regardless, there would be a lot of unrest. But what's the timeline? Ten years? A hundred? Does it even have to happen at all? :ponder:

[Cyberfly]

I know, but my point was there was little to no 'public outrage' in the media to his comments, but had the situation been reversed...??
I know there SHOULD have been. Oh, we see from time to time some peon sitting on the sidelines with his sign and a bunch of latinos chanting that they'll take back the land, but are they really taken seriously?
I'm talking about someone who is supposed to be a strong ally making a statement that, in Israel's case, could leave them unable to defend themselves. In our case, I wouldn't care so much if they took the left coast. They pretty much already have.
I DO see your point, and I agree. History has shown you are exactly correct. I was just wondering where the public outrage was?

[Wollychop]

There can't be outrage if the public is largely asleep.

Pull your average guy off the sidewalk and they probably don't even know who the vice president is, much less what's going on in geopolitical news.

Just my cynical opinion, but I don't think most people have the slightest inkling of what is going on around them, and they are happy that way. If their own little equilibrium isn't upset, they are happy to live in ignorance.

And look at Greece -- even with the country bankrupt, they are *rioting* to keep the government money flowing into their pockets, even though there is no money and the government is essentially operating on the charity of other nations.

If/when we slide into a really bad, deep economic depression, it will be nasty. Very nasty.

[Prepper]

I agree with Wolly about the potential breakup of the "57" United States. Can see it happening over healthcare right now. Then, there's always abortion, gay marriages, etc.

Heck, OB told the Puerto Ricans that he would support them becoming the next state (would that make 58?) or becoming their own country.

The CSA tried that back in the 1860's - but we already beat that snake to death...

[f3rr37]

I agree with Wolly about the potential breakup of the "57" United States. Can see it happening over healthcare right now. Then, there's always abortion, gay marriages, etc.

That's the funny part, the Constitution was designed for these issues to be handled by the states and citizens... there really is no reason for states to leave the Union unless the feds are stepping on their toes and starting to break fingers.

[Cyberfly]

But thats the problem Fuzzy. Nobody has been following our constitution for what? At least the last 75 years.
If they had, we'd have about 90% FEWER of the useless laws we have now!

[Wollychop]

But thats the problem Fuzzy. Nobody has been following our constitution for what? At least the last 75 years.
If they had, we'd have about 90% FEWER of the useless laws we have now!

It's been a lot more than 75 years.

A good quote I read stated that American history really started in 1861, since the nation that emerged from that conflict bore no resemblance to the one that preceded it.

[bobbatchelor]

Our founding Fathers are rolling of in their graves.

Lincoln and Marx

•Marx advocated the elimination of private property. Lincoln's radicals advocated mandatory property taxes, to be determined by and payable to the government, or else the "owner's" property is duly confiscated (stolen). Does that one sound familiar to anyone in our day?
•Marx sought a progressive "graduated income tax." Mr. Lincoln gave us the Internal Revenue Service in 1862 and we are still "doubly blessed" with that institution today.
•Marx wanted state control of banking. During the war years we got the Federal Banking Act. And Marx also sought state-controlled currency. Lincoln's administration gave us the National Banking Act in 1863. Mr. Marx wanted state-controlled labor, and today we have federal wage controls.
•The Marxists advocated state-controlled agriculture. The Southern Redistribution Act redistributed much property in the South into collectives. Much more was just plain taken for the construction of "public" educational facilities (indoctrination centers). Naturally, all of this property was under the control of Yankee carpetbaggers.
•And then, the crowning achievement—state controlled education. Marx sought "free education for all children in public schools." The Morrill Land Grant Act, passed during Mr. Lincoln's tenure in office, authorized federal aid to established, government-controlled colleges. Naturally, with such aid came the attached strings—government regulations. And today, we in the South, as well as the rest of the country, suffer with the illegitimate child of "Reconstruction," the government school system, which works overtime teaching the South's children to be ashamed of their history and heritage.

The Republic that was born in 1776 is dead and gone, never to return. A sad state of afairs.