English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

If the opposite party took/stayed in control long term?

2007-10-06 23:08:18 · 19 answers · asked by Avatar_defender_of_the_light 6 in Politics & Government Politics

19 answers

I'm sorry to say that it will probably come to that some day, unless the dems can dumb down the population enough that they have a bunch of mindless robots that dance to THEIR music....why do you think the dems are almost always the ones who try to confiscate guns??...why do you think they hate the 1st and 2nd amendments to the constitution so much??....because those first two amendments are the main obstacles to their take over...wake up America...don't think for a minute they wouldn't try a total take over if they could.

2007-10-06 23:43:31 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

¨took control¨(your words) long term¨ ? Is this supposed to mean what I think it does? That a president and his party remain in office longer than the stipulated two 4 year terms?

If so,then rising up against them would not be ¨rising up in rebellion¨ against the US government because that would not be a US government as stipulated in the constitution but an usurper government . Anybody that took up arms against such a government would be doing so in defense of the constitution and of legality. They would not be rebelling.

The closest example I can think of something like that happening was in the Spanish Civil War. People rose up in arms ,at first anyway,to defend the legally and democratically elected government of the Spanish republic against a coup. (quite quickly into the fray the issues became cloudy and a lot of undesireable people and causes became inextricably mixed up with the original defense of the Spanish republic.but that is another story).

If this is what you mean by ¨took control long term¨,then yes,I could see myself rebelling.

2007-10-06 23:47:59 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

What do you do once you're homeless and hungry because of the fact you have not have been given a activity or in case you get one, the pay is so minimum which you will not pay your costs? choose for help. We desperately could get production back onto our Soil so as that able people can get a activity and optimistically get respectable pay. that gets people off of Welfare and funds - by way of Taxes - back into close by and federal Budgets. while the prosperous develop their earnings via over 2 hundred% in 10 years at a similar time as others could get 2 and 3 unwell-paying jobs to fairly make ends meet, some thing stinks to extreme Heaven. as nicely the prosperous are paying the backside volume of Taxes in approximately 60 years. Figures lie and Liars discern. we are beong advised ver and as quickly as extra that the prosperous pay the main important volume of Taxes. very authentic yet we could concentration on volume and not forget %a protracted time. they are paying the backside opportunities. John Doe will pay a extra physically powerful proportion than Warren Buffet. Now persons there is a few thing incorrect with this image.

2016-10-06 06:04:47 · answer #3 · answered by gearlds 4 · 0 0

Sir
I would
Sir

I refer to the Financial Times (UK) of Saturday, August 27th Sunday 2005that has the heading “Greenspan warns successor: Future of asset prices worries Fed’s chairman,
Protectionist pressure threatens US economy; World’s top bankers listen to his speech.
I guess Alan has said this on this day and Dr. Bernanke may be in trying to shift in the chair of the Alan may not have heard all of this
However when I look at the article of this issue, I think Alan is right in going ahead with the writing of the book. If he proved himself so accurate on 2005, I guess I got to give him the credit for this.
The USA economy has shaken the world monetary system. The losses not the natural ones but the man made have divested the human lives to such a level that even if August job increase gives the little breeze to the already pale faces, the end is yet to come I guess.
I thank you
Firozali A.Mulla MBA PhD
P.O.Box 6044
Dar-Es-Salaam
Tanzania
East Africa

2007-10-06 23:29:18 · answer #4 · answered by Firozali A M 1 · 0 0

That is the only reason I would rebel against my own government. And I would do it if even if it mean rebelling against my own political party. The fact that I know that whoever is in power right now will be gone after a certain length of time makes it tolerable when the wrong guy is in sitting in the White House

2007-10-06 23:33:32 · answer #5 · answered by xg6 7 · 1 0

unless the Election was totally rigged there would be no way that such a movement in the Majority and would therefore have no popular support which would more likely start a Civil War which would pretty much wipe out the Bill of Rights among other things,there is no good in rising up against the U.S. beyond negotiation

2007-10-06 23:28:51 · answer #6 · answered by Will 5 · 1 0

The rebellion would be mowed down just as the bonus army veterans were in the 1920's depression by Douglas MC Aurthur.
My advice is to not repeat history! no need to waste lives,politic is the answer, lets use it to right the injustices of our society.

2007-10-06 23:15:55 · answer #7 · answered by izzie 5 · 0 1

Yes I could.

As a retired teacher, and now a substitute teacher, I have observed the "stupidity" of the No Child Left Behind Act. George Bush, under the direction of his "lovely wife", Laura, convinced Congress to pass the No Child Left Behind Act, squelching every U.S. teacher's creativity in the classroom.

My purpose, as a teacher, was to teach every student in my classroom to their capabilities. Under the No Child Left Behind Act, teachers are now required to make sure some children perform beyond their capability; i.e., a student has an IQ of 50; yet the teacher is expected to bring that student up to a performance level of a student with a 110 IQ. How unrealistic! If schools cannot "show" performance levels of "average" or above, those schools are placed on a list of schools who are below academic achievement., and are in jeopardy of losing Federal funds.

Parents of students in American schools would be considered martrys if they "strung up" Laura Bush by her thumbs for whispering the No Child Left Behind Act into her husband's ear. George Bush needs to be "tarred and featherd" for listening to Laura!

I don't really care what "party" is in the White House. "Stupid is as stupid does".

2007-10-06 23:38:06 · answer #8 · answered by Baby Poots 6 · 1 1

Americans rising up in rebellion against their government? God, what a joke. The best they can do is to attach bumber sticker "Bush lied" to their cars.

2007-10-06 23:37:45 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

If they're elected, why would I want to do that? If you're insinuating that one party or the other is going to forcefully do this, you've been out in the sun a little too long.

2007-10-06 23:12:07 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers