The only sauce I would shoot someone over is Chick Fil-A's Polynesian stuff. That stuff is like way too delicous.

The only sauce I would shoot someone over is Chick Fil-A's Polynesian stuff. That stuff is like way too delicous.

Oh man no doubt...I miss living a 10 minute walk from there

Everytime I go to, or hear about Wendy's i'm reminded of my old boss. That man used

to eat there every single day of the year! Needless to say he wasn't the skinniest of

dudes.

He should have gone to BK - where you can ALWAYS have it your way.

Chick Fil A is too expensive...for fast food anyway.

 

Good sweet tea though.

Just remember how well you can comprehend the English language whenever you want the government to do something for you.

 

Excellent Post.

 

I know the conversation tailed off abit, but good to see B4P in agreement on this one. I think its a crucial point that people often overlook, because people think that since this is America we'll never have problems where we'll need to use guns to defend ourselves from the government. Yet people turn around and criticise the patriot act and illegal wiretaps. Well?

 

If our civil liberties start disappearing I know what I'll do...

I once shot a man in Sweetwater just to watch him die.

:lol !!!!!!!!!

Just remember how well you can comprehend the English language whenever you want the government to do something for you.

 

If our civil liberties start disappearing I know what I'll do...

 

 

die in a shootout with government officials or get a life sentence/death penalty for shooting at one?

Just remember how well you can comprehend the English language whenever you want the government to do something for you.

 

If our civil liberties start disappearing I know what I'll do...

 

 

die in a shootout with government officials or get a life sentence/death penalty for shooting at one?

 

 

What would you do? Just grab your ankles?

Just remember how well you can comprehend the English language whenever you want the government to do something for you.

 

If our civil liberties start disappearing I know what I'll do...

 

 

die in a shootout with government officials or get a life sentence/death penalty for shooting at one?

 

 

What would you do? Just grab your ankles?

 

what would have to happen for you to go out shooting? finding out your phone got tapped? unless its a big event that will cause a massive protest (venezuela) i dont know what you having a gun will really do.

Just remember how well you can comprehend the English language whenever you want the government to do something for you.

 

If our civil liberties start disappearing I know what I'll do...

 

 

die in a shootout with government officials or get a life sentence/death penalty for shooting at one?

 

 

What would you do? Just grab your ankles?

 

what would have to happen for you to go out shooting? finding out your phone got tapped? unless its a big event that will cause a massive protest (venezuela) i dont know what you having a gun will really do.

 

A perfect example of the fallacy that some Americans live in. A bubble so to speak. You happen to think of a gun toting maniac that people will see on the news as getting gunned down by the feds. The right to bear arms is to protect us from the government actually taking away our Constitutional Rights, for example suspending Habeas for american citizens, quartering soldiers or agents in people's homes, an executive ruling by decree (like Lincoln). And it won't be a whacko getting gunned down, it'll be every american citizen that believes in the law fighting to preserve the constitution against a dictatorial regime.

 

Many Americans think that since this is America nothing like that will ever happen, and I hope it does not, but when it does people need to be ready. Furthermore, if nothing else that was part of the intent of the framers of the Bill of Rights to add that in, and it really isn't obsolete.

Just remember how well you can comprehend the English language whenever you want the government to do something for you.

 

If our civil liberties start disappearing I know what I'll do...

 

 

die in a shootout with government officials or get a life sentence/death penalty for shooting at one?

 

 

What would you do? Just grab your ankles?

 

what would have to happen for you to go out shooting? finding out your phone got tapped? unless its a big event that will cause a massive protest (venezuela) i dont know what you having a gun will really do.

 

A perfect example of the fallacy that some Americans live in. A bubble so to speak. You happen to think of a gun toting maniac that people will see on the news as getting gunned down by the feds. The right to bear arms is to protect us from the government actually taking away our Constitutional Rights, for example suspending Habeas for american citizens, quartering soldiers or agents in people's homes, an executive ruling by decree (like Lincoln). And it won't be a whacko getting gunned down, it'll be every american citizen that believes in the law fighting to preserve the constitution against a dictatorial regime.

 

Many Americans think that since this is America nothing like that will ever happen, and I hope it does not, but when it does people need to be ready. Furthermore, if nothing else that was part of the intent of the framers of the Bill of Rights to add that in, and it really isn't obsolete.

id carry a gun with me if dick cheney wants to go huntin...but other than that, i think you are being overly paranoid...i get your point...but having a gun aint gonna do a lick of good if they try to take away your rights(unless they are trying to take away your gun that is, i suppose)...we are a nation for the people and by the people(in spirit) and our ability to vote, to harshly judge those in power and our free speech is what will ultimately keep us free...those who say freedom isnt free would just rather you take a bullett rather than them....and Lincoln did what he did to preserve the Union, not just to piss off southern democrats or anything like that...and last time i checked...south carolina doesnt have much against the north anymore, there is no 3/5 ths law in place and we arent trying to antagonize a civil war...but i do agree something is coming, something earth shattering to the american way of life...and we will need to defend it...but our best defense lies in our minds, our hearts, our vote, not our trigger fingers

Well put Jimmy, but ultimately the option to defend ourselves with wapons was given to us by the constitution and its a good right to preserve. Dictators always try to take away guns before instituing oppressive policies.

You Say You Want a Revolution

Well, you know, it ain't gonna happen. Not here.

By Chuck Klosterman

 

 

I do not want to overthrow the government. In case you misread that, I am going to type it again, this time more slowly: I. Do. Not. Want. To. Overthrow the government. I don't want black helicopters landing on the roof of my apartment building, and I don't want to be hunted by death squads through the jungles of Bolivia. I always pay my taxes. I think paying taxes is fun! If someone asks me if I enjoy the music of Rage Against the Machine, I usually say, "Oh, they were only okay." Whenever I see people using the metric system, I punch them in the pancreas.

 

However...

 

Something has been occupying my mind as of late, and I can't tell if this thought is reassuring or terrifying: I've been thinking about the possibility of revolution, or -- more accurately -- the impossibility of revolution. I've started wondering what would have to happen before the American populace would try to overthrow its own government, and how such a coup would play itself out. My conclusions are that a) nothing could make this happen, and b) no one would know what to do if it somehow did. The country is too large, its social systems are too complex, and its people are too complacent, too reasonable, and too confused. I've decided that the U. S. government is (for lack of a better, preexisting term) "unoverthrowable." And this would probably make a man like Patrick Henry profoundly depressed, were it not for the fact that he's been dead for 207 years.

 

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants," wrote Thomas Jefferson, and his thoughts were far from unique: Almost all of the Founding Fathers were obsessed with the potential for insurgency on U. S. soil. "Future citizens will need muskets to assassinate their oppressive viceroys," James Madison might have hypothetically remarked during the intermission of a slave auction. "In fact, this is probably the second most important freedom any of us will be able to come up with. Somebody should write this sh** down." Superficially, such preemptive legislation worked perfectly: There are now roughly two hundred million guns in America, and that's only counting the NBA's Eastern Conference. We have enough privately owned firepower to instantly kill a billion grizzly bears, plus a few dozen prostitutes. But it's hard to imagine these weapons employed in any kind of popular uprising, even if a majority of American adults unilaterally agreed that such an event was necessary. Whom would they presumably shoot? Probably no one, and possibly one another.

 

The central issue here, I suppose, is impetus: Americans are not particularly motivated to overthrow their government. But what if they were motivated? Would that even matter? In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, countless media whores criticized the government for not doing enough for the people of Louisiana. But let's imagine that the government had done even less; let's imagine that the president and most of Congress decided that New Orleans was a lost cause, barricaded all the roads into the city, and gave up. Let's pretend they made no attempts to relocate the survivors or deliver aid, and New Orleans was allowed to devolve into a rogue dystopia that was no longer recognized as part of the union. One assumes this would prompt cataclysmic outrage; it would be no different from the state-sponsored execution of random poor people, which seems like a revolt-worthy offense. Yet if such a nightmare scenario had actually happened, what could the average middle-class resident of Boise, Idaho (or anywhere else), have done? He'd lose faith in the democratic process, and he'd possibly update his blog. But that's about it. He has no options. He's twenty-two hundred miles from the ruins of Bourbon Street, he's twenty-four hundred miles from Washington, D. C., and he's got to be at work by 9:00 a.m., because he has a house (and he likes his house).

 

But -- just for the sake of argument -- let's assume this man still wants to push the envelope. Let's assume this patriot is beyond outraged. Maybe he just rented "The Bourne Supremacy", and maybe he thinks the time for blogging has passed. Maybe he's ready to make some really bad choices for some really ethical principles. Maybe Neil Young's "Revolution Blues" comes on his iTunes, so he loads the .30-30 he just bought at Wal-Mart and walks into the street. What now? My aforementioned question remains unresolved: Whom, exactly, is this man supposed to shoot? A cop? The mayor of Boise? A FEMA employee? Whom would he be revolting against? Is it even possible for the modern man to know?

 

When trying to overthrow a regime, all those unanswerable questions matter. But then again, maybe they don't. I doubt most Americans would participate in a revolution, even if they understood (and supported) its cause completely. I was recently discussing this with a colleague of mine over lunch; we were trying to come up with conditions that could ignite a people's uprising we'd actively involve ourselves with. These possibilities ranged from "massive water shortage" (which could happen in India in the coming decade) to "political infiltration by flesh-eating panda zombies" (which happened in Nepal in 2005). My associate offered this scenario: "Suppose we had evidence that the federal government engineered 9/11," he said. "Suppose we had indisputable proof that we paid the Saudis to blow up the World Trade Center, and members from both political parties had signed off on it. And the day after this proof emerged, George W. Bush announced that he would give a speech at ground zero explaining why this decision was made. If this happened, I assume there would be a protest rally during his speech. And perhaps some people would start throwing rocks, and perhaps I'd be caught up in the frenzy, and perhaps I would start throwing rocks, too."

 

"So you would take part in the revolution's inception," I responded. "You would throw rocks at a corrupt president."

 

"Yes," he said. "Maybe. Or maybe not. Probably not. Who knows? I'm not really a rock-throwing kind of guy."

 

I'm not a rock-throwing kind of guy, either. Moreover, I assume the type of person who hurls rocks in public is not the type of person I would agree with about anything. Modernity has created a cosmic difference between intellect and action, even when both are driven by the same motives; as such, the only people qualified to lead a present-day revolution would never actually do so. Contemporary leaders are not rock-throwing guys. And this is a problem, because it's the rock throwers who get things done.

 

Here again, my feelings are mixed; maybe I shouldn't have used the word problem in my previous sentence. Perhaps I should have used the word luxury. I'm pretty sure there are numerous countries in this world where citizens dream of a society too rational to be influenced by rock throwers. Security has a way of making philosophy irrelevant, and anyone who disagrees is either a liar or a tenured professor. But there's still something ominous about the reality of our sanctuary. It seems weird that this is the country and there's nothing we can do about it, beyond participating in the system that's already in place. It would not matter what the government did or to whom they did it -- nobody knows how to change things in any meaningful way, and the only people who'd try are dangerous and insane. We have reached a point where the reinvention of America is impossible, even if that were what we wanted. Even if that were what everybody wanted.

 

You might think the government is corrupt, and you might be right. But I'm surprised it isn't worse. I'm surprised they don't shoot us in the street. It's not like we could do anything about it, except maybe die.

 

Although I can't be totally sure that this is true, as these are all countries I will never, ever f**king visit.

You Say You Want a Revolution

Well, you know, it ain't gonna happen. Not here.

By Chuck Klosterman

 

 

I do not want to overthrow the government. In case you misread that, I am going to type it again, this time more slowly: I. Do. Not. Want. To. Overthrow the government. I don't want black helicopters landing on the roof of my apartment building, and I don't want to be hunted by death squads through the jungles of Bolivia. I always pay my taxes. I think paying taxes is fun! If someone asks me if I enjoy the music of Rage Against the Machine, I usually say, "Oh, they were only okay." Whenever I see people using the metric system, I punch them in the pancreas.

 

However...

 

Something has been occupying my mind as of late, and I can't tell if this thought is reassuring or terrifying: I've been thinking about the possibility of revolution, or -- more accurately -- the impossibility of revolution. I've started wondering what would have to happen before the American populace would try to overthrow its own government, and how such a coup would play itself out. My conclusions are that a) nothing could make this happen, and b) no one would know what to do if it somehow did. The country is too large, its social systems are too complex, and its people are too complacent, too reasonable, and too confused. I've decided that the U. S. government is (for lack of a better, preexisting term) "unoverthrowable." And this would probably make a man like Patrick Henry profoundly depressed, were it not for the fact that he's been dead for 207 years.

 

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants," wrote Thomas Jefferson, and his thoughts were far from unique: Almost all of the Founding Fathers were obsessed with the potential for insurgency on U. S. soil. "Future citizens will need muskets to assassinate their oppressive viceroys," James Madison might have hypothetically remarked during the intermission of a slave auction. "In fact, this is probably the second most important freedom any of us will be able to come up with. Somebody should write this sh** down." Superficially, such preemptive legislation worked perfectly: There are now roughly two hundred million guns in America, and that's only counting the NBA's Eastern Conference. We have enough privately owned firepower to instantly kill a billion grizzly bears, plus a few dozen prostitutes. But it's hard to imagine these weapons employed in any kind of popular uprising, even if a majority of American adults unilaterally agreed that such an event was necessary. Whom would they presumably shoot? Probably no one, and possibly one another.

 

The central issue here, I suppose, is impetus: Americans are not particularly motivated to overthrow their government. But what if they were motivated? Would that even matter? In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, countless media whores criticized the government for not doing enough for the people of Louisiana. But let's imagine that the government had done even less; let's imagine that the president and most of Congress decided that New Orleans was a lost cause, barricaded all the roads into the city, and gave up. Let's pretend they made no attempts to relocate the survivors or deliver aid, and New Orleans was allowed to devolve into a rogue dystopia that was no longer recognized as part of the union. One assumes this would prompt cataclysmic outrage; it would be no different from the state-sponsored execution of random poor people, which seems like a revolt-worthy offense. Yet if such a nightmare scenario had actually happened, what could the average middle-class resident of Boise, Idaho (or anywhere else), have done? He'd lose faith in the democratic process, and he'd possibly update his blog. But that's about it. He has no options. He's twenty-two hundred miles from the ruins of Bourbon Street, he's twenty-four hundred miles from Washington, D. C., and he's got to be at work by 9:00 a.m., because he has a house (and he likes his house).

 

But -- just for the sake of argument -- let's assume this man still wants to push the envelope. Let's assume this patriot is beyond outraged. Maybe he just rented "The Bourne Supremacy", and maybe he thinks the time for blogging has passed. Maybe he's ready to make some really bad choices for some really ethical principles. Maybe Neil Young's "Revolution Blues" comes on his iTunes, so he loads the .30-30 he just bought at Wal-Mart and walks into the street. What now? My aforementioned question remains unresolved: Whom, exactly, is this man supposed to shoot? A cop? The mayor of Boise? A FEMA employee? Whom would he be revolting against? Is it even possible for the modern man to know?

 

When trying to overthrow a regime, all those unanswerable questions matter. But then again, maybe they don't. I doubt most Americans would participate in a revolution, even if they understood (and supported) its cause completely. I was recently discussing this with a colleague of mine over lunch; we were trying to come up with conditions that could ignite a people's uprising we'd actively involve ourselves with. These possibilities ranged from "massive water shortage" (which could happen in India in the coming decade) to "political infiltration by flesh-eating panda zombies" (which happened in Nepal in 2005). My associate offered this scenario: "Suppose we had evidence that the federal government engineered 9/11," he said. "Suppose we had indisputable proof that we paid the Saudis to blow up the World Trade Center, and members from both political parties had signed off on it. And the day after this proof emerged, George W. Bush announced that he would give a speech at ground zero explaining why this decision was made. If this happened, I assume there would be a protest rally during his speech. And perhaps some people would start throwing rocks, and perhaps I'd be caught up in the frenzy, and perhaps I would start throwing rocks, too."

 

"So you would take part in the revolution's inception," I responded. "You would throw rocks at a corrupt president."

 

"Yes," he said. "Maybe. Or maybe not. Probably not. Who knows? I'm not really a rock-throwing kind of guy."

 

I'm not a rock-throwing kind of guy, either. Moreover, I assume the type of person who hurls rocks in public is not the type of person I would agree with about anything. Modernity has created a cosmic difference between intellect and action, even when both are driven by the same motives; as such, the only people qualified to lead a present-day revolution would never actually do so. Contemporary leaders are not rock-throwing guys. And this is a problem, because it's the rock throwers who get things done.

 

Here again, my feelings are mixed; maybe I shouldn't have used the word problem in my previous sentence. Perhaps I should have used the word luxury. I'm pretty sure there are numerous countries in this world where citizens dream of a society too rational to be influenced by rock throwers. Security has a way of making philosophy irrelevant, and anyone who disagrees is either a liar or a tenured professor. But there's still something ominous about the reality of our sanctuary. It seems weird that this is the country and there's nothing we can do about it, beyond participating in the system that's already in place. It would not matter what the government did or to whom they did it -- nobody knows how to change things in any meaningful way, and the only people who'd try are dangerous and insane. We have reached a point where the reinvention of America is impossible, even if that were what we wanted. Even if that were what everybody wanted.

 

You might think the government is corrupt, and you might be right. But I'm surprised it isn't worse. I'm surprised they don't shoot us in the street. It's not like we could do anything about it, except maybe die.

 

Although I can't be totally sure that this is true, as these are all countries I will never, ever f**king visit.

 

 

Is this editorial supposed to prove me wrong. Obviously this guy doesn't get it at all. It isn't about a crazed psycho shooting at feds, its the ridiculous notion that a nation thats only been around for 200 years will exist forever in a nice little democratic bubble. Furthermore, it isn't about overthrowing the American government. Its about freedom and having the right to DEFEND OURSELVES FROM GOVERNMENT. Which does not equal overthrow. It's like buying auto insurance. You hope you never get in an accident or have your car stolen, but its good to have just in case it happens. Regardless of how unlikely a circumstance (and please no car accidents are more likely than the Feds trying to usurp our rights, b/c thats a subjective argument)