Welcome to Detroit Sports Forum!

By joining our community, you'll be able to connect with fellow fans that live and breathe Detroit sports just like you!

Get Started
  • If you are no longer able to access your account since our recent switch from vBulletin to XenForo, you may need to reset your password via email. If you no longer have access to the email attached to your account, please fill out our contact form and we will assist you ASAP. Thanks for your continued support of DSF.

Justice Kennedy Announces Retirement

yeah, it would be silly to worry about a fake civil war. the question is, how would you feel about a real one?

Well as the LA riots were on going people were referring to them as a civil unrest; I don’t think it’s all that hyperbolic to figuratively refer to them as having been a Civil War.

So to answer your question directly if were on ballot I would vote against a real civil war.

EDIT: Actually, it's not all that far fetched to think of the LA riots as having been a civil war, especially in the area of Koreatown, with two distinct groups of civilians engaged in an armed conflict.

There were the marauders and looters, armed mostly with shit they could throw and break things with and with flammable shit they could throw and burn shit down with, and there were the businessmen and property owner armed with firearms, mostly shotguns and pistols, standing guard to protect the property.

EDIT II: It's a little bit of a broad interpretation of the dictionary definition of a civil war...I guess...but I'd say it's in the ballpark.
 
Last edited:
Well as the LA riots were on going people were referring to them as a civil unrest; I don’t think it’s all that hyperbolic to figuratively refer to them as having been a Civil War.

So to answer your question directly if were on ballot I would vote against a real civil war.

EDIT: Actually, it's not all that far fetched to think of the LA riots as having been a civil war, especially in the area of Koreatown, with two distinct groups of civilians engaged in an armed conflict.

There were the marauders and looters, armed mostly with shit they could throw and break things with and with flammable shit they could throw and burn shit down with, and there were the businessmen and property owner armed with firearms, mostly shotguns and pistols, standing guard to protect the property.

EDIT II: It's a little bit of a broad interpretation of the dictionary definition of a civil war...I guess...but I'd say it's in the ballpark.

and I would add it's perfectly reasonable to worry about such things like the LA Riots and their impact on the communities and beyond. They definitely were not fake like the lunar landing was - you'd need a pretty big stage sound stage to pull that off.
 
Last edited:
I always thought a civil war had to be fought over the right to govern. Either two groups fighting for control of a nation or one group fighting to break free of the other. It's not in that definition, but it's how I'd use the word.
 
and I would add it's perfectly reasonable to worry about such things like the LA Riots and their impact on the communities and beyond. They definitely were not fake like the lunar landing was - you'd need a pretty big stage sound stage to pull that off.


They had all the room they needed when they faked it, they just sent the fake astronaut actors to the moon and filmed them there.
 
yeah, it would be silly to worry about a fake civil war. the question is, how would you feel about a real one?

and I would add it's perfectly reasonable to worry about such things like the LA Riots and their impact on the communities and beyond. They definitely were not fake like the lunar landing was - you'd need a pretty big stage sound stage to pull that off.

The fake lunar landing was quite a brilliant ruse, But it pales in comparison to when Eisenhower convinced the public that the naturally occurring geological phenomenon of thousands of miles of long north to south and east to west running rock slabs That the military simply painted lines on and called it the ?interstate highway system? hadn?t actually already been there for millions of years.
 
The fake lunar landing was quite a brilliant ruse, But it pales in comparison to when Eisenhower convinced the public that the naturally occurring geological phenomenon of thousands of miles of long north to south and east to west running rock slabs That the military simply painted lines on and called it the ?interstate highway system? hadn?t actually already been there for millions of years.


It's a fossilized giant slime mold,right?


20120515101036Interstate-small.jpg
 

You would join up with a bunch of nerds from a movie based on completely unrealistic Right-wing paranoid fantasy.

(At first I wrote that as a interrogatory sentence, before re-reading it and changing it to a declarative sentence)
 
You would join up with a bunch of nerds from a movie based on completely unrealistic Right-wing paranoid fantasy.

(At first I wrote that as a interrogatory sentence, before re-reading it and changing it to a declarative sentence)


Well, depending on their name I would.
 
we were already talking about Civil War 2... you think that's all fun and games? Civil War 2 is serious business. "The Democrats" are going to launch it on some July 4th.


I'm not sure it's even a new Civil War. I've seen tshirts that insist that right now is only halftime.
 
Back
Top