http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/Aryan_Nations.asp?xpicked=3&item=an They are just waiting for the right time.
Der, first off, I don’t think you could provide a reputable site that states that Faldwell (a true nutcase) actually lobbied the President to start a nuclear war. Even if you could, how many of these people do you think are actually out there? 10, 20, 100? Hell there are 100 adults in America that believe in the Easter bunny. Should I fear that a giant rabbit is going to knock on my door tonight? Just because there is one nut out of 300 million Americans, do you really think it’s necessary to disparage the entire country? You can extrapolate the worst type of behavior for Americans, based on just about anything.
I can’t find a cite for precisely that; not surprising, as it was so many years ago, and I read it in a book, not online.
Tens of millions. The hunger for Armageddon is strong in America.
You don’t get that kind of hysteria in mass populations unless the economy has collapsed – either the economic collapse is the base cause of the hysteria (e.g. Weimar Germany), or whatever else caused the hysteria causes an economic collapse as a side effect (e.g. revolutionary Russia).
You win. I’m speechless.
How many tens of millions? And, more importantly, since this is GD…
Cite?
You have stated numerous times that you think the USA is half a step away from Fundamentalist Christian takeover, but you have never provided any sort of actual hard fact showing that.
Hell, Christian trappings are REGULARLY taken down from public buildings to keep the non Christians in the populace happy. If the fundies were that close to taking over, you think they would feel it necessary to do that?
Note: even if it’s 40 million people, that’s still only about 8% of the total US population. And I think that’s a REALLY high estimate.
I believe they deserve equal credit, in that I feel both deserve no credit whatsover for ending the Great Depression.
You want numbers? It’s scary. Take a breath.
In 2002, Time did a survey. At the time (heh), Skepdic.com noted:
http://skepdic.com/refuge/bunk19.html
From the Time article:
(my bold)
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020701/story.html
The more recent [2005] study by Baylor University came up with a total of 33%
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2006-09-11-religion-survey_x.htm
So I’d quit scoffing. One full third of Americans, which is a hundred million people, believe this stuff.
While I consider myself a progressive I have never out of hand dismissed arguments from the other side of the aisle. Some of the best legislation to come out of Congress has been a joint effort from both sides of the aisle. When I started reading your post I thought, “Hey, great, some well-thought-out points from the right”…until I got to this.
I don’t understand how the state of, say, Oklahoma could have solved its agricultural/Dust Bowl issues on top of the already-existing economic issues the country was facing at the time without the assistance of the federal government. I don’t have the exact stats at hand, but IIRC something like 35% of the farms in Oklahoma failed between 1930 and 1940 resulting in a 60% drop of OK’s economic base, and 15% of the population went to CA.
The Great Depression was a national problem and required a national response. I don’t understand what you think Oklahoma’s governors could have done to “foster economic growth and provide employment”. Could you please give some concrete examples of what OK could have done to pull itself up by its bootstraps to ameliorate TWO disasters, one of which was caused by unregulated stockbrokers 3000 miles away?
I’m sorry, I suppose my question was a hijack, but I’m really interested in any response at all. Mr. Hyde seems to have gone away; does anyone else have any interest in carrying his torch? I’m insanely curious, mostly because I must be missing something obvious as he made Hoover’s idea sound so simple.
I’m new here so this will take a while.
Concerning a revolution in the US. In the past, revolution was sparked by civil unrest due to over taxation, poor governing, famine or hunger or any of a dozen other factors. The “critical mass” of civil unrest has been, traditionally, about 5% of the population. According to a friend of mine(in one of the big government agencies) recent studies showed that the US is hovering around 4.5%. So technically it wouldn’t take much to set off a revolution.
As for our military, most of them would side with the citizens of the US, not the government. The services mans oath is to protect the country for all enemies, foreign and domestic. I doubt many would consider their own families and friends enemies. That pretty much leaves the government. A friend of mine once told me his commanding officer asked the platoon what they would do in case of a civil war here, they replied they would load up all the guns, ammo, gear and supplies they could haul and go aid their families. When the officer told them that would be treason, they said they didn’t care, family comes first. Add in the fact that history is written by the victor, they might actually be heroes.
This brings in the next point of us getting involved in foreign wars. The citizens of that country, whether it is Afghanistan, Iraq, China or where ever live there, it is where their homes and families are. If we get involved, it should be in support of the citizens, not the governments which brings up my next point.
Reading through the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution, we aren’t supposed to have a democracy here, we are supposed to have a representative republic (quote from the pledge of allegiance “and to the Republic for which it stands”) Ben Franklin was quoted in response to a question of what sort of government we had formed with the US Constitution,“You have a Republic, if you can keep it”. Throughout history, democracies have been short lived. What better way to kill the United States than to convert it to a democracy. I feel we need to remember it is a Republic and begin governing it in ways consistent with its founding fathers wishes and intents.
And that, of course, will never ever happen. You cannot take the vote away from such a huge percentage of the population. The only way to restore the “Only White Male Landowner” rules that have been changed over the years would be to forment that revolution of which we speak.
The idea that you would have to guarantee that things would be better off is not true. When you are at the bottom you want change figuring it cant get worse.
As the middle class evaporates, the gap between rich and poor is getting large rapidly.Look to the future. Housing problems,work outsourced,endless war. It is possible here. Perhaps not soon but we are heading for trouble.
“If you kids wanna march, why don’t you march on home to bed!”
Well, that is one of the reasons it is a “Representative Republic”, so that we still have a say in the way the country is ruled. Presently, primarily in my opinion, this democratic system is failing. I don’t see enough difference between the Democrats and Republicans so this is becoming a one party rule. Don’t let the names fool you nor their voting records, things have gone awry. But that is my opinion and I am glad to say I am still entitled to it, as you are of yours.
Sorry, I spotted a typo in my first post in reference to the service mans oath, it is to protect FROM all enemies, foreign and domestic, not FOR all…
First the legal means of changing the government would have to be eliminated, or at least appear entirely corrupted to a very large plurality of the population. At the same time, some particularly pragmatic failures of the government would have to become widespread. (Infrastructure failure, services failures, and general lack of social stability for several years, with an obvious decay rate.) The military is the key. If it becomes even suspected that loyalty to the Constitution is being suborned within the military, a very significant percentage of the military will be passionately opposed to the faction attempting it.
But the number of simultaneous factionalizations that have to occur is pretty large. The entire press has to be discredited, most likely by themselves. The local party structure and local governments have to cooperate. The sheer number of people needed to effectively cause the need for a revolution don’t need to do it. It only takes about 16% of the population to control national elections.
A dictatorship is possible, yes. It is unlikely, unless a collapse comes first. In the event of a complete collapse of social systems, the nation might well fall apart, but the states might well survive, and a new nation, or small number of nations would probably replace them. Democracy won’t fail because of totalitarianism imposed on it. It is much more likely to fail because of inertia of failed policy, and an inability to deny itself its delusions.
Tris