What will the world look like in 2059?

As the minorities and leftists took it over; the entire world became one big third world country; except for a small outpost/compound in Siberia where the right-wingers retreated too which is the only first world area still left on the planet.

 

I didn't know they had Walmarts or "Mitt Romney" types or any Bush criminals in Siberia. I thought all these pigs thrived right here in the good ole' corporate US of A.

 

You sound like an Indian supremacist. Aren't we all just people? Why should people get their own country?

 

Oh, good catch Brewskier. Though, I'm not a Native American supremacist. At least not in the way you're thinking. I do care about Native American issues, but I'm not a Native American, and I don't want to be misrepresented as an official speaker for Native American peoples, so keep this context in mind while reading this message. I don't think the people of the NA Tribes are better than anyone else. I'm just crazy.

Or, to be more specific: I had a crazy dream as a child of a future map of the "not so united anymore" USA (that's also specifically from the crazy dream), prior to my first medical emergency, and then, following an event a few years later, in the 1990s, when there was a map going around though the right-wing, paranoid, freak-out circles of the time about a possible Native American nation being carved out in the Great Plains region of the central USA (I forgot which tribe it was for in real life, that was proposing such a map though) a map that looked suspiciously like the one in my dream (but smaller than the borders in my version from the dream).

Ever since, I've decided that it wouldn't surprise me if such a partition actually takes place as a sunset provision of dissolving the Federal Government of the USA. I don't expect such a thing to take place before we fold up the Federal Government, however. So, you know. I'm not putting on any, effort, pressure, or anything else to start down that road at this point in time.

P.S. Oh, and I also remember from the crazy dream: the displaced, angry white people head into Oregon and parts of Washington State. Can you imagine red state, white potato farmers heading into the liberal zone of: "California and friends?" See? I'm crazy.

 

It's just strange, because normally when a white person says something like "whites finally get their own country", we are treated to a multicultural lesson on how humans are just humans with differing melanin levels, and that it's racist to think that a country can belong to a certain racial or ethnic group. Humans are just humans, and all that kind of thing. Yet, when left-wing people talk about the story of America, the white people stole the Native American's land, as if it belonged to them. It's a very inconsistent position, I've noticed.

It might have happened like this:

[video=youtube;faNge-o0V-k]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faNge-o0V-k[/video]

 

I actually feel sorry for the native Americans. Here we have groups of Indians living without any formal government and were met with Europeans who essentially came from oppressive statism. The Indians did not stand a chance.

Although the Founding Fathers established a less oppressive form of government than the government they came from, it was still leaps and bounds more oppressive than the loose tribal communities of the American Indian. With their more centralized form of government, the colonists were able to create a far superior war machine and crush the native Indians.

Really the Founding Fathers were a fluke in world history. By all accounts they did not have a superior army to the British. They were outmanned, outgunned, with no where the wealth that the British Empire had. However, at that time the distance and expense was far too great for the British Empire to be bothered with them. If they had really wanted to, they could of crushed the fledgling Founding Fathers. Typically, however, the collectivist is far to powerful to allow this sort of thing to occur.

 

This says it all.

 

That's one of the best vids ever! Man, was that a fun twist on the lefty argument or what

 

Behold, the American left.

 

Progressive Liberals who rejected traditional marriage, having children, growing their nuclear family, and traditional values will be completely out numbered by traditional conservative Americans who continued to embrace marrying someone of the opposite sex, having children, raising a family and passing those values down to next generation

 

Why is government in marriage in the first place? Why should I get state perks for having sex with someone?

Essentially the state now gives a thumbs up to monogamous heterosexual sex and at times homosexual monogamous sex, but polygamists are somehow looked down upon. And then there are people who wish to have sex outside of marriage and those who wish to abstain altogether.

Why is Uncle Sam in the bedroom with a flashlight giving a thumbs up or down to any of this? Why can't aunt Sue and aunt Marry live together and have the same rights as married folk without getting married and having sex?

 

I didn't say anything about the government one way or the other. The ideas of marriage, family, children, and growing communities goes back a lot further than that US Gov't saying anything about it. There is no future for people who reject these staples of society. They will die off.

 

Who said anything about doing away with marriage? I was just saying that government need not be apart of it.

Perhaps those that get married will be more concerned about their relationship than government perks or hitting the lottery.