heh, I'm pretty sure the Civil War wasn't anarchy, I'm pretty sure there was government present...in fact wasn't there two? edit: damn it warpoet!
Not at all conflicting. Please explain. Brother fought against brother in the Civil War, and it didn't have anything to do with religion or geography.
Well you said that the Civil War was anarchy, and then you agreed with War_Poet's: "Anarchy is a lack of government. In the Civil War, there were two governments, so there was actually less anarchy then than now!"
There were two "half" governments, not one of them controlled the country. Anarchy is a fair description. The govt. of the South was never recognized by a foreign nation, though it came close.
Your definition of anarchy is wrong: "Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder." Inefficiency of the supreme power (lincoln, the usa, the north) and political disorder perfectly fit.
Relative to the foreign perspective, ok I can see it that way. Internally there were two distinct governments. I could see both view points being equally valid.
You are being too literal in your view though. The next "civil war" will be different from the previous one. That is pretty much a given.
You should be. The only person calling for extermination based on a religious belief started this thread. He still gets to post here, but I did send his post along to a friend of mine on the local police force.
What exactly is your problem with the first post? I see no conspiracy to commit a crime. I see no advocacy of burning churches, just speculation that if it were a different church the reaction would be different. Good luck with the cops
Since when do we ban whack jobs? Can you imagine if we did? That's like half of the Blazer's board - gone!
Different thread. I gave my bud the OP from this thread. http://sportstwo.com/forums/showthread.php?t=131088 I saved a screen shot of the original claim.
I still see no conspiracy (e.g. people plotting to do away with someone or many people), nor do I see him advocating any such thing. There are plenty of people who would prefer to see religion done away with for its faults, though they're obviously ignoring the pluses. And no, I don't agree with his position in the least. The New World was colonized almost exclusively by religious people who were fleeing religious persecution. That'd be the pilgrims who landed on Plymouth Rock and everyone that followed for hundreds of years before the revolutionary war.
