Deranged Rhino Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 People don't starve to death after a few hours. They don't, but if there was major unrest -- enough to stop the trucks bringing in the food -- most major US cities would have starvation within two weeks or less. Justice is right that the super markets would be empty in days, if not hours. There's not enough food in any major city to sustain its population. Smaller cities and towns would be able to last longer, one would think. But the anarchy in major cities would only exacerbate the food shortages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 Do you hold the Bible in a similar regard that you do the constitution? I don't feel that's a question I need answer. They don't, but if there was major unrest -- enough to stop the trucks bringing in the food -- most major US cities would have starvation within two weeks or less. Justice is right that the super markets would be empty in days, if not hours. There's not enough food in any major city to sustain its population. Smaller cities and towns would be able to last longer, one would think. But the anarchy in major cities would only exacerbate the food shortages. Justice is actually talking about the government stopping the trucks, not the unrest itself. Major cities cannot support themselves, but they wouldn't have to. The government could not halt the food/water for 2 days, let alone indefinitely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 No, but you did say that the grocery store will run out in a few hours, and that doesn't matter. Because the delivery truck will be there Monday? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justice Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 I don't feel that's a question I need answer. Justice is actually talking about the government stopping the trucks, not the unrest itself. Major cities cannot support themselves, but they wouldn't have to. The government could not halt the food/water for 2 days, let alone indefinitely. I may not have mentioned it, but I feel that will play a part. I hate to quote the Joker but, "they'll eat each other". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 Justice is actually talking about the government stopping the trucks, not the unrest itself. Major cities cannot support themselves, but they wouldn't have to. The government could not halt the food/water for 2 days, let alone indefinitely. Ah I missed the first part I guess. I was thinking more of a total breakdown in government/civilization scenario: the grid going down, massive civil unrest, natural disaster etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justice Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 Ah I missed the first part I guess. I was thinking more of a total breakdown in government/civilization scenario: the grid going down, massive civil unrest, natural disaster etc. Keep in my mind I don't believe something like this would ever happen, but IMO if the government wanted to wipe us out I think they would do all of the above instead of attacking us with weapons. The first thing to go would be the dollar, then the power supply, food supply and fresh water. Chaos will ensue and many will die. That's way more effective than trying to murder us all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 (edited) Ah I missed the first part I guess. I was thinking more of a total breakdown in government/civilization scenario: the grid going down, massive civil unrest, natural disaster etc. Because the delivery truck will be there Monday? I may not have mentioned it, but I feel that will play a part. I hate to quote the Joker but, "they'll eat each other". Keep in my mind I don't believe something like this would ever happen, but IMO if the government wanted to wipe us out I think they would do all of the above instead of attacking us with weapons. The first thing to go would be the dollar, then the power supply, food supply and fresh water. Chaos will ensue and many will die. That's way more effective than trying to murder us all. I am the most guilty of this, but perhaps this topic is best left discussed in a different thread. No reason to take this one so far off course any further. Apologies. Edited June 15, 2016 by FireChan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 Hell. And God decides who goes there, not some goat humper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justice Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 And God decides who goes there, not some goat humper. Goat humper. Lol. That's a compliment to those scum if you ask me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozymandius Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 If this were to ever happen (which I doubt), I don't think they'd use weapons to wipe us out. They can cut off food and water supplies and we'd be done. And for the record I believe hell is a good enough punishment. Why would they have to die for it? That's good, but unfortunately there are too many Muslims who would practice strict Sharia. There was a roomful of them in that video, and as you saw, they all considered themselves moderates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 Keep in my mind I don't believe something like this would ever happen, but IMO if the government wanted to wipe us out I think they would do all of the above instead of attacking us with weapons. The first thing to go would be the dollar, then the power supply, food supply and fresh water. Chaos will ensue and many will die. That's way more effective than trying to murder us all. The easiest would be remove access to porn for 2 hours Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 I don't feel that's a question I need answer. Justice is actually talking about the government stopping the trucks, not the unrest itself. Major cities cannot support themselves, but they wouldn't have to. The government could not halt the food/water for 2 days, let alone indefinitely. If you don't believe that the government is capable of halting food production/delivery, just look at Venezuela. Socialism is especially effective in producing a shortage of basic products. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justice Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 That's good, but unfortunately there are too many Muslims who would practice strict Sharia. There was a roomful of them in that video, and as you saw, they all considered themselves moderates. I suppose the difference is and we can't really call them radicals unless they act on their feelings, or am I wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 If you don't believe that the government is capable of halting food production/delivery, just look at Venezuela. Socialism is especially effective in producing a shortage of basic products. Shutting down food production would be trivial for the federal government. Hell, a single labor union could strike and shut down nearly all meat production and transport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justice Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 The easiest would be remove access to porn for 2 hours lol. Way off topic, but I heard porn site activity increases in the losing city of the Super Bowl. Strange. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
What a Tuel Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 If you don't believe that the government is capable of halting food production/delivery, just look at Venezuela. Socialism is especially effective in producing a shortage of basic products. The theoretical stuff is great and all, but how does disarming the public help in this case? I guess you could say the government would never become tyrannical and therefore the 12,000 lives a year would be worth the trade off, but a lot of people respectfully disagree. Then it is also debatable of how many of those 12,000 lives a year would actually be saved. Think Progress which is a pretty large anti gun propaganda machine published an article saying there were 235,000 cases over a 5 year period (or 47,000 a year) in which a civilian used or threatened the use of a gun when a violent crime was being committed against them. How many of those 47,000 people would be alive today if it weren't for the gun they had or even the threat of a gun? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozymandius Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 I suppose the difference is and we can't really call them radicals unless they act on their feelings, or am I wrong? I think whether you guys act on your feelings is more a matter of how many of you there are in the country. Right now you guys are 1% of the population, and we're already having issues. Once you get to 5-10%, there will be no-go zones in most major cities. By the time you get to 25% of the country, you'll have the country because all the white liberals will follow along and convert to Islam to avoid offending you guys. Then the U.S. will be a Sharia country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 15, 2016 Author Share Posted June 15, 2016 Imam Linked To Orlando Shooter Stuns With Statements On Beheading Journalists, Stoning Women http://buff.ly/1Udm6Oy In his interview he seemed to take all sides. Taubah said it is not America’s business when American reporters, such as James Foley, are beheaded in the Middle East. “I believe some journalists need to be beheaded,” he said, “but I wouldn’t have done that.” Van Susteren replied, “How can you in any way justify ISIS beheading …” “I’m not justifying it,” Taubau said, adding, “Don’t we have our own problems here? Is it our business?” About Mateen, he said, “I disavow the concept of anyone taking the law into their own hand … no one can justify that with Islam,” However, during the interview, Taubah, formerly known as Marcus Robertson, said he would not condemn stoning women who commit adultery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 I think whether you guys act on your feelings is more a matter of how many of you there are in the country. Right now you guys are 1% of the population, and we're already having issues. Once you get to 5-10%, there will be no-go zones in most major cities. By the time you get to 25% of the country, you'll have the country because all the white liberals will follow along and convert to Islam to avoid offending you guys. Then the U.S. will be a Sharia country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justice Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 I think whether you guys act on your feelings is more a matter of how many of you there are in the country. Right now you guys are 1% of the population, and we're already having issues. Once you get to 5-10%, there will be no-go zones in most major cities. By the time you get to 25% of the country, you'll have the country because all the white liberals will follow along and convert to Islam to avoid offending you guys. Then the U.S. will be a Sharia country. You guys? That's messed up. I guess I'm simply not welcomed here. I guess I'm not American enough for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts