War Game Imagines Obama on the Run

October 16, 2009 -

The year is 2011. President Obama has just outlawed the private ownership of firearms, announced that the Constitution has been dissolved and revealed that the United States is going to be replaced by the North American Union, an amalgamation of the U.S., Canada and Mexico. Revolution breaks out. Your part in this is to help capture Obama and the renegade Cong (former Congressional leaders).

This is the premise of a new online community and game calling itself United States of Earth. The extensive site is almost overwhelming in the sheer amount of information it provides, but centers around a browser-based war game in which a player can train and amass troops with the intention of taking over counties in Virginia. Players can also challenge other United States of Earth users in real videogames on Xbox Live or the PlayStation 3 network in order to win points to be used on the site.

Once logged in, users have access to a series of stories and videos that revolve around the fantasy setting, Stories include: Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck Found Dead in Camp, Barack Obama Retreats to Virginia With Wife, Former V.P. Joe Biden Captured Outside Arlington and The Cong Loses Control, Pelosi Captured!

Obviously setup by a right-wing oriented person or organization, the United States of Earth website domain is registered under contactprivacy.com, a service designed to protect the name of whoever registered the domain. The terms/contact page of the website lists what they call a “virtual office” in Brooklyn, New York.

Also from the terms page:

We take the Constitution of the United States seriously here and apply many if not most of the freedoms contained within to our own United States of Earth. It is a shame that America itself no longer safeguards its citizens freedom as we enter this next glorious age of collectivism and decay promised daily by those in power, Republicans and Democrats. Will America survive? Only time will tell.

Via: Phillip and Fark


Comments

Re: War Game Imagines Obama on the Run

So why shouldn't I have an M4?  I mean, a bullet is a bullet at the end of the day, right, and just one can kill a man.

By the way, you'd be astonished how many of the 80 million people who own firearms are 'professionals'.  You'd also be astonished at how many of the military professionals would leave if they were ordered to fight the American populace.

I still don't see how you make the jump to it being irrational to allow civilians to obtain 'high-powered' weapons.  You know what's more 'high-powered' than the M60 in my basement, sitting in a Storm-Hardigg case?  My hunting rifle.  The 30.06 round it fires has more power in nearly all aspects than the .308.  You know what else is more 'high powered'?  The Mosin Nagant that I occasionally shoot, which fires the 7.62x54r round.  That's the same rifle, by the way, that Vasilli Zaitsev used to kill more than a few German officers, gunners, spotters, and sappers.  You know what else is more 'high-powered' than that M60?  How about my M82A1, or my Surgeon rifle (chambered in .338 Lapua)? 

Here's the problem with arguing about 'high-powered' guns: most of the people arguing against them have no fucking clue what they're talking about.

Oh, and people have won against well-established, well-trained militaries before.  I refer you, once more, to the IRA.  Once again, no one seems to be taking into account how many of the 'professionals' in our military wouldn't fight against their countrymen.

Oh, hey, check this out http://oathkeepers.org/oath/

Re: War Game Imagines Obama on the Run

You still have yet to answer why you need military weapons.

Oh right. Because you don't. My case still stands.

Re: War Game Imagines Obama on the Run

You still haven't proven why we don't need them. 

Re: War Game Imagines Obama on the Run

So you concede through contradiction, I accept your defeat.

Re: War Game Imagines Obama on the Run

When you're talking of restricting someone's CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, you, the fan of restriction, need to prove why it's a good idea. 

I didn't 'concede' jack-shit.  Why shouldn't the people be able to own the same rifles or facsimilies of the same rifles that the military uses? One of the main reasons for the 2nd amendment was to provide the people a means of addressing their grievances with government when all other methods failed: the ability to revolt.  As such, its only natural that people should be able to have firearms, even firearms that the media classifies as 'assault weapons' (Semi-automatic gas-operated magazine-fed rifles) or actual 'assault weapons' (SELECT FIRE semi-automatic gas-operated magazine-fed rifles). 

Re: War Game Imagines Obama on the Run

Right, you cannot make an argument that holds up to rational knowledge. Because not only are you merely repeating yourself without present any new information, but also cannot provide to reason as to why there is the necessity to own military weaponry, when firearms are already available (which, for the record, I do not support the banning of all guns). Hence, you concede. Or if you really want me to just come out and say it...

You failed. You cannot best me. You are just repeating yourself over and over without probable reason. You are just a child, essentially screaming "GIMMIE!" as the drive of your argument. My argument is that military weapons are too powerful for the general public, whom cannot be trusted on "good faith" alone, but furthermore, there is no necessity to possess such weapons. Yes, weapons being the key word here, over, say cars, a vehicle of transportation. Weapons who's primary purpose are tools used for the sake of some context of violence (yes, knives can be used for cooking, but there is often a difference between a knife for cooking, and a knife for warfare).

You have yet to debunk what I have said, other than, yes, my knowledge of guns is not as intimate as your own, where as I have debunked you, using rationality and probabilty, over extremity. So far, all you have came up with is, to paraphrase, "just because we can!" yet without proving reasonable cause as for why. And you never will. Because the most you can come up with is so extreme, it is highly improbable, such as some kind of fascist American government, and even then, would you really abide by the law? No. So it doesn't even matter if they were legal or not.

You can snuff yourself in your little bubble of McCarthyism, fear, and overall unknowledged irrationality and inability to comprehend. You can pat yourself on the back thinking you're doing oh-so-well.

But you're just lying to yourself. You have lost this argument. You have failed. Once more, I accept your defeat, whether you honestly see it or not. This argument is done. Till next time, sunshine.

Re: War Game Imagines Obama on the Run

http://guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

So, surely, a right that was designed with the intent of protecting people from their government and giving them the means of revolting against the same would support the people owning arms much the same as those the military uses?

Of course, you haven't yet defined what you mean by 'military weapons'.  But there is no military firearm that is 'too powerful' for a citizen, and your belief that there is proves that not only do you know little of firearms, you know next to nothing on the topic.

Re: War Game Imagines Obama on the Run

Citing whole tracts from the pro-gun lobby? Which you apparently haven't even read carefully and fully understood before citing to them? Can't you do any better than that?

Your pro-gun tract and sources cited therein do not say that the Second Amendment intended to secure or secures to the citizenry a right to the offensive use of arms and armed revolt as a means of redressing grievances against the government generally but, rather, speaks of the right to "self-defense" against a "tyrannical" government. Even if I adopt as valid the arguments made by the source to which you cite, there still is no recognition therein of any right to pick up arms against the government unless and until that government becomes "tyrannical" (i.e., no longer a legitimate democracy). Put differently and giving your citation full benefit of the doubt, until the government revolts against the people it represents, there can be no right of the people to revolt against the government. Or, put more simply for your benefit, just because you don't agree with a law duly and legitimately passed by Congress and signed into effect by the President, isn't a valid basis for you and your Teabagger buddies to gather up your AR-15s and start marching up to Washington, D.C as a resort - whether as a first, last, or anywhere in between resort.

If you really want to establish that the Second Amendment secures an individual right of the citizen to use "the ability to revolt" as "a means of addressing their grievances with government when all other methods failedthen how about you do away with the self-serving and biased position papers and cite me to one single federal court opinion in support of this notion that the Second Amendment as properly interpreted was intended to impart or imparts to the citizenry in redressing generalized grievances a right to mount armed revolt as a last resort against a legitimately empowered government? If you find yourself having difficulty in locating such a court opinion, fret not. It's simply because there is none.

P.S.: As an interesting side note, the very same propaganda piece you cite contains reference to the notion that use by the state of a well-regulated militia in putting down illegitimate armed insurrection is a valid exercise of state power. Did you miss that in your reading? Or did you not fully comprehend its import? Have you tried placing your hands against your butt-checks and giving a solid push? I betcha that if you do so, your head will pop right outta your butt-hole.

P.P.S.: Even chadachada, who you claim is "crazy" and has no "sense," is sane and sensible enough to understand that at best the Second Amendment is read and understood to secure a right of the citizenry to defend themselves against threats to the security of a free state, both external and internal. A militia is a defensive, not an offensive, force. Its purpose is to preserve the democratic govenment, not to destroy it by revolt. A constitutional amendment furthering the establishment of a well-regulated militia cannot reasonably be read to secure a right in that militia to take offensive action against a legitimate government. Unless, of course, the person doing the reading is, like you, reading-impaired. 

Re: War Game Imagines Obama on the Run

One of the main reasons for the 2nd amendment was to provide the people a means of addressing their grievances with government when all other methods failed: the ability to revolt. 

Where are you getting that from, Dr. Lewis? The text of the Second Amendment doesn't say a thing about "a means of addressing . . .  grievances" or "the ability to revolt." What is does say is that "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." As it was understood at the time the Second Amendment was drafted, "a well regulated militia" was a civilian force of males who provided their own weapons and other supplies and who the state could call out as needed on short notice to supplement the regular armed forces in the defense of the state from attack and otherwise assist in preserving security and order. Neither the text nor the historical context provide any support for the notion that the Second Amendment right to bear arms was intended to equip the citizenry to take offensive action against the state in the form of revolt. Rather and to the complete contrary, the apparent intent was to equip the citizenry to serve the state as needed in preserving the security and order of the state.

I know the whole idea of armed insurrection against the Obama administration is currently popular among you and your ilk, but don't get carried away by your own fantasies. Save that shit for when y'all are out in the woods on a weekend playing "Let's Storm the Whitehouse with AR-15 Assualt Rifles." Trust me, y'all try that shit in real life and the Secret Service will most certainly cancel y'all's admission tickets. 

Re: War Game Imagines Obama on the Run

http://guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

Surely, with all the time you have to talk down to people, you could've cracked open a book or two.  And surely, you've read, at some point, at least part of the Federalist papers.

http://guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

At least you understood what a militia was.

Re: War Game Imagines Obama on the Run

Hey im Australian and live is South Australia, and though I hate not being able to buy R-18 games im hardly itching to go bust my uzi. The sad truth is that Michael Atiknson is the legacy of  right-wing/christian values which obviously remain pretty strong in our government... and society to a large degree. Hell Gay people still can't get married which is just plain fucked up. Point is more guns isn't going to do shit untill people start changing some of their values.

End of the day, more guns means more potential for crime, and more potential for death, and also supporting the overal mentality that the solution to some pretty complex and sensitive problems can be resolved with guns.

Re: War Game Imagines Obama on the Run

Yeah, that's great.  Hey, how has the crime in Australia been doing since that gun ban?  My wife came to this country from a city in South Australia (starts with an A ends with an E).  'More potential for crime, more potential for death, supporthing the overall mentality...'.  Yeah, you sound like you should go work for that bitch that first helped outlaw guns in your country.  You know, the one who told people who were competitive pistol marksman that they needed to find a new hobby?  Yeah.  By the way, more guns (especially in things like CCW) seems to REDUCE the crime rate and reduce the potential for death. 

Re: War Game Imagines Obama on the Run

As if I didn't need more proof of the hateful nature of conservatives...

Re: War Game Imagines Obama on the Run

If you hadn't already noticed, Dr. Lewis' standard response to most all problems is to suggest that the solution can be found exiting the barrel of a gun. I'm waiting on him to one day say, "World hunger and famine? Not a problem. Let 'em eat guns."

Re: War Game Imagines Obama on the Run

If we aren't allowed to own the same weapons as the military, then we aren't being provided with the same ability to defend ourselves from those that would infringe on our rights

I fully support your right to have access to armaments on the level of the American Third Carrier Fleet. Hopefully the military will also give you access to training so that you can properly fly your very own F-35C attack jet.

Re: War Game Imagines Obama on the Run

Once again.  Arms vs. Ordnance.

Also, the F35-C is crap.  No one wants it.

Re: War Game Imagines Obama on the Run

Chadachada said, three times again: MILITARY WEAPONS. MILITARY WEAPONS. MILITARY WEAPONS.

Re: War Game Imagines Obama on the Run

I wasn't really thinking about F-16s and Abhram tanks and stuff...Those wouldn't be very useful in the event of a revolution anyways. Annnddd...I think you should be able to own a tank. If you keep it on your own property. Same with all sorts of not-street-legal stuff. You can even drive your tank around on your yard! Just don't take it off your property without the proper driving codes/licences. Like how people will drive ATV's around in their backyards, just much much larger. If you can afford it. I don't see why not.

Glad to see I caused a real shitstorm in the comments section ^^

I suppose you could own an F-16 also...but there aren't many places you could fly it...hell, you could fly that like a normal private plane, sure.

Notice, I'm not speaking of the armaments, only of the vehicles themselves. I don't have a problem with vehicle ownership, if it's in your own yard or if done like other vehicles of a similar class.

As far as armaments go...I don't see why Blackwater can own all sorts of heavy weapons, but I couldn't even if I had enough money. Fuck, if I had the money for a nuke I think I should be able to own it. Sure, that part is slightly insane to some, but I think the rest of my post still applies. Blackwater can own many off-the-wall high tech shit, but I, the common citizen, can't?

-If an apple a day keeps the doctor away....what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-

-Optimum est pati quod emendare non possis-It is best to endure what you cannot change-

Re: War Game Imagines Obama on the Run

Can I have my very own Predator drone? Those things are just like big-ass R/C airplanes. That'd be soooo cool!

Re: War Game Imagines Obama on the Run

If we aren't allowed to own the same weapons as the military, then we aren't being provided with the same ability to defend ourselves from those that would infringe on our rights.

Would you like to start out by jumping straight to your very own nuclear warhead-tipped ballistic missile? Or perhaps a fully-armed Apache attack helicopter from which you can then work your way up to the bigger stuff?

Re: War Game Imagines Obama on the Run

There's a fine line between ARMS and ORDNANCE, and you know it well. 

 

Re: War Game Imagines Obama on the Run

What I do know is that I was responding to chadachada who claims an entitlement to the same WEAPONS as the MILITARY. That's MILITARY WEAPONS. Not ARMS or ORDNANCE but MILITARY WEAPONS. MILITARY WEAPONS. MILITARY WEAPONS. MILITARY WEAPONS.

 

Re: War Game Imagines Obama on the Run

I'm sure it's safe to assume that he's not suggesting the average jackass be allowed access to M1A2 tanks, AH-64 Apaches, F-18's of all variations, or M777s.  

Re: War Game Imagines Obama on the Run

I dunno, I think he may be suggesting that.  You really think the average jackass could fight off an Abrams tank or an Apache with a mere M16 rifle?  He's talking about the ability for the citizenry to battle against the Military.  You think you can do that without some serious hardware?

Your nitpicking over the technicalities is just that, nitpicking.  I doubt the founding fathers ever imagined choppers, artilery, missles, and tanks.

Not that I'm even considering such things.  I think at this moment in time, people thinking about revolution and reestablishing the government are being overly dramatic.  Sour grapes because their ideology isn't the majority concensus anymore.  Democracy is only fun when you're on top, I suppose.

Re: War Game Imagines Obama on the Run

Thank you for rendering that kind explanatory assistance to Dr. Lewis who, after so long relying on Beck, Coulter, Limbaugh, etc., to form conclusions for him, is now incapable of reading a piece of information and drawing an obvious conclusion on his own. I, just like you, concluded that chadachada's post should be understood to mean that in order for the citizenry to defend itself from threat by the government, it must posses the same weaponry as the government. Everyone else who doesn't spend all day with their head up their own ass would draw a similar conclusion.

Re: War Game Imagines Obama on the Run

See, unlike yourself, I applied some common sense to the whole situation and what Chadachada was saying.  Surely, no one would suggest people have military armor and artillery.  Thus, it seems clear he was suggesting people should be able to have things like ARs and M82A1s.

Re: War Game Imagines Obama on the Run

@Autistic Lewis:

Since your no-common sense-having ass won't take anyone else's word for it, maybe you'll be more receptive to chadachada's own words, which I quote below for your non-reading pleasure: 

As far as armaments go...I don't see why Blackwater can own all sorts of heavy weapons, but I couldn't even if I had enough money. Fuck, if I had the money for a nuke I think I should be able to own it. Sure, that part is slightly insane to some, but I think the rest of my post still applies. Blackwater can own many off-the-wall high tech shit, but I, the common citizen, can't?

Is it now clear to you that he was suggesting something a bit more than people should be able to have things like ARs and M82A1s? Or is your head still firmly and securely ensconced up your ass?

Re: War Game Imagines Obama on the Run

Yeah, apparently he's a bit crazy. I really thought he had more sense.

Re: War Game Imagines Obama on the Run

Common sense to you is nothing but an aborted fetus from that thing you call rationality.

Why would you need an AK-47, as a civilian? Common sense says you would not.

Re: War Game Imagines Obama on the Run

Well, to begin with, I've seen Ak type rifles used for hunting.  But why should I not be allowed to own an M60E3 (it's in my basement) and an M4A1 (it's in the gun safe)?  

Re: War Game Imagines Obama on the Run

Fine, then for what reason would you need an anti-tank gun? Ground to air missile launchers?

Right, you wouldn't. And there's no need for you to have military weapons either.

Re: War Game Imagines Obama on the Run

Define 'anti-tank' gun?  And I never defended civilian ownership of ground to air missile launchers.  That falls into the ORDNANCE category.  Also, the average jackass can't really safely use one.

Once again, there's no need to have a sports car, but plenty do.  Military firearms (M4's, Aks, M60's, all those classic WWII guns that you can still find floating around) are like the sports car of guns. 

Re: War Game Imagines Obama on the Run

Your knowledge of guns is certainly impressive. However, your complete lack of knowledge about most everything else is frightening. Have you ever considered a more catholic approach to your acquisition of knowledge? Perhaps by occasionally reading a periodical other than "Guns and Ammo?"

Re: War Game Imagines Obama on the Run

In more ways than one.  On one hand, if you just want the AK-47 for hunting or personal protection, it would be unnecessarily overkill, and more dangerous than other alternatives.  On the other hand, if you're a revolutionary fanatic hoping to overthrow government forces, an AK-47 would be largely useless in the long run against more powerful ordinances.

There is litterally no use for owning an AK-47 in America, other than for shits and giggles.  Though, I suppose that reason enough for some people.

Re: War Game Imagines Obama on the Run

I don't know if you know this, but a lot of people hunt with weapons that fire the same round as the Ak-47.  It's not 'overkill'.  A real Ak has a select fire switch (more like a lever) for a reason. Also, describe how it is 'more dangerous' than other alternatives.  Because it's a big, scary, automatic rifle?  Have you even shot an automatic weapon?  There's nothing 'more dangerous' about any of them.  And you people keep harping on that line that the Ak-47 would be largely useless against more powerful ordinances, and keep ignoring the fact that the IRA, the Viet Cong, and the Al-Qaeda/Taliban forces are still using them with some effect.

Even if I only buy an Ak for shits and giggles, its still my right to have one.

Re: War Game Imagines Obama on the Run

Yeah, I'm not into guns so I don't know very much. It was the first gun that came to mind. But even so, there's just no need to need for any military weaponry, regardless of what it is.

Re: War Game Imagines Obama on the Run

There's no need to own a sports car either, but I and plenty of other people do.

Re: War Game Imagines Obama on the Run

A car is far different from a gun. I call irrelevant conclusion.

Re: War Game Imagines Obama on the Run

So, its fine for people to choose what kind of car they want, but when someone wants to buy an automatic weapon, they shouldn't be allowed to?  Cars in civilian hands kill a lot more people than automatic weapons in civilian hands.

Re: War Game Imagines Obama on the Run

If you honestly cannot see the difference, you are of lower intelligence than I thought. I'm going to say this once.

Cars do not equal guns. Cars were designed for transportation. Guns were designed to kill. Apples and oranges.

I will not explain it again. Your argument is an irrelevant example based on poor conclusion. You. Lose.

Re: War Game Imagines Obama on the Run

The trick is to treat them like you're trying to explain a new concept to a 10 year old for the very first time.  Don't assume that they're going to just understand what should be obvious.  An adult that would rather be deliberately obtuse to avoid actually talking about opposing viewpoints, is no different than a naive child.

Re: War Game Imagines Obama on the Run

If you believe for a minute that anyone is suggesting that your average jackass be able to have an M1A2, a Cobra, or any of the military's many combat vehicles, then you're a retard.  That may be the way you want to interpret it, but I doubt that's what he meant.  There's this thing called common sense; I suggest you find some.

Re: War Game Imagines Obama on the Run

And surely you're a retard if you think civilians could effectively fight back against the military without them.  You say he's just talking about guns?  Well, guns aren't going to cut it against military ordinance.

If you accept that the spirit of the 2nd Amendment was so that average citizens could act to protect themselves from government tyrany, and to keep those in charge in check, it's counter-intuitive to ignore the fact that even machine guns would be ineffective against modern military resources.

Just as Washington and Jefferson didn't take into account issues like genetically modified crops, the internet, or stem cell research, they also didn't consider tanks and bombers.  In a contemporary setting, the "wording" of the 2nd Amendment is incongruous with the "spirit" of the 2nd Amendment.

How can you type with your fingers in your ears?  Like I said, you're being deliberately obtuse.

Re: War Game Imagines Obama on the Run

You really think that people can't fight against the military without tanks?  Because obviously, the IRA bowed down to the Brits in Northern Ireland when they brought in the armor.  Oh wait, no they didn't.  There are plenty of great, legal to own, alternatives that can compete with an M1A2.  Or rather, can demolish the treads of an M1A2, after which the tank is useless until someone can retread it.  Helicopters?  Ever hear of the 'Jesus Nut'?  If you were to hit that with something as small as a .223 bullet, it would very likely cause the helicopter to crash.  Also, calibers like the .338 Lapua, 300. Win Mag, .50BMG, .416, and most elephant hunting rounds can penetrate a helicopter to cause major damage.  These same rounds can also penetrate armoring on HMMWVs and other vehicles. 

So, when it all comes down to it, you don't really need tanks to fight the military.  You just need a determined force.  The IRA had it.  The Viet Cong had it. 

Oh, another thing you don't take into consideration: the vast amount of people that would leave the USArmy if they tried to take action against the citizens.  I've said it before, but I'll say it again: The officer ranks would empty, the SF units would empty, nearly 75% of the military would leave (and that's a conservative estimate).  You know what they might bring with them?  Know-how and equipment.

Re: War Game Imagines Obama on the Run

 "Oh, another thing you don't take into consideration: the vast amount of people that would leave the USArmy if they tried to take action against the citizens."

Actually i'd say it kinda depends on who "shoots first"... or who really starts the revolt

If for instance extreme right-wing conservatives decided to revolt NOW with the gov't in it's current state, then most likely the majority of the country, including the military would recognize them as "wrong"... at this point it would be felt that they either didn't try everything they could to change the gov't through legal methods, or they truly are in the minority who thinks this way... and if they were the first to turn violent in order to overthrow the gov't, that would make it even worse. I mean would those in the military actually expect the gov't to do nothing when citizens are literally attacking? Protests are one thing, but when you have citizens shooting and bombing the gov't, then the gov't has no choice but to respond; when it comes down to it, those revolters would be recognized as criminals... they'll probably hold back though

Only way military would defect to revolters is if the gov't made heavy changes into some tyrannical powerhouse that would give a military response to a mostly peaceful protest... however, for THAT to happen in a democratically elected gov't would involve YEARS of a good portion of the citizens BRINGING them into to power which implies support for change in that kind of direction... and when the theoretical communist tyranny is building up, it will be the supporters that would join the military and the detractors are the ones that will refuse to serve their country... I mean Ahmadinejad may not be able to win a fair election but he still has millions of supporters, and good support from the military as only his supporters serve under him (hence why a revolt would likely end terribly)... And the theoretical tyrant gov't would likely start weeding out unsupportive people out of the military themselves... In the end, by the time the citizens feel their is need to revolt against the gov't, they will have very few supporters in the military. 

 

Re: War Game Imagines Obama on the Run

"There are plenty of great, legal to own, alternatives that can compete with an M1A2."

Bullshit.  Is it possible?  Yes, obviously.  Using only legally pursuable methods?  No, and that's the whole point.

Re: War Game Imagines Obama on the Run

Tannerite vs. Tank Tread. 

Re: War Game Imagines Obama on the Run

One part "alternate reality" fiction, one part fear mongering propoganda.  We have this small but very vocal part of our society that's trying to kick up some sort of social revolution based on the idea that "this isn't the America I remember."  They have these romantic notions that the solution to all of our ills is either succession from the union, or violent overthrowing of the government.  This game has all the paranoia of the right wing zealotry (not the right wing itself, just the extremists).  Taking away our guns, annexing the rest of the Continent (oh noes, our tax dollars supporting Hispanics and Canadians!), destroying the Constitution.  To be frank, the assassination of Glenn Beck sounds like a fun fantasy.  What?  If they can take delight in hunting and probably killing Obama, I feel no guilt in the idea of a world blissfully without Beck.

Sadly, I know people that would absolutely love this game.  Although, these same people believe in their hearts (without proof or even good reason) that the trails behind jets are actually "chemtrails" intentionally being laid down by the government for some nefarious purpose (a purpose they cannot describe).  It's something to fear, even if they don't even know what it is they supposed to be fearing.

I'm even reminded of the Left Behind game a few years back.  Like how Anti Christ bases were set up in Universities and Professors were bad guys?  Yeah.

Re: War Game Imagines Obama on the Run

"Although, these same people believe in their hearts (without proof or even good reason) that the trails behind jets are actually "chemtrails" intentionally being laid down by the government for some nefarious purpose (a purpose they cannot describe)."

Hah! Thats the first time I've heard that one.. Isn't amazing how stupid some of these Anti-government zealouts can be??

 

"It's something to fear, even if they don't even know what it is they supposed to be fearing."

You just summed up the traditional Conservative, Limbaugh Loving, Hannity following, mouth-breathing, tea-bagging republican sheep in America.

Re: War Game Imagines Obama on the Run

Oh no, it's apparently a big thing amongst conspiracy theorists.  They have entire websites devoted to it, but I think the wikipedia article is enough to explain the craziness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrails

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Andrew EisenHence the "Uh, yeah. Obviously."09/02/2014 - 12:53am
SleakerI think Nintendo has proven over the last 2 years that it doesn't.09/02/2014 - 12:31am
Andrew EisenSleaker - Uh, yeah. Obviously.09/01/2014 - 8:20pm
Sleaker@AE - exclusives do not a console business make.09/01/2014 - 8:03pm
Papa MidnightI find it disappointing that, despite the presence of a snopes article and multiple articles countering it, people are still spreading a fake news story about a "SWATter" being sentenced to X (because the number seems to keep changing) years in prison.09/01/2014 - 5:08pm
Papa MidnightAnd resulting in PC gaming continuing to be held back by developer habits09/01/2014 - 5:07pm
Papa MidnightI find it disappointing that the current gen of consoles is representative of 2009-2010 in PC gaming, and will be the bar by which games are released over the next 8 years - resulting in more years of poor PC ports (if they're ever ported)09/01/2014 - 5:06pm
Andrew EisenMeanwhile, 6 of Wii U's top 12 are exclusive: Mario 3D World, Nintendo Land, Pikmin 3, Mario Kart 8, Wonderful 101, and ZombiU. (Wind Waker HD is on the list too but I didn't count it.)09/01/2014 - 4:36pm
Andrew EisenLikewise, only two of Xbox One's top 12 are exclusive: Dead Rising 3 and Ryse: Son of Rome (if you ignore a PC release later this year).09/01/2014 - 4:34pm
Andrew EisenNot to disrespect the current gen of consoles but I find it telling that of the "12 Best Games For The PS4" (per Kotaku), only two are exclusive to the system: Infamous: Second Son and Resogun.09/01/2014 - 4:30pm
MaskedPixelantehttp://www.joystiq.com/2014/09/01/beyond-two-souls-ps4-trophies-emerge-directors-cut-reported/ MMM MMM, nothing quire like reheated last gen games to make you appreciate the 400 bucks you spent on a new console.09/01/2014 - 4:24pm
Andrew EisenThat's actually a super depressing thought, that a bunch of retweeters are taking that pic as an illustration of the actual issue instead of an example of a complete misunderstanding of it.09/01/2014 - 4:20pm
Andrew EisenObviously, the picture was created by someone who doesn't understand what the issue actually is (or, possibly, someone trying to satire said misunderstanding).09/01/2014 - 4:10pm
Papa MidnightPeople fear and attack what they do not understand.09/01/2014 - 4:04pm
Papa MidnightWell, let's not forget. Someone held their hand in a peace sign a few weeks ago and people started claiming it was a gang sign. Or a police chief displayed the hand signal of their fraternity and was accused of the same.09/01/2014 - 4:04pm
SleakerEither people don't understand that what the picture is saying is true, or the picture was created out of a misunderstanding of what sexism is.09/01/2014 - 3:52pm
Sleaker@AE ok yah that's where the kind of confusion I'm getting. Your tweet can be taken to mean two different things.09/01/2014 - 3:51pm
Andrew EisenSleaker - No. No, not even remotely. The pic attached to my tweet was not made by me; it's not a statement I'm making. It's an illustration of the complete misunderstanding of the issue my tweet is referring to.09/01/2014 - 3:13pm
Papa MidnightIn other news, Netflix states why it paid Comcast: http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/29/technology/netflix-comcast/index.html?hpt=hp_t209/01/2014 - 3:10pm
Papa MidnightAndrew Eisen: Sites like Tumblr make things seem much bigger than they are. A vocal extreme minority start complaining and things go as they do.09/01/2014 - 3:09pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician