Also, I'm well aware that there is a worrying blend of religious appeal in both platforms, but particularly the GOP's. However, I'm kinda surprised to see the same level of irrational, emotional commitment displayed here as is typically found during old-fashioned salvation revival shows. It seems like Republican voters have been exploited by the Christian entertainment industry into thinking the apocalypse has come, and the leaders of the GOP have merely been riding on that tide, rather than directing it.
Anyway, I always kinda thought it was the other way around, wherein the GOP was in control of that fear and propaganda, but now I think I may have been wrong.
I love how people are wearing flags as capes or blankets.
My Grandpa would Curb stomp anyone who did that, even when he was in a wheelchair.
But in still curious about what values they are taking about. I hear that word alot, but im not sure what it means.
I think this whole thing is a little unseemly, really. There's no reason to rub people's nose in it, or am I missing the point? It just seems like 'let's point and laugh at the idiots that voted for the other guy'. Can you imagine the pictures if Obama lost? Are we to understand that his supporters would have taken it well? Come off it.
It worries me how divided the US seems to be becoming. A lot. I just can't see how the two sides can reconcile their differences. I'm genuinely concerned that in the not-too-distant future, someone will do something stupid and the whole tinderbox will ignite. And it won't be cool and exciting, it'll be bloody and vicious, and many people will lose their lives.
Albatross wrote: I think this whole thing is a little unseemly, really. There's no reason to rub people's nose in it, or am I missing the point? It just seems like 'let's point and laugh at the idiots that voted for the other guy'. Can you imagine the pictures if Obama lost? Are we to understand that his supporters would have taken it well? Come off it.
It worries me how divided the US seems to be becoming. A lot. I just can't see how the two sides can reconcile their differences. I'm genuinely concerned that in the not-too-distant future, someone will do something stupid and the whole tinderbox will ignite. And it won't be cool and exciting, it'll be bloody and vicious, and many people will lose their lives.
It's entertaining to see quite how badly some people are taking it...
Admittedly the second bit of your post is somewhat more concerning...
Albatross wrote: I think this whole thing is a little unseemly, really. There's no reason to rub people's nose in it, or am I missing the point? It just seems like 'let's point and laugh at the idiots that voted for the other guy'. Can you imagine the pictures if Obama lost? Are we to understand that his supporters would have taken it well? Come off it.
It worries me how divided the US seems to be becoming. A lot. I just can't see how the two sides can reconcile their differences. I'm genuinely concerned that in the not-too-distant future, someone will do something stupid and the whole tinderbox will ignite. And it won't be cool and exciting, it'll be bloody and vicious, and many people will lose their lives.
It's entertaining to see quite how badly some people are taking it...
Admittedly the second bit of your post is somewhat more concerning...
Albatross wrote: I think this whole thing is a little unseemly, really. There's no reason to rub people's nose in it, or am I missing the point? It just seems like 'let's point and laugh at the idiots that voted for the other guy'. Can you imagine the pictures if Obama lost? Are we to understand that his supporters would have taken it well? Come off it.
It worries me how divided the US seems to be becoming. A lot. I just can't see how the two sides can reconcile their differences. I'm genuinely concerned that in the not-too-distant future, someone will do something stupid and the whole tinderbox will ignite. And it won't be cool and exciting, it'll be bloody and vicious, and many people will lose their lives.
It’s that irksome human tribalism rearing its head again.
When the people on the other side all look as if Jesus came back and pulled the rug out from under their feet shortly before kicking their dog down a flight of stairs it elicits a very smug emotion in the primitive part of our brain. Whether it’s moral or not is less important than the fact that my noggin is currently bathing in dopamine due to their distress.
Give it another 4 years and they’ll have their chance again. Until then they’ll have to content themselves with stalling legislation in congress and whinging on about government spending while trying to get more federal money for their states.
Albatross wrote: I think this whole thing is a little unseemly, really. There's no reason to rub people's nose in it, or am I missing the point? It just seems like 'let's point and laugh at the idiots that voted for the other guy'. Can you imagine the pictures if Obama lost? Are we to understand that his supporters would have taken it well? Come off it.
It worries me how divided the US seems to be becoming. A lot. I just can't see how the two sides can reconcile their differences. I'm genuinely concerned that in the not-too-distant future, someone will do something stupid and the whole tinderbox will ignite. And it won't be cool and exciting, it'll be bloody and vicious, and many people will lose their lives.
It’s that irksome human tribalism rearing its head again.
When the people on the other side all look as if Jesus came back and pulled the rug out from under their feet shortly before kicking their dog down a flight of stairs it elicits a very smug emotion in the primitive part of our brain. Whether it’s moral or not is less important than the fact that my noggin is currently bathing in dopamine due to their distress.
I guess it's an American thing. I can't really understand it, to be honest. We're brought up to be magnanimous in victory and gracious in defeat. You chaps seem to struggle with that stuff, to be fair. The whole 'IN YOUR FACE!!!!' thing just seems a little crass to me.
What's crazy is they actually seem to be serious.
From 1990 to 2009 Louisana received twice as much in federal spending in their state than they paid in state taxes.
This one is the one I find funniest for three facts.
1) Australia has a prime minister, not a president
2) The Australian prime minister is an atheist.
3) He is a She.
Go ahead Lousiana. Knock yourself out. Save the rest of America tax dollars.
Or alternatively, to develop their own currency without being inflated by the financial services of New York and high-tech manufacturing in the North, then develop their own competitive industries.
This one is the one I find funniest for three facts.
1) Australia has a prime minister, not a president
2) The Australian prime minister is an atheist.
3) He is a She.
It is indeed amazing just how many inaccuracies can be present in a message of so few characters.
What's crazy is they actually seem to be serious.
From 1990 to 2009 Louisana received twice as much in federal spending in their state than they paid in state taxes.
Ratbarf wrote: Patton's speech would be a good insight into the American psyche when it comes to winning.
Gen. Patton wrote:Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. You won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country. Men, all this stuff you've heard about America not wanting to fight, wanting to stay out of the war, is a lot of horse dung. Americans traditionally love to fight. All real Americans, love the sting of battle. When you were kids, you all admired the champion marble shooter, the fastest runner, the big league ball players, the toughest boxers ... Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser.
Americans play to win all the time. I wouldn't give a hoot in Hell for a man who lost and laughed. That's why Americans have never lost and will never lose a war. Because the very thought of losing is hateful to Americans. Now, an army is a team. It lives, eats, sleeps, fights as a team. This individuality stuff is a bunch of crap. The Bilious bastards who wrote that stuff about individuality for the Saturday Evening Post, don't know anything more about real battle than they do about fornicating. Now we have the finest food and equipment, the best spirit, and the best men in the world. You know ... My God, I actually pity those poor bastards we're going up against. My God, I do.
We're not just going to shoot the bastards, we're going to cut out their living guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks. We're going to murder those lousy Hun bastards by the bushel. Now some of you boys, I know, are wondering whether or not you'll chicken out under fire. Don't worry about it. I can assure you that you'll all do your duty. The Nazis are the enemy. Wade into them. Spill their blood, shoot them in the belly. When you put your hand into a bunch of goo, that a moment before was your best friends face, you'll know what to do. Now there's another thing I want you to remember.
I don't want to get any messages saying that we are holding our position. We're not holding anything, we'll let the Hun do that. We are advancing constantly, and we're not interested in holding onto anything except the enemy. We're going to hold onto him by the nose, and we're going to kick him in the ass. We're going to kick the hell out of him all the time, and we're going to go through him like crap through a goose. Now, there's one thing that you men will be able to say when you get back home, and you may thank God for it.
Thirty years from now when you're sitting around your fireside with your grandson on your knee, and he asks you, What did you do in the great World War Two? You won't have to say, Well, I shoveled gak in Louisiana. Alright now, you sons of bitches, you know how I feel. I will be proud to lead you wonderful guys into battle anytime, anywhere. That's all.
Testify wrote: Or alternatively, to develop their own currency without being inflated by the financial services of New York and high-tech manufacturing in the North, then develop their own competitive industries.
Fox news had a fantastic meltdown covered by Jon Stewart the day after the election. It was hilarious - because they literally blamed America for departing from it's "core values" .... apparently only approved by them.
Albatross wrote: I think this whole thing is a little unseemly, really. There's no reason to rub people's nose in it, or am I missing the point? It just seems like 'let's point and laugh at the idiots that voted for the other guy'. Can you imagine the pictures if Obama lost? Are we to understand that his supporters would have taken it well? Come off it.
It worries me how divided the US seems to be becoming. A lot. I just can't see how the two sides can reconcile their differences. I'm genuinely concerned that in the not-too-distant future, someone will do something stupid and the whole tinderbox will ignite. And it won't be cool and exciting, it'll be bloody and vicious, and many people will lose their lives.
Exalted and quoted for truth. I am generally disappointed with the behaviors of both Romney supporters and Obama supporters post election.
I guess it's an American thing. I can't really understand it, to be honest. We're brought up to be magnanimous in victory and gracious in defeat.
Over here right now, it's fairly difficult to remain magnanimous be honest, you see there's a very very loud bunch clamoring that 'we woz robbed!', or 'Obama Bin Lazin fixed them thar votin machines' or 'We must rise up and start murdering people who voted democrat because they are obviously not actually American like us and instead some form of other life with less right to vote because they did not vote for our guy'...
In the face of endless hyperbole, hate rhetoric and insult from the loony right, which has somehow hijacked the moderate right and is leading it around by it's ballsack, all of the left is fairly entitled to take a swipe back frankly and enjoy it's self for a couple of weeks.
Albatross wrote: I think this whole thing is a little unseemly, really. There's no reason to rub people's nose in it, or am I missing the point? It just seems like 'let's point and laugh at the idiots that voted for the other guy'. Can you imagine the pictures if Obama lost? Are we to understand that his supporters would have taken it well? Come off it.
It worries me how divided the US seems to be becoming. A lot. I just can't see how the two sides can reconcile their differences. I'm genuinely concerned that in the not-too-distant future, someone will do something stupid and the whole tinderbox will ignite. And it won't be cool and exciting, it'll be bloody and vicious, and many people will lose their lives.
Exalted and quoted for truth. I am generally disappointed with the behaviors of both Romney supporters and Obama supporters post election.
Ditto.
What I really love is most people, regardless of party, usually puts Washington in the top 5 for presidents, yet everyone seems to forget what he said when he left office.
Granted, I am no history major, but it was something to the tune of.... " Don't let trivial gak like party lines blur what really matters and don't get involved in the dealings of every country on the planet".
Now we have a whole nation drawn into red and blue, no one wants to work together, and people spend way too much time slinging mud and pointing fingers at the opposing team.
I don't know. I mean, there's been some funny freakouts (Trump especially) but for the most part the reaction has been fairly standard.
Those folk don't look any different to the true believers over here in Australia, when their side loses an election. They certainly don't look any different to how the Democrats reacted when they got beat in 2004 - anyone remember all the folk claiming they were going to move to Canada?
Goliath wrote: This one is the one I find funniest for three facts. 1) Australia has a prime minister, not a president 2) The Australian prime minister is an atheist. 3) He is a She.
Yeah, add in that she's unmarried and childless for extra lulz.
I saw a website the other day that was collecting twitter and facebook messages from Republicans claiming they were going to move to Australia because of the election result. I couldn't figure out why Australia - I mean, are they drawn to our socialised medicine?
Yeah, and if Romney won, blacks were threatening to riot in the streets. Good thing republicans are the 'crazy' party. Romney would have been assassinated within a year. There would have at least been an attempt.
The same assassination nonsense was popular after the last election. Funnily, it was Rep stating that Obama was going to be such a divider that such assassination would be inevitable.
Silverthorne wrote: Yeah, and if Romney won, blacks were threatening to riot in the streets.
Citation? This is a fairly extreme claim, and I think we'd be better served to recognize that the real crazies on either side are few.
Good thing republicans are the 'crazy' party.
Fair point that neither party should be stereotyped as crazy or insulted across the board.
Romney would have been assassinated within a year. There would have at least been an attempt.
This is just absurd. We've had 43 white rich dude presidents. If we've managed to keep the first black one, we're clearly not as divided, violent and racist as folks sometimes think.
It was pretty well covered. Even by Obama's sycophantic force field, I mean the media. I just grabbed a few hits off the first page. There were around 6 million hits.
Yeah, that's received exactly as much attention and been treated exactly as seriously as it's deserved.
Describing "the media" as "Obama's sycophantic force field" is not going to take you far in productive discussions. It comes across as about as useful as Dean Chambers' "unskewed" polling analysis.
Albatross wrote: I think this whole thing is a little unseemly, really. There's no reason to rub people's nose in it, or am I missing the point? It just seems like 'let's point and laugh at the idiots that voted for the other guy'. Can you imagine the pictures if Obama lost? Are we to understand that his supporters would have taken it well? Come off it.
It worries me how divided the US seems to be becoming. A lot. I just can't see how the two sides can reconcile their differences. I'm genuinely concerned that in the not-too-distant future, someone will do something stupid and the whole tinderbox will ignite. And it won't be cool and exciting, it'll be bloody and vicious, and many people will lose their lives.
I'll go along with this. There are a lot of people ready to retire that are genuinly worried about everything they worked for all of their lives going to be taken from them to pay for Obama's social plans. I have had some small business owners tell me that Obamacare will eliminate their ability to compete with the big corprations. They have also shelved plans to hire new people and may have to lay off people that they otherwise wouldn't.
It's fairly easy for most posters here that are just starting out in life to go into an in your face mode, but the thing to remember is that almost a full half of the country is genuinly worried and belittling that half is going to nothing but fuel resentment and combative attitudes.
This will then become a rocky presidency for Obama and if things go wrong on his watch in the next two years you can expect a Republican majority in both the house and senate.
I talked to a number of retirees this election who were deeply disturbed by the prospects of a Romney/Ryan plan to turn Medicare into a voucher system and/or to substantially cut benefits.
Belittling and insulting the (roughly) half the country that votes the other way that you do is always a bad idea.
Folks who make out their preferred candidate being elected to be an earthshattering tragedy, or grounds for violent action such as rioting or insurrection are deeply lacking in perspective, and disconnected from reality. There is some legitimate grounds for mocking these people, but obviously the high road is to reach across the aisle and try to find common ground.
In reality, in most areas of policy, foreign and domestic, a Romney administration would do most of the same things that the Obama administration has done and will do. In major areas, are two big parties are still pretty darn similar, especially in relation to polics in the rest of the world.
Really? So did you even hear a passing mention about people rioting if Romney lost? Do you not think it would have happened? I think your perspective is skewed. I've been to democratic and republican campaign events. There is a sense of fanatacism at the democratic rallies that is chilling. If you seriously don't think there would have been a violent reaction to Romneys election, despite me being able to show evidence there would be and you being able to do nothing of the sort, then you are burying your head in the sand. When you play exclusively identity politics, rational thought for people goes out the window. Sort of like how 98% of blacks voted for Obama, even though their economic parity with whites fell more under his presidency than literally ANY other president. Ever.
Seeing as you demand citations, then blow them off without countering with any of your own, I wouldn't define this exchange as a productive conversation. Sry.
Mannahnin wrote: I talked to a number of retirees this election who were deeply disturbed by the prospects of a Romney/Ryan plan to turn Medicare into a voucher system and/or to substantially cut benefits.
Belittling and insulting the (roughly) half the country that votes the other way that you do is always a bad idea.
Folks who make out their preferred candidate being elected to be an earthshattering tragedy, or grounds for violent action such as rioting or insurrection are deeply lacking in perspective, and disconnected from reality. There is some legitimate grounds for mocking these people, but obviously the high road is to reach across the aisle and try to find common ground.
In reality, in most areas of policy, foreign and domestic, a Romney administration would do most of the same things that the Obama administration has done and will do. In major areas, are two big parties are still pretty darn similar, especially in relation to polics in the rest of the world.
I've been hearing a lot of talk about government siezure of 401K's or upping the taxes on them to the point of it amounting to siezure. To be honest, though, I havn't seen anything on a website I'd call reliable, but people are out there subscribing to that notion since it has an equivelent president in other countries. Small businesses are of more concern if they are being made unable to compete since that will exacerbate unemployment, but that's going to be a time will tell sort of thing I believe.
You are correct in the fact that it is not a good thing to alienate half the country either by saying "In you face" or "you damn fools, your stupidity has doomed us all".
Mannahnin wrote: I talked to a number of retirees this election who were deeply disturbed by the prospects of a Romney/Ryan plan to turn Medicare into a voucher system and/or to substantially cut benefits.
Belittling and insulting the (roughly) half the country that votes the other way that you do is always a bad idea.
Folks who make out their preferred candidate being elected to be an earthshattering tragedy, or grounds for violent action such as rioting or insurrection are deeply lacking in perspective, and disconnected from reality. There is some legitimate grounds for mocking these people, but obviously the high road is to reach across the aisle and try to find common ground.
In reality, in most areas of policy, foreign and domestic, a Romney administration would do most of the same things that the Obama administration has done and will do. In major areas, are two big parties are still pretty darn similar, especially in relation to polics in the rest of the world.
While they may have broadly similar foreign policies I don't think that Romney would have been as effective with dealing with foreign affairs as Obama. Obama still has a superstar following among people outside of the United States and really the importance of that can't be understated imo. There is a definite benefit to having the people (not always the governments) in foreign countries like you and I think some of the gaffs made by Romney in his trip to the UK (while they may have been overblown by some) were damning in that respect.
A week ago I would have said that Romney wouldn't have fared as well on the foreign stage because he didn't have Hillary, however neither now does Obama which is a damn shame because that woman put in some good work as secretary of state.
I saw a website the other day that was collecting twitter and facebook messages from Republicans claiming they were going to move to Australia because of the election result. I couldn't figure out why Australia - I mean, are they drawn to our socialised medicine?
Well I'm not a Republican but I've considered moving to Australia because I appreciate your culture of alcoholism, your women-folk and the concept of an entire continent trying to kill me at any given moment. The beaches also seem rather nice.
I've always thought it was fun when people said they were moving because of the election to escape socialism. You know to Canada or Austrailia...morons.
If I don't like the ways things are going here I'll go to Israel, where the socialist utopia isn't just a dream.
The same assassination nonsense was popular after the last election. Funnily, it was Rep stating that Obama was going to be such a divider that such assassination would be inevitable.
And what, there's been like 3 attempts so far?
As a side note I think it would be pretty cool if the South did decide to "Rise Again." At the very least it would be more entertaining than what's happening right now in US politics.
Silverthorne wrote: Yeah, and if Romney won, blacks were threatening to riot in the streets. Good thing republicans are the 'crazy' party. Romney would have been assassinated within a year. There would have at least been an attempt.
First up, reading through those links you presented of anonymous twitter feeds, I think its interesting you said 'blacks were threatening to riot in the streets'.
Second up, yeah, people make stupid noise about how they'll react when their side loses. Like people in 2004 saying they'd move to Canada, or people this election saying they're moving to Australia. That's just what happens to the little cheerleaders - they get all scared that their side might not win, then it happens, life carries on and they try to pretend that never said anything that stupid... until the next election.
Trying to make it out as though it was evidence of a whole political party being crazy, like the OP did or like you're doing here... just doesn't work.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Silverthorne wrote: Really? So did you even hear a passing mention about people rioting if Romney lost? Do you not think it would have happened? I think your perspective is skewed. I've been to democratic and republican campaign events. There is a sense of fanatacism at the democratic rallies that is chilling. If you seriously don't think there would have been a violent reaction to Romneys election, despite me being able to show evidence there would be and you being able to do nothing of the sort, then you are burying your head in the sand.
Yeah, so it used to be this big scare about how bad Obama would be if he got into office, and then how bad it would have been if he got a second term... and now it's how bad it would have been if Obama hadn't been re-elected.
feth this is stupid.
When you play exclusively identity politics, rational thought for people goes out the window. Sort of like how 98% of blacks voted for Obama, even though their economic parity with whites fell more under his presidency than literally ANY other president. Ever.
Ah, Obama has scored about the same portion of the black vote that Kerry, Gore, and Clinton. And while black voters vote overwhelmingly for the Democratic candidate, they actually don't get out and vote in huge numbers. So there's actually not that great a black vote for the Democrats... more that there's a complete absence of a black vote for Republicans.
Turns out if you have people out there claiming 'the blacks are going to riot if Obama wins'.... there's consequences to that kind of race baiting.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Well I'm not a Republican but I've considered moving to Australia because I appreciate your culture of alcoholism, your women-folk and the concept of an entire continent trying to kill me at any given moment. The beaches also seem rather nice.
Sure, there's plenty of reasons to move to Australia. All of what you said, and we actually have jobs for people (if you move to the right parts of Australia, anyway).
But, like, if you think America is moving too far to the left, why would you come here? I mean, maybe if the gay marriage thing was the big issue it might make sense, because while we have civil unions and stuff, it's gonna be a long time before gay marriage gets passed anywhere.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Well I'm not a Republican but I've considered moving to Australia because I appreciate your culture of alcoholism, your women-folk and the concept of an entire continent trying to kill me at any given moment. The beaches also seem rather nice.
Sure, there's plenty of reasons to move to Australia. All of what you said, and we actually have jobs for people (if you move to the right parts of Australia, anyway).
But, like, if you think America is moving too far to the left, why would you come here? I mean, maybe if the gay marriage thing was the big issue it might make sense, because while we have civil unions and stuff, it's gonna be a long time before gay marriage gets passed anywhere.
I really have no idea, honestly the only reason I'm NOT down there already is the gun laws, makes my trade hard to ply, though it seems the hunting and shooting community is pretty vibrant in spite of the legal restrictions.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I really have no idea, honestly the only reason I'm NOT down there already is the gun laws, makes my trade hard to ply, though it seems the hunting and shooting community is pretty vibrant in spite of the legal restrictions.
The legal restrictions basically stop people having guns in their homes, but they don't stop anyone from target shooting or hunting. They make it more expensive and more annoying.
Honestly the biggest thing holding back hunting in Australia is that it doesn't work as well, as a sport. The wooded areas here aren't as vast, and don't have much in the way of decent sized mammals that are fun to hunt. I mean, what's the thrill in hunting koalas? They just sit there stoned.
People go shooting kangaroos and rabbits and stuff, but that's mostly in scrubland, and is for pest control, not fun.
People go wild boar hunting up in the mangroves of Queensland, and that's fething dangerous, but that's kind of the point.
Silverthorne wrote: Yeah, and if Romney won, blacks were threatening to riot in the streets. Good thing republicans are the 'crazy' party. Romney would have been assassinated within a year. There would have at least been an attempt.
First up, reading through those links you presented of anonymous twitter feeds, I think its interesting you said 'blacks were threatening to riot in the streets'.
Second up, yeah, people make stupid noise about how they'll react when their side loses. Like people in 2004 saying they'd move to Canada, or people this election saying they're moving to Australia. That's just what happens to the little cheerleaders - they get all scared that their side might not win, then it happens, life carries on and they try to pretend that never said anything that stupid... until the next election.
Trying to make it out as though it was evidence of a whole political party being crazy, like the OP did or like you're doing here... just doesn't work.
That's my point. Neither side is crazy, and it is just as easy to find outliers for the Dims as it is the Invaders Chapter, I mean republicans.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Silverthorne wrote: Really? So did you even hear a passing mention about people rioting if Romney lost? Do you not think it would have happened? I think your perspective is skewed. I've been to democratic and republican campaign events. There is a sense of fanatacism at the democratic rallies that is chilling. If you seriously don't think there would have been a violent reaction to Romneys election, despite me being able to show evidence there would be and you being able to do nothing of the sort, then you are burying your head in the sand.
Yeah, so it used to be this big scare about how bad Obama would be if he got into office, and then how bad it would have been if he got a second term... and now it's how bad it would have been if Obama hadn't been re-elected.
feth this is stupid.
When you play exclusively identity politics, rational thought for people goes out the window. Sort of like how 98% of blacks voted for Obama, even though their economic parity with whites fell more under his presidency than literally ANY other president. Ever.
Ah, Obama has scored about the same portion of the black vote that Kerry, Gore, and Clinton. And while black voters vote overwhelmingly for the Democratic candidate, they actually don't get out and vote in huge numbers. So there's actually not that great a black vote for the Democrats... more that there's a complete absence of a black vote for Republicans.
Turns out if you have people out there claiming 'the blacks are going to riot if Obama wins'.... there's consequences to that kind of race baiting..
You don't think that the scare has been backed up? What exactly has gone right with him in office? We lost a war in Afghanistan, fomented revolt in several middle eastern countries that were formerly easy to control and formerly not run by jihadists, regulated over the freedom of religion so that people don't have to pay $8 a month for their own birth control, and oh yeah, the economy is still in flames. Entitlement spending increased 40% in 4 years while the unemployment rate is calculated at 8% although the actual number is closer to 14%. Yeah, I'd say that it has been a disaster.
Also, I'm guessing like most Brits and Aussies on this board, you didn't attend any rallies, debates or conventions related to the American election. Yet you have no problem pontificating based on your third hand information. Go ahead and wear a Ron Paul button to an Obama campaign event. Maybe you can do your own demographic survey about the comments you receive. Or maybe you can just get your information, and opinions, from someone else. It amazes me the arrogance of people relying on such filtered information. I don't pretend to know enough to comment Australian or British politics and I have lived in both places for 4 years!
Also race baiting? The guy said (language)
Spoiler:
“If obama dont get re-elected & romney wins .. on life every white persons getting pistol whipped and im startin a riot." and I made the leap to assume he was black. The horror! I'm such a racist! No, you're just blind.
I Heard Mitt Romney , Tryna Take Away Food Stamps , If He Do ."IMA START A RIOT , IMA START A RIOT"— Tommy Pickles (@ThugPickles Sounds pretty white to me. No way you could assume otherwise.
If Romney win [see forum posting rules] goin riot— Rahmir Harrison (@GottaLoveRahRah) Definitely not a black person. No way. Only a racist could assume that! Don't think! It's racist!
“You know you ain’t gak if you gotta “MAKE” Mafukas vote for ROMNEY ! …. Mannnn OBAMA better get back in office . Or BLACK FOLKS will riot.”
“If Mitt Romney wins the election I think its our duties as Black folks to riot and feth gak up.” Both of those were certainly written by a non-black individual. ONLY A RACIST WOULD THINK OTHERWISE!
Jesus. They are mixing that PC cool-aid pretty thick down there huh?
omg silverthorne.... they wrote it on the internet, ok? You don't seriously believe that stuff on the internet is to be taken seriously, right? People get enraged a lot on the internet and make crazy claims ALL THE TIME! So stop saying you have "evidence". It's ridiculous.
Arguing a hypothetical when the conditions to trigger that hypothetical are guaranteed not to come to pass is more than a bit academic.
That said, there have certainly been riots in this country for a lot less, so saying it absolutely wouldn't have come to pass is pretty foolish. We don't know, and we won't know, what would have actually happened. What does it matter?
The same assassination nonsense was popular after the last election. Funnily, it was Rep stating that Obama was going to be such a divider that such assassination would be inevitable.
And what, there's been like 3 attempts so far?
As a side note I think it would be pretty cool if the South did decide to "Rise Again." At the very least it would be more entertaining than what's happening right now in US politics.
That wouldn't be cool at all. Thousands of people died in the US civil war. I have family in the South.
Relapse wrote: I've been hearing a lot of talk about government siezure of 401K's or upping the taxes on them to the point of it amounting to siezure. To be honest, though, I havn't seen anything on a website I'd call reliable
I would not worry about that. Legally how would one accomplish this? The president is not a dictator and cannot just take your 401k.
Tax plans need to go through congress -- as we know from the debate about tax increases on the wealthy -- and what congressman in their right mind would ever want to vote for taking 401ks? Any party that pushed that would be gone in a day.
Silverthorne wrote: If you seriously don't think there would have been a violent reaction to Romneys election, despite me being able to show evidence there would be and you being able to do nothing of the sort, then you are burying your head in the sand.
Were that the case, would we not have seen a violet reaction when Bush was given the presidency in 2000 by the Supreme Court?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore
The same assassination nonsense was popular after the last election. Funnily, it was Rep stating that Obama was going to be such a divider that such assassination would be inevitable.
And what, there's been like 3 attempts so far?
As a side note I think it would be pretty cool if the South did decide to "Rise Again." At the very least it would be more entertaining than what's happening right now in US politics.
The point being that these claims appear in a cyclical manner. None of the Republicans who claimed there would be assassinations were 'in the know'' about those attempts. It's just empty talk, designed to make the situation appear more radical then it really is.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I really have no idea, honestly the only reason I'm NOT down there already is the gun laws, makes my trade hard to ply, though it seems the hunting and shooting community is pretty vibrant in spite of the legal restrictions.
The legal restrictions basically stop people having guns in their homes, but they don't stop anyone from target shooting or hunting. They make it more expensive and more annoying.
Honestly the biggest thing holding back hunting in Australia is that it doesn't work as well, as a sport. The wooded areas here aren't as vast, and don't have much in the way of decent sized mammals that are fun to hunt. I mean, what's the thrill in hunting koalas? They just sit there stoned.
People go shooting kangaroos and rabbits and stuff, but that's mostly in scrubland, and is for pest control, not fun.
People go wild boar hunting up in the mangroves of Queensland, and that's fething dangerous, but that's kind of the point.
Well the restrictions don't really stop any one, at least not how I'm reading the various classes of weapons permit. Just have to get a decent safe. So if you're someone like me who would probably be looking to acquire all the permits, having a safe that's good even through Class D weapons at your first inspection would be a solid plan, even if getting Class D permits is impossible outside of certain career fields. But yes, expensive and annoying is a good way to put it, the restrictions I've heard about but can't find the law on, on ammunition storage makes the popular American past time of reloading ammunition a right pain in the donkey as well.
You can hunt Koalas? Why would you bother? Seems like it'd be less work to grab'em buy hand and sell them as living teddy bears in bulk.
I disagree on pest control hunting, Roos being a herd animal probably makes it slightly less exciting though I hear they're quite tasty but coyote hunting for pest control is probably the most trigger time I get in these days and they aren't edible in most people's eyes. Not sure how Dingos are for hunting legality but I bet they could be fairly challenging as well. Squaring off with a predator of any kind is always an interesting experience. Thankfully I can have just as much fun on the range so your lack of large game isn't too much of a "no fly" for me.
Hunting wild pigs of any kind, any where, is always fething dangerous. Do the boar down under get up into the same several hundred pound weight class as their American cousins?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: I think in the battle between southern rednecks vs. urban gang bangers, my money may be on the thugs.
I dunno, a fellow named Cleetus who's been shooting since he could walk vs. a guy who can't figure out that holding a gun like they do on TV is the wrong way to do it....
It may be a little mean spirited, but to ignore the hysteria these people have had over President Obama's presidency is to completely misunderstand why this is so funny.
These people are crying and howling in terror because they are afraid that a 3% increase in the top income tax bracket means socialism, and that they failed to "take their country back" and lots of other stupid things.
d-usa wrote: I think in the battle between southern rednecks vs. urban gang bangers, my money may be on the thugs.
I don't think you really beleive that.
Gang-bangers have one advantage: organizational structure.
Gangs are large and have build in leadership structures. As far as any sort of incident command system, they are already much better organized than the rednecks. They have crews, they are used to taking orders, they are used to commanding troops. That is a big advantage in the all out "war of the stereotypes".
Rednecks are loners, they value their independence and doing things their own way. They would be much harder to structure into regiments. While this may give them an advantage in a special-ops kind of role, by and large it will make them less effective as combat units.
So as long as you don't try to put a leader of one gang in command over the soldiers of another, they will beat the rednecks.
d-usa wrote: I think in the battle between southern rednecks vs. urban gang bangers, my money may be on the thugs.
I don't think you really beleive that.
Gang-bangers have one advantage: organizational structure.
Gangs are large and have build in leadership structures. As far as any sort of incident command system, they are already much better organized than the rednecks. They have crews, they are used to taking orders, they are used to commanding troops. That is a big advantage in the all out "war of the stereotypes".
Rednecks are loners, they value their independence and doing things their own way. They would be much harder to structure into regiments. While this may give them an advantage in a special-ops kind of role, by and large it will make them less effective as combat units.
So as long as you don't try to put a leader of one gang in command over the soldiers of another, they will beat the rednecks.
Au contraire, the rednecks follow a basic hierarchy of right makes right; the biggest and baddest of them will surely acquire power.
The size of his fire arm and vehicle is also a factor....
....or am I thinking of Orks?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mannahnin wrote: I didn't say hillbilly. He was from a poor sharecropping family in Texas, not from the Appalachians.
Oh, I thought the term was interchangeable. What's the difference?
d-usa wrote: I think in the battle between southern rednecks vs. urban gang bangers, my money may be on the thugs.
I don't think you really beleive that.
Gang-bangers have one advantage: organizational structure.
Gangs are large and have build in leadership structures. As far as any sort of incident command system, they are already much better organized than the rednecks. They have crews, they are used to taking orders, they are used to commanding troops. That is a big advantage in the all out "war of the stereotypes".
Rednecks are loners, they value their independence and doing things their own way. They would be much harder to structure into regiments. While this may give them an advantage in a special-ops kind of role, by and large it will make them less effective as combat units.
So as long as you don't try to put a leader of one gang in command over the soldiers of another, they will beat the rednecks.
Au contraire, the rednecks follow a basic hierarchy of right makes right; the biggest and baddest of them will surely acquire power.
The size of his fire arm and vehicle is also a factor....
....or am I thinking of Orks?
Orks, Rednecks...same difference probably. Although the teeth-wealth ratio might be reversed.
d-usa wrote: I think in the battle between southern rednecks vs. urban gang bangers, my money may be on the thugs.
I don't think you really beleive that.
Gang-bangers have one advantage: organizational structure.
Gangs are large and have build in leadership structures. As far as any sort of incident command system, they are already much better organized than the rednecks. They have crews, they are used to taking orders, they are used to commanding troops. That is a big advantage in the all out "war of the stereotypes".
Rednecks are loners, they value their independence and doing things their own way. They would be much harder to structure into regiments. While this may give them an advantage in a special-ops kind of role, by and large it will make them less effective as combat units.
So as long as you don't try to put a leader of one gang in command over the soldiers of another, they will beat the rednecks.
Au contraire, the rednecks follow a basic hierarchy of right makes right; the biggest and baddest of them will surely acquire power.
The size of his fire arm and vehicle is also a factor....
....or am I thinking of Orks?
Orks, Rednecks...same difference probably. Although the teeth-wealth ratio might be reversed.
Mannahnin wrote:Audie Murphy was a redneck. Kind of puts my bet on that side of the equation.
As are a majority of combat soldiers regardless of race. It leads me to believe that redneck life is better suited to warfare than urban bangers whose stereotypical incompetence in actually killing the people they are aiming for is legendary.
The same assassination nonsense was popular after the last election. Funnily, it was Rep stating that Obama was going to be such a divider that such assassination would be inevitable.
And what, there's been like 3 attempts so far?
As a side note I think it would be pretty cool if the South did decide to "Rise Again." At the very least it would be more entertaining than what's happening right now in US politics.
That wouldn't be cool at all. Thousands of people died in the US civil war. I have family in the South.
Pah.
I live in the South. Imagine how much of an inconvenience an uprising would be for me!
d-usa wrote: I think in the battle between southern rednecks vs. urban gang bangers, my money may be on the thugs.
I don't think you really beleive that.
Gang-bangers have one advantage: organizational structure.
Gangs are large and have build in leadership structures. As far as any sort of incident command system, they are already much better organized than the rednecks. They have crews, they are used to taking orders, they are used to commanding troops. That is a big advantage in the all out "war of the stereotypes".
Rednecks are loners, they value their independence and doing things their own way. They would be much harder to structure into regiments. While this may give them an advantage in a special-ops kind of role, by and large it will make them less effective as combat units.
So as long as you don't try to put a leader of one gang in command over the soldiers of another, they will beat the rednecks.
I think you underestimate the family and community structure Redknecks have
OMG this. This is epic. I've actually heard of a few people who voted for Romney (IRL and in my local town mind you) claiming they are going to move to Canada because our country is going to hell. Their main reason? You guessed it, their reason is they are against the socialized health care. Just let that sink in a bit.
OMG this. This is epic. I've actually heard of a few people who voted for Romney (IRL and in my local town mind you) claiming they are going to move to Canada because our country is going to hell. Their main reason? You guessed it, their reason is they are against the socialized health care. Just let that sink in a bit.
Well, I would like to pretend to threaten to move to the UK because I don't trust us to get the health care right. I don't have a problem with socialized health care. I think that, specifically, sounds awesome. I'd probably not have nerve damage in one of my hands if I could have seen a doctor about it years ago without massive financial repercussions. But what I do have is many concerns and doubts about an overcomplicated stop-gap measure too complex to understand without passing it that impacts an industry with a whooooole lotta money, and potentially a lot to lose.
The problem with talking about systems change is that people always want a revolution. That's not what's needed. Revolutions cause chaos. You want gradual, incremental change, so each shock is absorbed by the system instead of causing chaotic, unforeseen consequences. To use the metaphor I'm most comfortable with, if you change an ecosystem gradually over time, you get evolution. If you change it suddenly, you get extinction.
Anyhow. I'm sure most people in the thread knew all this, but I just skulled a beer and I felt like writing down what I was thinking.
Thanks for an entertaining election guys.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Well the restrictions don't really stop any one, at least not how I'm reading the various classes of weapons permit. Just have to get a decent safe.
I think it varies a little from state to state, but from memory you also need to have a legitimate reason for owning a firearm. If you're just wanting to hunt, I think you have to join a shooting club of some sort to qualify. Otherwise, being a farmer is an auto-qualify...
You can hunt Koalas?
No, they're protected.
I disagree on pest control hunting, Roos being a herd animal probably makes it slightly less exciting
You'll only say that until the first time one of the big ones tries to disembowel you...
And while they may just look like slightly warped deer, they're surprisingly tough.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Well the restrictions don't really stop any one, at least not how I'm reading the various classes of weapons permit. Just have to get a decent safe.
I think it varies a little from state to state, but from memory you also need to have a legitimate reason for owning a firearm. If you're just wanting to hunt, I think you have to join a shooting club of some sort to qualify. Otherwise, being a farmer is an auto-qualify...
I disagree on pest control hunting, Roos being a herd animal probably makes it slightly less exciting
You'll only say that until the first time one of the big ones tries to disembowel you...
And while they may just look like slightly warped deer, they're surprisingly tough.
Well I'm a gunsmith by trade so I can probably qualify professionally, (I sure fecking hope so XD) but I'd join local hunting and target shooting clubs any way, I enjoy both activities and it lets me go where my customer base is.
As to exciting on the Roos I just mean that from what I see they tend to move in large groups across fairly open terrain, which compared to stalking an individual deer in the woods of North America isn't as "challenging" or "exciting" in the sense of locating and "hunting" the prey. That a Roo is rather more dangerous then most of the herbivores in North America does make things interesting though. A roo is also more aggressive compared to a deer from what I understand. A deer's first response is to hoof it post haste from a threat, where the roo is (again from what I understand, I haven't exactly made a study of it) more likely to beat the threat's brains in, gut it, or if you're near a body of water, drown it.
d-usa wrote: I think in the battle between southern rednecks vs. urban gang bangers, my money may be on the thugs.
My money would be on the redneck.
This is not a way to shoot accurately. You've got a range of a few feet at best. I grant you that somes its all you need, but its inaccurate as heck and risks return fire.
This is the redneck taking a shot from 100 yards away. The redneck does not even let the gang-banger know whats coming.
d-usa wrote: I think in the battle between southern rednecks vs. urban gang bangers, my money may be on the thugs.
My money would be on the redneck.
This is not a way to shoot accurately. You've got a range of a few feet at best. I grant you that somes its all you need, but its inaccurate as heck and risks return fire.
This is the redneck taking a shot from 100 yards away. The redneck does not even let the gang-banger know whats coming.
Surprisingly that gang banger has a BETTER shooting stance then most, he at least has both hands on the weapon. I recommend equipping your 'bangers n' thugs with the following equipment to make them more combat efficient.
Am I the only one who finds it ironic that Glocks are so popular with both thugs and cops?
d-usa wrote: I think in the battle between southern rednecks vs. urban gang bangers, my money may be on the thugs.
My money would be on the redneck.
This is not a way to shoot accurately. You've got a range of a few feet at best. I grant you that somes its all you need, but its inaccurate as heck and risks return fire.
This is the redneck taking a shot from 100 yards away. The redneck does not even let the gang-banger know whats coming.
Thing is this isn't a one on one contest, it's "Rednecks" vs "Thugs". Rednecks are a best a loose collection of backwards rural folks. A great many a gangs are efficiently run, highly organized, well equipped and ruthless criminal organizations that are absolutely massive in terms of membership. Just on sheer numbers the gang bangers are gonna win, and in a dedicated conflict they're going to have access to better hardware. Never mind the fact that not every thug is a sideways-gun holding incompetent and a great many of them are probably very efficient killers.
Chongra I think you have a poor idea of just how many rednecks there are in this country, and how many of them have been involved in criminal activity that involved violence and blood shed since before the first of the modern gangs were formed. Back in the day it was moonshining, these days it's pot and "hillbilly heroin". Many of these same people grew up handling explosives in various formats illegally or otherwise, or joined the military and came back or have just been using a rifle since they could pick one up. All those militia groups that CNN likes to have panic attacks about also belong to the redneck category and being a paramilitary organization lends towards a pretty solid and functioning command structure.
If losing the presidential election wasn't enough, Mitt Romney has been hemorrhaging Facebook friends.
People began unliking Romney's official Facebook page soon after the election results came in last week. The Washington Post noticed the drop on Friday, when the GOP presidential candidate's page was losing 593 likes an hour.
By Saturday, Mashable said the exodus was up to 847 friends an hour, and as of Monday morning, Romney's Facebook page continued to lose around 11 likes every minute.
For those who enjoy interactive graphics with their schadenfreude, the site DisappearingRomney.com shows Romney's Facebook likes dropping in real time. A ticker at the bottom of the page tallies how many people have unliked Romney's page just in the time users have been on the site.
Not that Romney is hurting for social media pals. As of Monday afternoon, he still had more than 12 million Facebook fans and 1.7 million followers on Twitter.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Chongra I think you have a poor idea of just how many rednecks there are in this country, and how many of them have been involved in criminal activity that involved violence and blood shed since before the first of the modern gangs were formed. Back in the day it was moonshining, these days it's pot and "hillbilly heroin". Many of these same people grew up handling explosives in various formats illegally or otherwise, or joined the military and came back or have just been using a rifle since they could pick one up. All those militia groups that CNN likes to have panic attacks about also belong to the redneck category and being a paramilitary organization lends towards a pretty solid and functioning command structure.
Let's assume the rednecks are organized, and have a redneck-wide command structure. Urban folks still outnumber rural folks almost 4:1. This means that Armed Criminal Rednecks as a portion of the population, are going to have to be four times more common in their communities than gang bangers. Even if we assume this is true, to make the numbers break even they have further disadvantages:Then there is a matter of population density,The redneck population is spread out over large areas presenting far greater logistical challenges in terms of creating a unified force or mounting any sort of defense.
In contrast a great many folks from one gang are concentrated in a single area, making it easier to for them to muster up and project force in a concentrated manner. In addition they're surrounded by far many more civilians and just general urban clutter, which forms a great defense against potential attacks.
Jihadin wrote: We talking war in the south? Be a long drawn out affair for quite a few people who has not encounter a southern belle
on the side note.
SOmeone said we lost the Afghan War.....who lost the Afghan War? Clarify please so I can actually laugh
I hate to say it, but when we leave the Taliban will still be there. Having said that, how could you win in Afghanistan exactly? We smashed Al Qaeda there. Time to bail.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Chongra I think you have a poor idea of just how many rednecks there are in this country, and how many of them have been involved in criminal activity that involved violence and blood shed since before the first of the modern gangs were formed. Back in the day it was moonshining, these days it's pot and "hillbilly heroin". Many of these same people grew up handling explosives in various formats illegally or otherwise, or joined the military and came back or have just been using a rifle since they could pick one up. All those militia groups that CNN likes to have panic attacks about also belong to the redneck category and being a paramilitary organization lends towards a pretty solid and functioning command structure.
Let's assume the rednecks are organized, and have a redneck-wide command structure. Urban folks still outnumber rural folks almost 4:1. This means that Armed Criminal Rednecks as a portion of the population, are going to have to be four times more common in their communities than gang bangers. Even if we assume this is true, to make the numbers break even they have further disadvantages:Then there is a matter of population density,The redneck population is spread out over large areas presenting far greater logistical challenges in terms of creating a unified force or mounting any sort of defense.
In contrast a great many folks from one gang are concentrated in a single area, making it easier to for them to muster up and project force in a concentrated manner. In addition they're surrounded by far many more civilians and just general urban clutter, which forms a great defense against potential attacks.
Dude...
Check out the movie "Winter's Bones"...
Very apt dipictation of the "gangs in the midwest".
Mannahnin wrote: Winter's Bone is a damn good movie. Way better intro to Jennifer Laurence than Hunger Games. Chick is good. John Hawkes was also great in it.
That's not the midwest, though, is it? I thought it was the Ozarks.
Er... Missouri... my state... practically half the state is Ozark country, which is considered "the mid-west". (why, I have no idea other than St. Louis is "The Gateway to the West").
And yes, that movie was great... you know why? I know people/family/towns that are like that... which was very trippy man.
That chick is going to have a great acting career. She even "cleaned" the squirrels correctly!
d-usa wrote: I will also give rednecks the rifle advantage, but close quarter hand gun and automatic weapon fights will give the advantage back to the gangs.
Even in small towns and farms, gangs will win. If the rednecks burn down brush to clear up firing lanes or trap woods and place stands the gangs will have heavy losses getting there.
d-usa wrote: Even in small towns and farms, gangs will win. If the rednecks burn down brush to clear up firing lanes or trap woods and place stands the gangs will have heavy losses getting there.
How can you say that? You live in Oklahoma for feth sakes!
Okay... gangbangers prolly have the resources, armoury and just flat-out-balls...
But Rednecks? They'd get all creative on you... like this:
THE PUNKINATOR!
Seriously... you're going to get hurt by going up to folks who thinks of this gak all the time.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: As to exciting on the Roos I just mean that from what I see they tend to move in large groups across fairly open terrain, which compared to stalking an individual deer in the woods of North America isn't as "challenging" or "exciting" in the sense of locating and "hunting" the prey.
Depends on where you are. Through the central coast of Queensland they're fairly common in bushy areas. They'll still travel in mobs but they spread out quite a bit, and their grey hair is damn hard to spot against a backdrop of grey tree trunks.
That a Roo is rather more dangerous then most of the herbivores in North America does make things interesting though. A roo is also more aggressive compared to a deer from what I understand. A deer's first response is to hoof it post haste from a threat, where the roo is (again from what I understand, I haven't exactly made a study of it) more likely to beat the threat's brains in, gut it, or if you're near a body of water, drown it.
While not wanting to dilute my island home's air of dangerous mystique, it's probably fair to point out that in general roos will actually just head for the hills when they see you coming. Or in areas where they're not being culled regularly, they'll as like as not just ignore you since you're not edible. It's mostly just if you happen to come across a particularly ornery male that you run into trouble. I would suspect that more people are hurt by having one hurtle out in front of them in the middle of the night on a dark road than by actually being attacked... a full grown roo can make a bit of a mess of your car.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: As to exciting on the Roos I just mean that from what I see they tend to move in large groups across fairly open terrain, which compared to stalking an individual deer in the woods of North America isn't as "challenging" or "exciting" in the sense of locating and "hunting" the prey.
Depends on where you are. Through the central coast of Queensland they're fairly common in bushy areas. They'll still travel in mobs but they spread out quite a bit, and their grey hair is damn hard to spot against a backdrop of grey tree trunks.
That a Roo is rather more dangerous then most of the herbivores in North America does make things interesting though. A roo is also more aggressive compared to a deer from what I understand. A deer's first response is to hoof it post haste from a threat, where the roo is (again from what I understand, I haven't exactly made a study of it) more likely to beat the threat's brains in, gut it, or if you're near a body of water, drown it.
While not wanting to dilute my island home's air of dangerous mystique, it's probably fair to point out that in general roos will actually just head for the hills when they see you coming. Or in areas where they're not being culled regularly, they'll as like as not just ignore you since you're not edible. It's mostly just if you happen to come across a particularly ornery male that you run into trouble. I would suspect that more people are hurt by having one hurtle out in front of them in the middle of the night on a dark road than by actually being attacked... a full grown roo can make a bit of a mess of your car.
Makes sense, that's how deer kill people here for the most part. Course if your car's big enough we just call that fast food. Over all I think I can be satisfied hunting and shooting down under.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Do we count Outlaw Biker Gangs as/for rednecks? There's definitely some over lap there.
Mercenaries that could go either way.
Knowing the OMC (Outlaw Motorcycle Clubs) in my area and having decent information on the bigger ones I'd say turn them over to the rednecks, most of them would be happy for an opportunity to crack "thug" or "banger" skulls as they already fight them for turf and control of drugs and the like.
I'd also not discount rednecks on armory. Rednecks are the type of people who buy HMMWVS and armored fighting vehicles surplus, automatic weapons or various "cheats" to get or make auto weapons are also fairly common in the boonies. There's also that one old redneck with a field howitzer in his garage....
