Critical freedom failure, repeat, critical freedom failure. All american freedoms are temporarily suspended. Please get out of America through the emergency interstates provided. This is all NDAA/SOPA's fault.
@360Nomad You also forgot to add Lybia and Egypt add those countries all together and it'll still be NOTHING compared to what will happen if civil war broke out here in the US
@pimpbroker9999 Another Civil War in the United States would eclipse the horrors of the last civil war, the Western Front, the Nazis, the Yugoslav Civil War, and Afghanistan, and probably be one of the most devastating conflicts in world history. The sad part is that it may only be a few years away.
Hate to differ with you on this armyaviationproud, but things would only need to change enough to allow such events to happen. History is full of tide changing events and only human shortsightedness allows one to feel that "their" way of life could never change. "but whatever"
Europe would never be able to intervene in an American affair and half of this crap would never happen. Most States are not capable of being self sufficient. This is just as garbage a plot as Homefront being a North Korean invasion of the United States, but whatever.
@armyaviationproud NDAA pretty much allows for martial law on american streets not since 1867 was such a authorized. I could see the 2012 election end up as a sham
@armyaviationproud I disagree. While the prospect that the North Korea would ever be stupid enough to try and attack US Soil is utterly preposterous. The idea that tribalistic Americans would pick weapons and start killing each other, not so much.
Why would this even happen?? Im going to Canada. Canada dosent get involved in anything and is just there. Surely no one would bother Canada? Whos with me?!
@R3W44 Fighting would likely spill over into Canada, or Canada would seal it's borders. Besides, would you Cannuks really want to get involved in a war that killed tens of millions of people and devastate the entire continent?
@TheShadowwolf88 like the former US minister of defense said: "We are the new Rome". Seems he did not know that the roman empire did collapse because of the same reasons.
Yes but the roman empire collapsed beccause of (mostly) thank´s to Christianity wich was the last nail in the coffin so to speak but the empire started collapsing the very day the "roman empire" was proclaimed or even at the fall of Carthage!
@TheShadowwolf88 "Yes but the roman empire collapsed beccause of (mostly) thank´s to Christianity wich was the last nail in the coffin so to speak but the empire started collapsing the very day the "roman empire" was proclaimed or even at the fall of Carthage!"
Apparently you do not have a clue what you are talking about. It would be like me saying our economy sucks because Obama is "muslim". There is no truth or fact backing up what I said or what you said.
a state is a sovereign territory that is overseen by a form of government. a republic is a form of government. the US is a collection of mostly sovereign states that have voluntarily ceded certain powers to a larger union in the form of the federal government. Well at least that is what was intended however the federal government has exceeded its enumerated (limited) powers and the state sovereignty is being lost.
You can tell a European with no understanding of American culture or US government came up with this scenario, if the EU put troops on us soil for anything other to train with US or help the US repel an invasion even the most wimpy liberal would be pissed off.
@Viconius When did the post state anything about game release dates? I was talking about how an American with an understanding of American culture decided to fuck said America up with Asians. cough READ THE FUCKING POST RIGHT cough.
the people who made he game are american. Besides, the regional factions are decently accurate - though i'd like to see more (e.g. mormon factions and separate appalachians). And it's semicanon that the EU peacekeepers are unpopular, and that they failed to keep the government together - and that one of the balkanized states repelled thm
I know good ole Tennessee would survive!We're the volunteer state after all.Hehe..just kidding.We would probably have just a good a chance as everyone else
@thehuntman47 hell ya washington rules. i think we would kick everyone ass as well we have a decent size militia and washington grows the most notorious serial killers
i was like meh wait what west! fk u.... *paints half of face blue* FREEEEEEEEDOM! and im barely uhm 12 soooo fuck gonna be drafted :P if this rlly happens
@MrMeineNamen Only if you're going by what public school textbooks and patriotic child cartoons teach you. I recommend reading "The Real Lincoln" by Thomas DiLorenzo. Or just five minutes of research will show you he cared nothing about the slaves, and all about "preserving the union" by forcing its member states to stay. Or you could just look at the "fasces" (bundle of sticks) on his monument, which is where the term fascist originates from.
@DissidentDescendant no shit thats what i was taught in textbooks -_- thats not facsism thats being a president -_- last time i checked preserving America is a good thing...
@MrMeineNamen Fascism is a very ambiguous term with no definite meaning, but it more or less describes a strong, centralized, authoritative government. Lincoln suspended the right of habeas corpus, arrested northern journalists who were critical of his war to keep them quiet, and invaded states that peacefully and legally seceded from the union. The southern states seceding is no different than the colonies separating from Britain. When America doesn't equal freedom, it shouldn't be preserved.
@DissidentDescendant uh you need to brush up on your history... and your definitions fascism= a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to DEMOCRACY or liberalism)
@MrMeineNamen The problem is that the United States is not a democracy. It never has been. It's a democratic republic. What Lincoln and his administration did was forever escalate the position of president from another public servant to being an authoritative archon-like figure. It's never been the same since. My definition of fascism = a political theory putting power in the hands of an elite few, restricting individual liberties for the "good of the nation". Fits the bill perfectly, no?
@DissidentDescendant shut up and stop pretending to know what ur talking about. why is it that people tend to complain about our government now and then? why complain when you can just leave? im done with you goodbye
@MrMeineNamen lol. No I will not "shut up" because you disagree with me. It's not like I wield some hidden knowledge. Everything I'm saying can be verified online or at a library. I'm no self-proclaimed historian or some crap like that. I just relay what I've learned. And I don't "complain about our government now and then". I always have. I'm an anarchist. Why leave the land when we can oust the government from it? Just try my best to stimulate thought. Have a nice day. <3
@DissidentDescendant lol actually i just wanted you to shut up because i didnt car about the crap spam you had to say. in fact i just read your first sentance and didnt care to read the rest. so again goodbye
PS puting "" on shut up doesnt make you look sophisticated
@DissidentDescendant - If states were allowed to govern themselves, black people would have never gotten any rights in the south in the 1960's. They'd still be struggling today most likely. Heck, that is assuming they would ever be set free.
@Zeeboe As strawman as that argument is, I wonder that myself frequently. I'd assume that the small slave-owning upper crust would follow the money and switch to more efficient means of labor, such as machines. Slavery was already dying by the 1860s. Thinking as far as 100 years in that parallel universe, who knows, but most of the racial tension was caused by the reconstruction. No use strawmanning though, the problem of continue rights-erosion, for all peoples, is actually happening now.
@DissidentDescendant - There was already tension before reconstruction. If there wasn't, Nat Turner would have never had to get violent. Slaves were for the most part not seen as human and most likely if the C.S.A. (assuming they won) were to free the slaves at some point, who is to say they would not have consider doing what Lincoln wanted to do at first and that is ship them out of the same country they helped built and have to survive in some new foreign land in Africa?
@Zeeboe Maybe. Or maybe there wouldn't be deportation to a Liberia-like state. This is why I hate strawman arguments lol.
There always has been some degree of tension between people who are different, and there always will be. But it's hard to deny that the puppet politicians and forced laws of the Reconstruction made things much worse. Government interference of any kind tends to have that kind of effect.
@DissidentDescendant - I think you have been sold a bill of goods by theocratic fascists who would destroy the very thing they falsely claim to be fighting for. They don't want freedom for everyone, they want a monopoly of power & I believe they would be even bigger tyrants then Lincoln could ever be.
The issue of what would have happened to black people if the South won will forever be unknown, but I do know this much: They would have been slaves longer then they should have been.
One of the reasons I believe why President Lincoln did not let the South peacefully leave in the 1860's is because he feared it would create in one word: anarchy. How can you claim to be a Democracy or even a Republic if you take the results of a legal and correct election and throw out the results simply because you don't like them?
At some point there HAS to be order for a country to survive or otherwise we will forever be fighting for power with one another.
@Zeeboe I doubt it would've led to anarchy, but it would've been delightful if it did in my humble opinion. Doesn't the same apply to the colonies that rebelled against their so-called "rightful" sovereign?
There doesn't HAVE to be any authority. Give a group of people power to fight against problems and they become the problem you wished to prevent.
I'm starting to feel our "serious business" debate is bloating this poor comment section. ;)
@DissidentDescendant - Unionists realized that once secession was permitted, there was no stopping the process of fragmentation because any group with a complaint could then announce its intention to separate unless its wishes were fulfilled.
Secession was the "squeal" of those who "must be allowed to do what [they] please." Caving in to secessionists would positively destroy any central government: "the inevitable consequence will be, that the Federal authority will cease to be respected at home."
@Zeeboe I think the disconnection in our discussion is due to the fact that what you're afraid of is exactly what I'm for. Continual straw-straw man arguments aside, I don't think this is getting anywhere fast.
Because I think in terms of individuals, I see nothing wrong with you and like-minded people to choose to live in a centralized society, as long as you leave those who do not see eye to eye alone. Otherwise, forcing Puritan ways upon others is tyranny, plain and simple.
@DissidentDescendant - So you want a Christian Nation? See, we probably should avoid that topic since you are Christian and I am a former Christian turned Atheist and I personally think a Christian Nation would be a horrible idea. People should not be forced to believe in something. That is what Iran does and look at what a "lovely" place that.
You talk about not wanting to "force" people into things, but you imply you wanna force a Christian Nation on people.
@Zeeboe LOL. I guess you missed the several times I mentioned I'm an anarchist and an individualist? I'm not even sure where "Christian nationalism" came from. That was worth a laugh.
I left my crystal ball in my closet so I was not able to read your mind. You list the bible as one of your favorite books and I posted against the bible quite a bit and you posted that you support what I am against, so how could I not think that? For some reason, you wouldn't just come out and post it, so I tried to give you a hand. You're also a very easily amused young man if my mistake really made you laugh and I am going to guess you are a pot-head which would explain a lot about you.
@DissidentDescendant - I'm hardly a YouTube Troll. Yyou started the personal attack when you said you laughed. I know you really didn't laugh and if you did, then I can't help but think you are a pot-head. Where exactly is the humor in someone guessing you are Christian? Perhaps our sense of humor differs as well.
Even if you really did laugh, why not be mature and not tell me that?
Ask yourself what the goal was when you decided to share with me that you laughed at me. I think we both know the answer. You were looking to push buttons, so don't go playing the mature innocent victim here.
Why would you need to read my mind about my political views? I mentioned them several times here and it's obviously posted on my page, which you said you viewed. I am indeed a Christian! I didn't mention it for the same reason I didn't mention I like folk music: it's irrelevant. As an individualist I don't mind what your views are. They're no business of mine. :)
Going from the 1860s and anarchism to religious nationalism was a hilarious digression :P
I believe one of the reasons the C.S.A. was fighting was for Christianity and trying to make their country a Christian Nation and other Neo-Rebs are quick to bring that up as well. And again, you posted that you support what I am against so how could I not guess you were not talking about that. Perhaps if you made yourself more clear and actually typed what you agree or disagree with, I'd know. Again, I am not a mind-reader and I don't know you well enough to just guess what you mean.
@DissidentDescendant - What you are doing is a defense mechanism. It's a very common trait people use when they are losing the debate. They try to turn everything into a comedy and will laugh for the sake of laughing, post a lot of smiley's and are quick to point out they are laughing at you instead of directly talking about the issues. And you even tried to play an innocent mature victim when you clearly started the trolling, but because mine was better then yours, you went limp.
I often do wonder why people when they are clearly losing resort to just loling. I guess because they are trying to turn a stressful thing into something light. I also think they figure they can get the readers/viewers on their side if they can ease the tension by making jokes, even though they ignore the very topic they were discussing. They even try to turn it into a mature debate into some type of insult battle. They figure, they suck at debating, so why not try what they are really good at.
@Zeeboe Instead of continually making misinterpreted analyses to nobody in particular, care to continue either here or a more appropriate/efficient forum?
You seem to think I have something against you or I'm skirting around some point. Neither is the case, I'm just waiting for things to get back on topic (or they deviate even more until we're discussing sports).
@Zeeboe I actually laughed not at your educated guess, but the sudden deviation from our "South was right/wrong" debate to an unrelated tangent about Christian nationalism. I've been acting sarcastic since then because I figured the debate basically ended there and was getting senseless.
That what you're against that I am for is anarchism, not anything else you mentioned. It's an easy mistake since we started talking about three points at once. Reading into things the wrong way happens.
In Alabama in the 1860's, a unionist believed "if the doctrine of `peaceable secession' is recognized, and the false pride or unreasonable whims of a State are deemed sufficient reasons for its exercise, no year would pass without some one of the States throwing the whole machinery of government into a score of weak but hostile communities."
@Zeeboe Refer to my most recent post on my loyalties to any association.
Considering the U.S. has the most powerful military in the world with hundreds, if not over a thousand foreign military bases, with most of the wealth in the hands of a very elite few who happen to lobby the corrupt federal government to further their agendas, I hardly think a largely agrarian, smaller-scope state such as the C.S. could ever become such a thing. lol
@Zeeboe That's fine that we don't see eye to eye on that. But if someone feels that the colonies were justified in their rebellion against the British empire I don't see how they see the secession of the southern states any different, unless they're only going off of what their high school text books told them.
@DissidentDescendant - The difference between what our founding fathers did and what the traitors of the old south in the War of the Rebellion tried to do is, our founders were NOT seeking to maintain the status quo or turn back the clock. The founders sought to open doors, not maintain monopolies of power.
The rebels were not fighting for freedom, although many in the south at the time (and still do today) falsely believe they were fighting for freedom and fall for the "lost cause" myth and all that "fight the powers that be" nonsense.
What the C.S.A. was fighting for was a fascist government where only rich white male bible thumpers had power.
Most wars are really fought between rich tyrant men - Each wanting power over the other and I believe Lincoln was the lesser of the two evil's.
@Zeeboe Considering that the slave-owning upper crust was about 8% of the population during the 1850s-1860s, I hardly think hundreds of thousands of commoners, who could never afford something as luxurious as a slave, would willingly give their lives for the preservation of a dying system. Clearly there's more to it than the tired old "the war was about slavery!" rhetoric.
I happen to believe Lincoln is responsible for the early development of the most disgraceful empire to exist on Earth.
@DissidentDescendant - I agree with you that the Civil War was not about slavery. Lincoln made slavery an issue to get the support of black men & so that the U.K. would not help the rebs. I'm totally with you on that.
The war was about preserving the Union. That is why MOST Union Troops were fighting and I also happen to strongly support Centralized Government. If the rebels won, the slaves would not had been the only ones who suffered.
@DissidentDescendant - People suffered for over ten years after the war, but it was short lived compared to the suffering that would have happened if the rebs won. Future generations of people were saved because they didn't.
@DissidentDescendant - Perhaps you should study what Middle East life is like. I think they suffer a lot more. You have the freedom to type what you want to about this Glorious Union, even if it insults it, and not get your head chopped off. No one is hurting you and no one is trying to tell you how to live.
@Zeeboe The reason I can (largely) say what I want about the state isn't because the state is benevolent, but because of dissidents that make sure the state doesn't have the chance to. Civil disobedience is ingrained in collective American culture. This isn't the case in the middle-east.
@Zeeboe All of this being said, I'm a loving anarchist with no loyalties to any state. However, I find the C.S.A's limited, decentralized government ideals to have been on the right track, unlike the hypocrite Lincoln who trampled on the liberties he swore to defend.
@DissidentDescendant - It may look like a good idea to you on paper, but no one ever takes a SERIOUS, honest and real look at that whole idea. If they were, they'd see how scary it would be for non-Christian white men and I'll give you a good example in my next comment. I will warn you that I am bringing up racial matters, but it's not what you think.
The Union is one nation under a Constitution. Although the Constitution sets up a representative democracy, it specifically was amended with the Bill of Rights in 1791 to uphold individual and minority rights. On constitutional matters we do not have majority rule. For example, when the majority in certain localities voted to segregate blacks, this was declared illegal. The majority has no right to tyrannize the minority on matters such as race, gender, or religion.
Now IF the Federal Government did not help black people in the 1960's, there would have been no civil rights laws and there would have been violence on BOTH sides.
If we let each state govern themselves, who knows what damage they would do to certain people and there'd be NO ONE to help them and if anyone tried to, they could get arrested or killed.
This country is about equal rights for EVERYONE and Uncle Sam makes sure no one gets screwed over no matter what state you live in.
If secession were admitted as a legal device, then the future of the United States was easily written. The preamble to a Union Southern Rights Meeting in Stuart County, Georgia in the 1860's, warned, "If this confederacy is destroyed all is lost! Separation will follow separation, until the whole country is divided into little petty States and fractions, who, too weak to defend themselves, will become the prey of military leaders and demagogues."
@Zeeboe Both wanted freedom from a rapidly centralizing power seen as foreign and outside of their realm of influence. Depending on what flavor of spin or propaganda you prefer to use to spice up history, both can easily be labeled peoples yearning for sovereignty or dirty, slave-owning traitors.
@DissidentDescendant - The thing is, the U.K. is so far away from us that we have a right to be free. However, if the Union did not stop the rebs from leaving, there would have been anarchy and who's to say there would not had been another war among the Southern states at some point? And on and on and on?
Sooner or later, there HAS to be order or we would have ended up like the middle east where people are always fighting over land and power.
@Zeeboe "the U.K. is so far away from us that we have a right to be free. " I totally agree with that statement, but that's completely debatable opinion, as is the right of the states to secede.
I really think you should stop using the term "anarchy", you're turning me on. :P
@Zeeboe I sincerely disagree with the need for an authority (though I used to feel the same!) I think people would benefit from thinking outside the limits of their comfort zones and studying societies such as early Ireland, the Icelandic Commonwealth, and more recently, the Zapatistas of Chiapas. Just a friendly suggestions anyways.
@DissidentDescendant - If you study history, you know how humans with power can be. One of the reasons why this country is so great is because we are one of the first and at a time few countries that let people have the right to be whoever they want as long as it is causing harm to no one. We don't "force" people to be Muslim or Christian or anything else. If the South won, I strongly believe that black people, women, & others would have little rights because it'd be a total white power country.
Libertytreeradio for more cool videos on youtube. The "Battle for the Republic, The Dance of Swords" series is now being posted there. Very COOOOOL. Buy more ammo now as you will need it. Mainemilitary dot com for arms and ammo. Ne Copula Nobiscum! MGK/GDW!
I can see it now Arnold becoming president of US if california wins this war, I did not play this game but it would be bad and weird at the same time for another civil war
there will be another civil war. Health Care, Socialism, Illegal Immigration, environmentalism, and States Rights will be this war's igniter just like States Rights and Slavery was the last war's starter
So let me get this straight....our current administration want all off us to have basic health care and you prefer to bankrupt yourself for unjust and expensive treatment...I see your "logic"
@AngelsFan310 Americans are so dumbass in how they think universal healthcare equals communist takeover blah blah blah...
Like USA is gonna fall apart cause of healthcare reform? Get upto speed with the rest of the developed western world that properly takes care of its people, idiots!
I live in Australia and guess what, I have free healthcare and civilisation hasn't broken down here!!! Wow we must have dodged a bullet or something! Pity we dont have greedy insurance companies like in USA :(
@SuperTugg Do you not fucking understand? Down in oz, the healthcare shit was introduced when the economy and situation was stable and there were not as many problems which needed money put towards them. In the USA the critical problems are piling up, and the healthcare bill is leeching funds which should be used for problems which actually NEED to be solved.
I have to admit, I was really disappointed by this game, but it wasn't terrible. After watching this trailer however, I was really looking forward to something completely out of this world. What we got was a good, but not great game.
@CanadaMMA If they made a game like this but took out the turn based gameplay and made it real time without the hexagons then I think it would have been better.
I don't understand how nuking DC would start a civil war. It would destroy the federal government. We still have all the state ones. If some states choose to erect new republics how would that start a war?
This is pretty close to what IS going to happen! I DO resent the BS theme that "militia" are "terrorists.. we are all that stands between the what is left of our Republic and the New World Order. The real terrorists are wearing yarmulkes [banksters and politicos] or are serving those wearing them.. WA DC is the district of kaballah, [if it were nuked it would not be missed, and the UN will be obliterated when they face off against American militia, many of whom are vets, even Special Forces
@JL2813 We call you Americans and call us "yanks"? That's awfully unfair.
Underyourstaircase 1 day ago
@JL2813 By Yanks you mean AMERICANS right?
Underyourstaircase 1 day ago
This would make a great Total War game.
tyzwain 1 day ago
Yes Yanks please start killing your own people again, it'd do the rest of the world a huge favor.
JL2813 1 week ago
Critical freedom failure, repeat, critical freedom failure. All american freedoms are temporarily suspended. Please get out of America through the emergency interstates provided. This is all NDAA/SOPA's fault.
Sonicfan9977 3 weeks ago
Civil war is gonna come again I see it /\
concisecipher1 1 month ago
@360Nomad You also forgot to add Lybia and Egypt add those countries all together and it'll still be NOTHING compared to what will happen if civil war broke out here in the US
pimpbroker9999 2 months ago
@pimpbroker9999 Another Civil War in the United States would eclipse the horrors of the last civil war, the Western Front, the Nazis, the Yugoslav Civil War, and Afghanistan, and probably be one of the most devastating conflicts in world history. The sad part is that it may only be a few years away.
360Nomad 2 months ago
Yet another globalist PR stunt to desensitize us to what they actually plan to do. This - pardon the pun - isn't a fucking game...
urgirlcassie23 2 months ago
Shattered union coming to a city near you soon
ps3xpert 3 months ago
This needs to happen... atleast the DC and nuke part i think many peaople will cheer and celebrate WORLD wide
fawkUtube 3 months ago
Shattered Union! Coming to a reality near you
cmealy2011 6 months ago 9
Hate to differ with you on this armyaviationproud, but things would only need to change enough to allow such events to happen. History is full of tide changing events and only human shortsightedness allows one to feel that "their" way of life could never change. "but whatever"
Viconius 8 months ago
Europe would never be able to intervene in an American affair and half of this crap would never happen. Most States are not capable of being self sufficient. This is just as garbage a plot as Homefront being a North Korean invasion of the United States, but whatever.
armyaviationproud 8 months ago
@armyaviationproud NDAA pretty much allows for martial law on american streets not since 1867 was such a authorized. I could see the 2012 election end up as a sham
RCJPistolPete89 2 months ago
@armyaviationproud I disagree. While the prospect that the North Korea would ever be stupid enough to try and attack US Soil is utterly preposterous. The idea that tribalistic Americans would pick weapons and start killing each other, not so much.
360Nomad 2 months ago
Why would this even happen?? Im going to Canada. Canada dosent get involved in anything and is just there. Surely no one would bother Canada? Whos with me?!
R3W44 9 months ago
@R3W44 Fighting would likely spill over into Canada, or Canada would seal it's borders. Besides, would you Cannuks really want to get involved in a war that killed tens of millions of people and devastate the entire continent?
360Nomad 2 months ago
A Second American Civil... will make what happened in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and the USSR look like fucking Disneyland.
360Nomad 9 months ago
I just checked this game out !
It is All but exactly like Battle Isle franchise!
I´M GETTING IT!
Is it only playable to this XBOX crap machine or can I get it to PC?
TheShadowwolf88 9 months ago
The mighty empire falls and is divided between others!
TheShadowwolf88 9 months ago
@TheShadowwolf88 like the former US minister of defense said: "We are the new Rome". Seems he did not know that the roman empire did collapse because of the same reasons.
MTTT1234 9 months ago
@MTTT1234
Yes but the roman empire collapsed beccause of (mostly) thank´s to Christianity wich was the last nail in the coffin so to speak but the empire started collapsing the very day the "roman empire" was proclaimed or even at the fall of Carthage!
TheShadowwolf88 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheShadowwolf88 "Yes but the roman empire collapsed beccause of (mostly) thank´s to Christianity wich was the last nail in the coffin so to speak but the empire started collapsing the very day the "roman empire" was proclaimed or even at the fall of Carthage!"
Apparently you do not have a clue what you are talking about. It would be like me saying our economy sucks because Obama is "muslim". There is no truth or fact backing up what I said or what you said.
AmericanPatriot333 5 months ago
@MTTT1234 the new Rome more likely the New Spain.
gato123452 5 months ago
This game can NOT be popular among them yanks!!
TheShadowwolf88 10 months ago
@TheShadowwolf88 I'm from WI and I would love to play a game like this!
coolbean22 9 months ago
Good story.
If this game was a FPS Id play it.
GOBRAGH2 11 months ago
name of the game???
lumthegreat 1 year ago
@lumthegreat what about reading the title of the clip? or at least the headline at the end of the clip.
MTTT1234 1 year ago 4
wow that sounds so much like right now man thats crazy
al3xxxxx 1 year ago
THREE YEARS AWAY GUYS
IconOfSin24148 1 year ago
I think officially...Texas is still a republic and not a state.
LordOfNothingham 1 year ago 2
@LordOfNothingham incorrect. looking through old documents, you can find the addmitance papers saying 'the STATE of texas.'
DaJbrahs 10 months ago
a state is a sovereign territory that is overseen by a form of government. a republic is a form of government. the US is a collection of mostly sovereign states that have voluntarily ceded certain powers to a larger union in the form of the federal government. Well at least that is what was intended however the federal government has exceeded its enumerated (limited) powers and the state sovereignty is being lost.
berettamod961 10 months ago
@berettamod961
Yeah on paper it looks great but we all know it´s not like that in reality!
ANY central government ALLWAYS try to be supreme power allways corrupts!
TheShadowwolf88 9 months ago
ones good enough for me
markmason1000 1 year ago
I just got this on steam for 49 cents
thearmyofgreatness 1 year ago
I live in tennessee and every one has shotguns even kids thats wat they get for christmas when they turn 1.so we would survive!
TheEliteCheater 1 year ago
@TheEliteCheater
doesnt mean they can FEED themselves, esp. if the north blockades things
Warsie 1 year ago
The only reason the UN would get involved would be to make sure we dont end up fireing our nukes off in every direction.
junkers1337 1 year ago
@junkers1337 I lol'd irl on that on...NICE and so true
Ghosogo 1 year ago
You can tell a European with no understanding of American culture or US government came up with this scenario, if the EU put troops on us soil for anything other to train with US or help the US repel an invasion even the most wimpy liberal would be pissed off.
UNDguy1987 1 year ago
@UNDguy1987 COUGH HOMEFRONT COUGH.
Blargman57 1 year ago
@Blargman57 LOL except Homefront came out in '11, this came out in '05.... cough SU cough.
Viconius 4 months ago
@Viconius When did the post state anything about game release dates? I was talking about how an American with an understanding of American culture decided to fuck said America up with Asians. cough READ THE FUCKING POST RIGHT cough.
Blargman57 3 months ago
@UNDguy1987
the people who made he game are american. Besides, the regional factions are decently accurate - though i'd like to see more (e.g. mormon factions and separate appalachians). And it's semicanon that the EU peacekeepers are unpopular, and that they failed to keep the government together - and that one of the balkanized states repelled thm
Warsie 1 year ago
jericho was an awesome show
juandaking93 1 year ago 2
I know good ole Tennessee would survive!We're the volunteer state after all.Hehe..just kidding.We would probably have just a good a chance as everyone else
sarge958 1 year ago
It would really suck then it would just leave a door opened for russia to walk in all over us. oh colorado would win.
jockstersrage17 1 year ago
@jockstersrage17 Booo, Yeah my state wouldn't last long
Ghosogo 1 year ago
colorado would win.
DudemanClide 1 year ago
FUKKK FUKKK FUKKK..........Homeland Security overruled... overruled... NO seccesion Allowed [@] [><]
BuBzIeNYNY 1 year ago
Hail TOO WASHINGTON!!!!
BuBzIeNYNY 1 year ago
Utah would fail.
spacegeeks3 1 year ago
i think north carolina would lose everything! i mean the only things here are nascar and....applebees....
deepnightmare16 1 year ago
washington state would kick everyones ass
thehuntman47 1 year ago
@thehuntman47 hell ya washington rules. i think we would kick everyone ass as well we have a decent size militia and washington grows the most notorious serial killers
plzfuckme1 1 year ago
In reality, the military would take control, secure key resources, and slowly re-establish central government. And most Americans would welcome it.
TheForwardGaze 1 year ago
@TheForwardGaze
Nope.
killj00s 1 year ago
the army would take over country thus ending the republic, and starting the Empire
BuBzIeNYNY 1 year ago
@BuBzIeNYNY
Hell to the yeah! Make Canada our bitch!
PubliusAfricanus 1 year ago
No confederacy this time?
steve5123456789 1 year ago
@steve5123456789 ya there is actually
iown5fags 1 year ago
@steve5123456789 no i played this game theres another confederacy
CM99501 1 year ago
hay look mom the future
TheMATA1a 1 year ago
omg this was predicted in a video game before all of this is really going to unfold.
deathdreamer1610 1 year ago
I played this game, loved the plot..it was actual the Russians who nuked D.C...they invaded Alaska too.
jstatus25 1 year ago
i was like meh wait what west! fk u.... *paints half of face blue* FREEEEEEEEDOM! and im barely uhm 12 soooo fuck gonna be drafted :P if this rlly happens
OBMify 1 year ago
more like Obama
Eimuxxx 1 year ago
@Eimuxxx yes
otter1119 1 year ago
HOLY FUCK, THIS IS HOW THAT RUSSIAN PROFESSOR SAID AMERICA WOULD SPLIT UP OMFG
sarsfieldusmc 1 year ago
@sarsfieldusmc WHIC ONE? SEND ME THE LINK?
xdarkdayx6 1 year ago
wheres Abe when we need him?
MrMeineNamen 1 year ago
@MrMeineNamen Another fascist like him would make this a very grim prospect.
DissidentDescendant 1 year ago
@DissidentDescendant wtf history fail
MrMeineNamen 1 year ago
@MrMeineNamen Only if you're going by what public school textbooks and patriotic child cartoons teach you. I recommend reading "The Real Lincoln" by Thomas DiLorenzo. Or just five minutes of research will show you he cared nothing about the slaves, and all about "preserving the union" by forcing its member states to stay. Or you could just look at the "fasces" (bundle of sticks) on his monument, which is where the term fascist originates from.
DissidentDescendant 1 year ago 2
@DissidentDescendant no shit thats what i was taught in textbooks -_- thats not facsism thats being a president -_- last time i checked preserving America is a good thing...
MrMeineNamen 1 year ago
@MrMeineNamen Fascism is a very ambiguous term with no definite meaning, but it more or less describes a strong, centralized, authoritative government. Lincoln suspended the right of habeas corpus, arrested northern journalists who were critical of his war to keep them quiet, and invaded states that peacefully and legally seceded from the union. The southern states seceding is no different than the colonies separating from Britain. When America doesn't equal freedom, it shouldn't be preserved.
DissidentDescendant 1 year ago
@DissidentDescendant uh you need to brush up on your history... and your definitions fascism= a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to DEMOCRACY or liberalism)
MrMeineNamen 1 year ago
@MrMeineNamen The problem is that the United States is not a democracy. It never has been. It's a democratic republic. What Lincoln and his administration did was forever escalate the position of president from another public servant to being an authoritative archon-like figure. It's never been the same since. My definition of fascism = a political theory putting power in the hands of an elite few, restricting individual liberties for the "good of the nation". Fits the bill perfectly, no?
DissidentDescendant 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheGorgeramirez 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DissidentDescendant okay teacher
TheGorgeramirez 1 year ago
@DissidentDescendant shut up and stop pretending to know what ur talking about. why is it that people tend to complain about our government now and then? why complain when you can just leave? im done with you goodbye
MrMeineNamen 1 year ago
@MrMeineNamen lol. No I will not "shut up" because you disagree with me. It's not like I wield some hidden knowledge. Everything I'm saying can be verified online or at a library. I'm no self-proclaimed historian or some crap like that. I just relay what I've learned. And I don't "complain about our government now and then". I always have. I'm an anarchist. Why leave the land when we can oust the government from it? Just try my best to stimulate thought. Have a nice day. <3
DissidentDescendant 1 year ago
@DissidentDescendant lol actually i just wanted you to shut up because i didnt car about the crap spam you had to say. in fact i just read your first sentance and didnt care to read the rest. so again goodbye
PS puting "" on shut up doesnt make you look sophisticated
MrMeineNamen 1 year ago
@MrMeineNamen lol Why respond at all? A "cool story bro" would've sufficed. Anywho, doesn't matter now. Later.
PS: Adding post scripts DOES make you look sophisticated. And snazzy. ;D
DissidentDescendant 1 year ago
@DissidentDescendant - If states were allowed to govern themselves, black people would have never gotten any rights in the south in the 1960's. They'd still be struggling today most likely. Heck, that is assuming they would ever be set free.
Zeeboe 1 year ago
@Zeeboe As strawman as that argument is, I wonder that myself frequently. I'd assume that the small slave-owning upper crust would follow the money and switch to more efficient means of labor, such as machines. Slavery was already dying by the 1860s. Thinking as far as 100 years in that parallel universe, who knows, but most of the racial tension was caused by the reconstruction. No use strawmanning though, the problem of continue rights-erosion, for all peoples, is actually happening now.
DissidentDescendant 1 year ago
@DissidentDescendant - There was already tension before reconstruction. If there wasn't, Nat Turner would have never had to get violent. Slaves were for the most part not seen as human and most likely if the C.S.A. (assuming they won) were to free the slaves at some point, who is to say they would not have consider doing what Lincoln wanted to do at first and that is ship them out of the same country they helped built and have to survive in some new foreign land in Africa?
Zeeboe 1 year ago
@Zeeboe Maybe. Or maybe there wouldn't be deportation to a Liberia-like state. This is why I hate strawman arguments lol.
There always has been some degree of tension between people who are different, and there always will be. But it's hard to deny that the puppet politicians and forced laws of the Reconstruction made things much worse. Government interference of any kind tends to have that kind of effect.
DissidentDescendant 1 year ago
@DissidentDescendant - I think you have been sold a bill of goods by theocratic fascists who would destroy the very thing they falsely claim to be fighting for. They don't want freedom for everyone, they want a monopoly of power & I believe they would be even bigger tyrants then Lincoln could ever be.
The issue of what would have happened to black people if the South won will forever be unknown, but I do know this much: They would have been slaves longer then they should have been.
Zeeboe 1 year ago
One of the reasons I believe why President Lincoln did not let the South peacefully leave in the 1860's is because he feared it would create in one word: anarchy. How can you claim to be a Democracy or even a Republic if you take the results of a legal and correct election and throw out the results simply because you don't like them?
At some point there HAS to be order for a country to survive or otherwise we will forever be fighting for power with one another.
Zeeboe 1 year ago
@Zeeboe I doubt it would've led to anarchy, but it would've been delightful if it did in my humble opinion. Doesn't the same apply to the colonies that rebelled against their so-called "rightful" sovereign?
There doesn't HAVE to be any authority. Give a group of people power to fight against problems and they become the problem you wished to prevent.
I'm starting to feel our "serious business" debate is bloating this poor comment section. ;)
DissidentDescendant 1 year ago
@DissidentDescendant - Unionists realized that once secession was permitted, there was no stopping the process of fragmentation because any group with a complaint could then announce its intention to separate unless its wishes were fulfilled.
Zeeboe 1 year ago
Secession was the "squeal" of those who "must be allowed to do what [they] please." Caving in to secessionists would positively destroy any central government: "the inevitable consequence will be, that the Federal authority will cease to be respected at home."
Zeeboe 1 year ago
@Zeeboe I think the disconnection in our discussion is due to the fact that what you're afraid of is exactly what I'm for. Continual straw-straw man arguments aside, I don't think this is getting anywhere fast.
Because I think in terms of individuals, I see nothing wrong with you and like-minded people to choose to live in a centralized society, as long as you leave those who do not see eye to eye alone. Otherwise, forcing Puritan ways upon others is tyranny, plain and simple.
DissidentDescendant 1 year ago
@DissidentDescendant - So you want a Christian Nation? See, we probably should avoid that topic since you are Christian and I am a former Christian turned Atheist and I personally think a Christian Nation would be a horrible idea. People should not be forced to believe in something. That is what Iran does and look at what a "lovely" place that.
You talk about not wanting to "force" people into things, but you imply you wanna force a Christian Nation on people.
Zeeboe 1 year ago
@Zeeboe LOL. I guess you missed the several times I mentioned I'm an anarchist and an individualist? I'm not even sure where "Christian nationalism" came from. That was worth a laugh.
DissidentDescendant 1 year ago
I left my crystal ball in my closet so I was not able to read your mind. You list the bible as one of your favorite books and I posted against the bible quite a bit and you posted that you support what I am against, so how could I not think that? For some reason, you wouldn't just come out and post it, so I tried to give you a hand. You're also a very easily amused young man if my mistake really made you laugh and I am going to guess you are a pot-head which would explain a lot about you.
Zeeboe 1 year ago
Comment removed
DissidentDescendant 1 year ago
@Zeeboe "Pot-head"? Not quite. I never got into that money/time/life-wasting trash.
I kinda felt we were having a coherent, productive little debate here. But then I forgot I was on Youtube.
DissidentDescendant 1 year ago
@DissidentDescendant - I'm hardly a YouTube Troll. Yyou started the personal attack when you said you laughed. I know you really didn't laugh and if you did, then I can't help but think you are a pot-head. Where exactly is the humor in someone guessing you are Christian? Perhaps our sense of humor differs as well.
Zeeboe 1 year ago
Even if you really did laugh, why not be mature and not tell me that?
Ask yourself what the goal was when you decided to share with me that you laughed at me. I think we both know the answer. You were looking to push buttons, so don't go playing the mature innocent victim here.
Zeeboe 1 year ago
@Zeeboe Ah, ad hominem attacks. Clever.
Why would you need to read my mind about my political views? I mentioned them several times here and it's obviously posted on my page, which you said you viewed. I am indeed a Christian! I didn't mention it for the same reason I didn't mention I like folk music: it's irrelevant. As an individualist I don't mind what your views are. They're no business of mine. :)
Going from the 1860s and anarchism to religious nationalism was a hilarious digression :P
DissidentDescendant 1 year ago
I believe one of the reasons the C.S.A. was fighting was for Christianity and trying to make their country a Christian Nation and other Neo-Rebs are quick to bring that up as well. And again, you posted that you support what I am against so how could I not guess you were not talking about that. Perhaps if you made yourself more clear and actually typed what you agree or disagree with, I'd know. Again, I am not a mind-reader and I don't know you well enough to just guess what you mean.
Zeeboe 1 year ago
@DissidentDescendant - What you are doing is a defense mechanism. It's a very common trait people use when they are losing the debate. They try to turn everything into a comedy and will laugh for the sake of laughing, post a lot of smiley's and are quick to point out they are laughing at you instead of directly talking about the issues. And you even tried to play an innocent mature victim when you clearly started the trolling, but because mine was better then yours, you went limp.
Zeeboe 1 year ago
I often do wonder why people when they are clearly losing resort to just loling. I guess because they are trying to turn a stressful thing into something light. I also think they figure they can get the readers/viewers on their side if they can ease the tension by making jokes, even though they ignore the very topic they were discussing. They even try to turn it into a mature debate into some type of insult battle. They figure, they suck at debating, so why not try what they are really good at.
Zeeboe 1 year ago
@Zeeboe Instead of continually making misinterpreted analyses to nobody in particular, care to continue either here or a more appropriate/efficient forum?
You seem to think I have something against you or I'm skirting around some point. Neither is the case, I'm just waiting for things to get back on topic (or they deviate even more until we're discussing sports).
DissidentDescendant 1 year ago
@Zeeboe I actually laughed not at your educated guess, but the sudden deviation from our "South was right/wrong" debate to an unrelated tangent about Christian nationalism. I've been acting sarcastic since then because I figured the debate basically ended there and was getting senseless.
That what you're against that I am for is anarchism, not anything else you mentioned. It's an easy mistake since we started talking about three points at once. Reading into things the wrong way happens.
DissidentDescendant 1 year ago
In Alabama in the 1860's, a unionist believed "if the doctrine of `peaceable secession' is recognized, and the false pride or unreasonable whims of a State are deemed sufficient reasons for its exercise, no year would pass without some one of the States throwing the whole machinery of government into a score of weak but hostile communities."
Zeeboe 1 year ago
@Zeeboe Refer to my most recent post on my loyalties to any association.
Considering the U.S. has the most powerful military in the world with hundreds, if not over a thousand foreign military bases, with most of the wealth in the hands of a very elite few who happen to lobby the corrupt federal government to further their agendas, I hardly think a largely agrarian, smaller-scope state such as the C.S. could ever become such a thing. lol
DissidentDescendant 1 year ago
@DissidentDescendant - You call attacking a U.S. fort being peaceful?
Zeeboe 1 year ago
@Zeeboe Was it not on C.S. soil and did not the C.S. give those stationed in the fort plenty of time to leave peacefully?
DissidentDescendant 1 year ago
@DissidentDescendant - See, that right there is what lead to the battle because the men back then had the same disagreement.
I don't agree that was C.S. soil.
Zeeboe 1 year ago
@Zeeboe That's fine that we don't see eye to eye on that. But if someone feels that the colonies were justified in their rebellion against the British empire I don't see how they see the secession of the southern states any different, unless they're only going off of what their high school text books told them.
DissidentDescendant 1 year ago
@DissidentDescendant - The difference between what our founding fathers did and what the traitors of the old south in the War of the Rebellion tried to do is, our founders were NOT seeking to maintain the status quo or turn back the clock. The founders sought to open doors, not maintain monopolies of power.
Zeeboe 1 year ago
The rebels were not fighting for freedom, although many in the south at the time (and still do today) falsely believe they were fighting for freedom and fall for the "lost cause" myth and all that "fight the powers that be" nonsense.
What the C.S.A. was fighting for was a fascist government where only rich white male bible thumpers had power.
Most wars are really fought between rich tyrant men - Each wanting power over the other and I believe Lincoln was the lesser of the two evil's.
Zeeboe 1 year ago
@Zeeboe Considering that the slave-owning upper crust was about 8% of the population during the 1850s-1860s, I hardly think hundreds of thousands of commoners, who could never afford something as luxurious as a slave, would willingly give their lives for the preservation of a dying system. Clearly there's more to it than the tired old "the war was about slavery!" rhetoric.
I happen to believe Lincoln is responsible for the early development of the most disgraceful empire to exist on Earth.
DissidentDescendant 1 year ago
@DissidentDescendant - I agree with you that the Civil War was not about slavery. Lincoln made slavery an issue to get the support of black men & so that the U.K. would not help the rebs. I'm totally with you on that.
The war was about preserving the Union. That is why MOST Union Troops were fighting and I also happen to strongly support Centralized Government. If the rebels won, the slaves would not had been the only ones who suffered.
Zeeboe 1 year ago
@Zeeboe Sadly, the rebels lost and the slaves were not the only ones who suffered.
DissidentDescendant 1 year ago
@DissidentDescendant - People suffered for over ten years after the war, but it was short lived compared to the suffering that would have happened if the rebs won. Future generations of people were saved because they didn't.
Zeeboe 1 year ago
@Zeeboe To this day people world-wide suffer from the Glorious Union.
DissidentDescendant 1 year ago
@DissidentDescendant - Perhaps you should study what Middle East life is like. I think they suffer a lot more. You have the freedom to type what you want to about this Glorious Union, even if it insults it, and not get your head chopped off. No one is hurting you and no one is trying to tell you how to live.
Zeeboe 1 year ago
@Zeeboe The reason I can (largely) say what I want about the state isn't because the state is benevolent, but because of dissidents that make sure the state doesn't have the chance to. Civil disobedience is ingrained in collective American culture. This isn't the case in the middle-east.
DissidentDescendant 1 year ago
@Zeeboe All of this being said, I'm a loving anarchist with no loyalties to any state. However, I find the C.S.A's limited, decentralized government ideals to have been on the right track, unlike the hypocrite Lincoln who trampled on the liberties he swore to defend.
DissidentDescendant 1 year ago
@DissidentDescendant - It may look like a good idea to you on paper, but no one ever takes a SERIOUS, honest and real look at that whole idea. If they were, they'd see how scary it would be for non-Christian white men and I'll give you a good example in my next comment. I will warn you that I am bringing up racial matters, but it's not what you think.
Zeeboe 1 year ago
The Union is one nation under a Constitution. Although the Constitution sets up a representative democracy, it specifically was amended with the Bill of Rights in 1791 to uphold individual and minority rights. On constitutional matters we do not have majority rule. For example, when the majority in certain localities voted to segregate blacks, this was declared illegal. The majority has no right to tyrannize the minority on matters such as race, gender, or religion.
Zeeboe 1 year ago
Now IF the Federal Government did not help black people in the 1960's, there would have been no civil rights laws and there would have been violence on BOTH sides.
If we let each state govern themselves, who knows what damage they would do to certain people and there'd be NO ONE to help them and if anyone tried to, they could get arrested or killed.
This country is about equal rights for EVERYONE and Uncle Sam makes sure no one gets screwed over no matter what state you live in.
Zeeboe 1 year ago
If secession were admitted as a legal device, then the future of the United States was easily written. The preamble to a Union Southern Rights Meeting in Stuart County, Georgia in the 1860's, warned, "If this confederacy is destroyed all is lost! Separation will follow separation, until the whole country is divided into little petty States and fractions, who, too weak to defend themselves, will become the prey of military leaders and demagogues."
Zeeboe 1 year ago
@Zeeboe Smaller and smaller, until the highest human authority is the individual is exactly what I'm after.
DissidentDescendant 1 year ago
@Zeeboe Both wanted freedom from a rapidly centralizing power seen as foreign and outside of their realm of influence. Depending on what flavor of spin or propaganda you prefer to use to spice up history, both can easily be labeled peoples yearning for sovereignty or dirty, slave-owning traitors.
DissidentDescendant 1 year ago
@DissidentDescendant - The thing is, the U.K. is so far away from us that we have a right to be free. However, if the Union did not stop the rebs from leaving, there would have been anarchy and who's to say there would not had been another war among the Southern states at some point? And on and on and on?
Sooner or later, there HAS to be order or we would have ended up like the middle east where people are always fighting over land and power.
Zeeboe 1 year ago
@Zeeboe "the U.K. is so far away from us that we have a right to be free. " I totally agree with that statement, but that's completely debatable opinion, as is the right of the states to secede.
I really think you should stop using the term "anarchy", you're turning me on. :P
DissidentDescendant 1 year ago
@Zeeboe I sincerely disagree with the need for an authority (though I used to feel the same!) I think people would benefit from thinking outside the limits of their comfort zones and studying societies such as early Ireland, the Icelandic Commonwealth, and more recently, the Zapatistas of Chiapas. Just a friendly suggestions anyways.
DissidentDescendant 1 year ago
@DissidentDescendant - If you study history, you know how humans with power can be. One of the reasons why this country is so great is because we are one of the first and at a time few countries that let people have the right to be whoever they want as long as it is causing harm to no one. We don't "force" people to be Muslim or Christian or anything else. If the South won, I strongly believe that black people, women, & others would have little rights because it'd be a total white power country.
Zeeboe 1 year ago
i live in illinois and i say texas would win but i would move to alaska :)
roflcopter244 1 year ago
@roflcopter244 have fun with the russians invading alaska ;)
MTTT1234 1 year ago
The Union will shatter. States are going bankrupt and there is a rise in malitias.
jameswx09 1 year ago
"Seven factions, they battle on another to reclaim a nation..."
More like -- the bankers decide to make an example of the escaped slaves.
mindprism 1 year ago
Libertytreeradio for more cool videos on youtube. The "Battle for the Republic, The Dance of Swords" series is now being posted there. Very COOOOOL. Buy more ammo now as you will need it. Mainemilitary dot com for arms and ammo. Ne Copula Nobiscum! MGK/GDW!
Libertytreeradio 1 year ago
I can see it now Arnold becoming president of US if california wins this war, I did not play this game but it would be bad and weird at the same time for another civil war
XTangoWhiskeyX 1 year ago
there will be another civil war. Health Care, Socialism, Illegal Immigration, environmentalism, and States Rights will be this war's igniter just like States Rights and Slavery was the last war's starter
MuskratandRatman 1 year ago
that was a fun game
bluee70 1 year ago 2
Long live the confederacy
RuthlessPyromaniac 1 year ago
This Games sounds so realistic. ha ha ha
wjdcr 1 year ago
Sadly...this is our future with Obama as our president. This health care thing goes through...this will happen.
AngelsFan310 1 year ago
So let me get this straight....our current administration want all off us to have basic health care and you prefer to bankrupt yourself for unjust and expensive treatment...I see your "logic"
DrZoid99 1 year ago
@AngelsFan310 Americans are so dumbass in how they think universal healthcare equals communist takeover blah blah blah...
Like USA is gonna fall apart cause of healthcare reform? Get upto speed with the rest of the developed western world that properly takes care of its people, idiots!
I live in Australia and guess what, I have free healthcare and civilisation hasn't broken down here!!! Wow we must have dodged a bullet or something! Pity we dont have greedy insurance companies like in USA :(
SuperTugg 1 year ago
@SuperTugg Do you not fucking understand? Down in oz, the healthcare shit was introduced when the economy and situation was stable and there were not as many problems which needed money put towards them. In the USA the critical problems are piling up, and the healthcare bill is leeching funds which should be used for problems which actually NEED to be solved.
Pawnbroker00 1 year ago
Libertytreeradio for more videos on youtube. Battle for the Republic is now on site. Ne Copula Nobiscum! MGK/GDW!
Libertytreeradio 2 years ago
Only in El Paso, dude & fuck yeah we'd win. If there's one things Texans know to do, it's kill
Destroyer4292 2 years ago
Oh for fuck's sake, that is so stereotypical @ 1:29. does every idiot believe we wear cowboy hats all the friggin time..T_T
Destroyer4292 2 years ago 4
lmao ......isnt that like racist or something ....every texan wears a cowboy hat
athiestracist 2 years ago 2
Yes. Except in Austin where they only wear tight jeans.
andrew1640 1 year ago
I have to admit, I was really disappointed by this game, but it wasn't terrible. After watching this trailer however, I was really looking forward to something completely out of this world. What we got was a good, but not great game.
CanadaMMA 2 years ago 2
@CanadaMMA If they made a game like this but took out the turn based gameplay and made it real time without the hexagons then I think it would have been better.
TigerRifle1 2 years ago
I don't understand how nuking DC would start a civil war. It would destroy the federal government. We still have all the state ones. If some states choose to erect new republics how would that start a war?
Luigi84289 2 years ago
sounds like a cool game
madisondodger28 2 years ago 2
This is pretty close to what IS going to happen! I DO resent the BS theme that "militia" are "terrorists.. we are all that stands between the what is left of our Republic and the New World Order. The real terrorists are wearing yarmulkes [banksters and politicos] or are serving those wearing them.. WA DC is the district of kaballah, [if it were nuked it would not be missed, and the UN will be obliterated when they face off against American militia, many of whom are vets, even Special Forces
7pt62manNW 2 years ago 9
@7pt62manNW The nuke would probably not happen to to our defense system that can counter nucleur weaponry
TheKoolvid 1 year ago
@7pt62manNW hell yea
xxLatinKillaxx 1 year ago
@7pt62manNW Too much Alex Jones huh? You forgot to mention the party responsible for the banksters...Israel.
wwefanworld 1 year ago
i wanted this but its not on ps
IRSFRAUDEXPOSED 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Plot = dumb. We all start to hate the federal government together but than as soon as we've destroyed it we all go to war with each other?
adjohnson916 2 years ago
Comment removed
Rudolph4223 2 years ago
How I wish this was real!!! Fawk obama.
mfreye79 2 years ago