Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 12/7/2005 2:26:11 PM EDT
The stuff the left is getting away with in this Nation is blowing my mind. If this was the 1940's they would all be locked up for calling our troops Nazis and that we are the bad guys in the world. Will it ever come to the point where people start picking sides in this nation?
Link Posted: 12/7/2005 2:38:03 PM EDT
It has already begun...it just hasn't reached the boiling point yet.
Link Posted: 12/7/2005 3:28:10 PM EDT
The South (plus all the newbie Red States) will rise again!

Link Posted: 12/7/2005 3:54:23 PM EDT
I think we are short on leaders. If we had men like Washington or Teddy R today I think it would happen. Too many people are fat and happy and have no idea what is going on in the world today. We have Pinkos in DC and in our cities and school systems. We have crime and laws that keep people from being able to protect their familes. when is the thing going to boil over.
Link Posted: 12/7/2005 4:20:19 PM EDT
among the things we can do, i think here are some good ones. snail mail our state reps about ALL legislation that attemps to erode our rights laid out in the constitution. also, educate people with copies of the declaration of independence and the constitution( print them out so people can see what it actually says and how simple it is). also distribute things that the founders said concerning their views on government and their distrust of it. somehow try to translate your understanding of limited government and what true liberty is into the minds of the people around you... and show them that this liberty is what the framers attempted to communicate, and this freedom was their intention.hopefully people eyes will open. but if this country people sit idly aside and let the gubmint keep self fortifying until they come to your door....you will have the full total conviction in your heart that you did what you could to prevent that day, and now you have only one option left.
Link Posted: 12/7/2005 4:44:25 PM EDT
Let us not forget that the Patriot act has done a lot to errode our basic constitutional rights. Right now I am more concerened about that then I am about some nuts screaming about nazi's. Don't let them take your eyes off the real danger to your rights. Never give up your rights.
Link Posted: 12/7/2005 4:50:52 PM EDT
If we did have civil war, it would weaken us really bad. Im afriad China will see it as prime real estate
Link Posted: 12/7/2005 4:51:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/7/2005 4:57:59 PM EDT by thedoctors308]
Very interesting this should come up now.
I'm currently writing a term paper called "Vote From the Rooftops: Why Violent Domestic Conflict in America is Inevitable"

Basically, I'm dealing with all the things you brought up.
How has it come to this?
Why is it inevitable?
How will it occur?

IMO - there are three major flashpoints

1) guns - people who own guns are political beings, as guns have themselves become polticized. Also, most who own guns are by nature, people who have commited themselves to the idea that they will someday have to take a human life. Again, a gun is more than just a gun to many. Who want's to see grand dad's M1 torch cut in a gun ban?

2) Illegal immigration - things in this country are not looking good as far as this goes. There is now a radical movement among the illegals to take back the Southwest. Eventually, this will become violent.

3) emmenint domain - this one shouldn't suprise anyone. The recent USSC ruling has taken away any hope of prevailing in court on an emmenint domain case. Once you remove hope...people get desparate. Eventually, they are going to try and evict some old guy who has nothing to lose, and it will get very ugly, as I fully expect people to rally to the aid of the besieged.

ETA: Like I said in my paper, the lack of leadership is the main thing preventing a real movement. Also the War on Terror - the people who are pissed off, are the people who love this country, and right or wrong, they don't wish to sabotage their Nation. Look for the fight to start in 2008/2009, as a Democrat will surely be elected to office after a Two term Republican. Very hard to keep a party in power for more than 2 terms.

Comments?
Link Posted: 12/7/2005 5:14:56 PM EDT
very good points all. It worries me to no end. I have kids and I dont want them to live in a nation like France or Canada and I worry we are headed that way. People forget or never even know about our history and that its all comming back to us now. We have been down this path more than once as a nation and the world has seen evil like we are seeing now in the Middle East. Yet for some reason we have more people in our own nation who want us to lose this war and label us as the bad guys in the eyes of the world and hope we become some state in a global government under the boot of 3rd world scum bags who wave the UN flag. Not me. I am 12 generation American. I am not giving one bit of this country up. The emmenint domain rulling by the SC blew my mind along with the way DC is acting but when the storm hit the Gulf and they started grabing guns and dragging people from their own homes. thats when I knew we had a problem. We need some leadership bad. Someone with a cool head and who can be trusted. Lots of tin hat nut jobs who want to be the next hitler are just waiting for something to go down.
Link Posted: 12/7/2005 8:04:42 PM EDT
I haven't posted here much, but I like reading a lot of the coments written.

First off, I have already picked the side that I and my family will be on. I and others feel that a very large number of people in DC should be charged with sedition if not outright treason. Our current government can no longer be trusted to really look out for our nations best intrests. I read a quote last summer from Claire Wolfe, " America's at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.” This is something that I believe to be true now.

Most of us are too young to remember this, I wouldn't if I hadn't read it, "During the Los Angeles riots Henry Kissinger stated that even though at that time US citizens would not stand for foreign troops on US soil, that some day we would welcome them with open arms."

"Our military is reduced in strength and are now overseas; our reserves are used up; our borders are open; terrorists are inside our country and may even have access to nuclear weapons; our federal government is totally infiltrated with global-socialists; and now we are facing a global pandemic that might require “foreign assets” and martial law! I’m sure China and Russia are ready to come to our aid. Some Americans will, as Kissinger predicted, welcome them with open arms." This was written by Lt Col. Craig Roberts.

cnow
you had some great ideas, the biggest problem we are facing is ignorance. We all have to step up and start educating prople. As far as letters go you don't want to snail mail your congress critters, it won't reach them. Anthrax scares. Fax them and send emails instead.

thedoctors308
You made some very great points but you forgot the biggest one. The total breakdown of government control in the case of a natural or man made disaster. Look at what happened to New Orleans after Katrina hit. Our nations welfare mentality has taken personal responsibility and given it to our ward, the government.

One of the things we are doing here, and I would like to make the sugestion to you all. Find between 6 to 14 people you would trust your families lives to. Then start some training together. Things like shooting , scouting, survival, evasion, and land nav. Working together in small groups will ensure we will be ready to defend our nation. When the time comes strong leaders will emerge. If nothing happens we will all have some very good friendships and had lot of fun together.

One last thing to keep in mind is things are going to get a whole lot worse. Count on it.

Chris
Link Posted: 12/8/2005 6:26:06 PM EDT
Icehandluke, I get the impression from your tone that you actually WANT a domestic conflict to occur, if there is one thing all of us can agree on (everyone who isn't crazy anyway) it's that no one in this country would benefit from a societal collapse, think post Katrina New Orleans, only everywhere, and with no one to send aid, i.e. everyone in the country is just trying to survive day to day. I agree whole heartedly that we are faced with some grave threats to our liberties in this country (from both sides of the political spectrum). But I also think that we should hold off on the blastin' and bombin' until all other options have been fully exhausted. And lets not forget also that though the people crying "Nazi" may be overreacting a little, (O.K a lot) they have some genuine reasons to be unhappy about some of our current foreign policies, unilaterally invading a sovereign nation, on intelligence that is at best shaky, and at worst entirely fabricated, casts serious doubt on the capability and credibility of the powers that be. Also remember that the framers of our constitution saw fit to place one and only one thing before the RKBA, and that is freedom of speech, anyone who believes in what America REALLY stands for understands that you can't just start executing people because you don't like what they have to say, in a country where that manner of arbitrary law is acceptable it's only a matter of time before the guns are turned on you.
Link Posted: 12/9/2005 2:19:55 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/9/2005 2:41:55 AM EDT by IceHandLuke]

Originally Posted By PanzerMK7:
Icehandluke, I get the impression from your tone that you actually WANT a domestic conflict to occur, if there is one thing all of us can agree on (everyone who isn't crazy anyway) it's that no one in this country would benefit from a societal collapse, think post Katrina New Orleans, only everywhere, and with no one to send aid, i.e. everyone in the country is just trying to survive day to day. I agree whole heartedly that we are faced with some grave threats to our liberties in this country (from both sides of the political spectrum). But I also think that we should hold off on the blastin' and bombin' until all other options have been fully exhausted. And lets not forget also that though the people crying "Nazi" may be overreacting a little, (O.K a lot) they have some genuine reasons to be unhappy about some of our current foreign policies, unilaterally invading a sovereign nation, on intelligence that is at best shaky, and at worst entirely fabricated, casts serious doubt on the capability and credibility of the powers that be. Also remember that the framers of our constitution saw fit to place one and only one thing before the RKBA, and that is freedom of speech, anyone who believes in what America REALLY stands for understands that you can't just start executing people because you don't like what they have to say, in a country where that manner of arbitrary law is acceptable it's only a matter of time before the guns are turned on you.



I am sorry you wasted your fist 'Troll' post on this site so you can call me crazy. I dont want war in my own county and I love free speech. I love hearing America hateing talk like you are trying to spin into this thread. If you want to say that us going to war 'unilaterally' and not waiting for Syira giving us the green lite or Iran giveing us the thumbs up or France not sending in free cheese to our troops thats fine. That type of free speech is exactly what we all need to hear. If you think yelling fire in a store for fun is free speech then thats you buddy. I think people use speech to voice what side they are on. People yell fire in a store because they want to see people hurt. They want to see a store fail in business and people panic. When we have people in our country say they are not on the side of America then what should people do. Just let that action stand or should someone keep an eye on them? If someone has a group of 200 arabs in a park and they are all chanting 'Death to America' is that just 'free speech'? It sounds like you want guns pointed at me for what I posted int his thread..... So is it you that has a probem with free speech. I must of struck a nerve for you to put down the strap on for your boyfriend so you can use your fingers for something other than turing on your buddy to type that message.
Link Posted: 12/9/2005 2:59:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:
Very interesting this should come up now.
I'm currently writing a term paper called "Vote From the Rooftops: Why Violent Domestic Conflict in America is Inevitable"

Basically, I'm dealing with all the things you brought up.
How has it come to this?
Why is it inevitable?
How will it occur?

IMO - there are three major flashpoints

1) guns - people who own guns are political beings, as guns have themselves become polticized. Also, most who own guns are by nature, people who have commited themselves to the idea that they will someday have to take a human life. Again, a gun is more than just a gun to many. Who want's to see grand dad's M1 torch cut in a gun ban?

2) Illegal immigration - things in this country are not looking good as far as this goes. There is now a radical movement among the illegals to take back the Southwest. Eventually, this will become violent.

3) emmenint domain - this one shouldn't suprise anyone. The recent USSC ruling has taken away any hope of prevailing in court on an emmenint domain case. Once you remove hope...people get desparate. Eventually, they are going to try and evict some old guy who has nothing to lose, and it will get very ugly, as I fully expect people to rally to the aid of the besieged.

ETA: Like I said in my paper, the lack of leadership is the main thing preventing a real movement. Also the War on Terror - the people who are pissed off, are the people who love this country, and right or wrong, they don't wish to sabotage their Nation. Look for the fight to start in 2008/2009, as a Democrat will surely be elected to office after a Two term Republican. Very hard to keep a party in power for more than 2 terms.

Comments?




Vin Suprinovicz(?) wrote a book called "The Ballad of ???".... (the fact that I can't remember who the Ballad was of is a good illustration of the point I'm about to make). Anyway, the point of the book was that each person has their own line in the sand, and that line is crossed by the .gov at different times/places. Point being that 2 out of 3 of the "flash points" you list above are not likely to spark any kind of "civil war". All you get is one "lone gunman" here and there being pushed over the line and deciding he ain't gonna take it any more. He snaps, kills a govt enforcer or two, gets killed for his trouble, and 2 months later nobody remembers his name.

Immigration might add up to a different story... think about the riots in France recently.

Bottom line in my opinion is that YES, people in this coutry are plenty polarized to start killing each other in the streets ala Yugoslavia.... and NO I don't think it will happen unless and until large numbers of them feel they have little or nothing to lose. As long as there's food on the table and the lights/heat come on at the flick of a switch, it ain't gonna happen. BUT, should America suffer another Great Depression or some catastrophy of that magnitude, I think it WILL happen.

But not to worry - if it does blow up in our faces, somebody will step in and "save us".... like the Chinese, or the Russkies, or even the friends of the black helicopter crowd - the U.N.

Link Posted: 12/9/2005 3:15:04 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/9/2005 3:15:46 AM EDT by dreemweaver]

Originally Posted By AShooter:

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:
Very interesting this should come up now.
I'm currently writing a term paper called "Vote From the Rooftops: Why Violent Domestic Conflict in America is Inevitable"

Basically, I'm dealing with all the things you brought up.
How has it come to this?
Why is it inevitable?
How will it occur?

IMO - there are three major flashpoints

1) guns - people who own guns are political beings, as guns have themselves become polticized. Also, most who own guns are by nature, people who have commited themselves to the idea that they will someday have to take a human life. Again, a gun is more than just a gun to many. Who want's to see grand dad's M1 torch cut in a gun ban?

2) Illegal immigration - things in this country are not looking good as far as this goes. There is now a radical movement among the illegals to take back the Southwest. Eventually, this will become violent.

3) emmenint domain - this one shouldn't suprise anyone. The recent USSC ruling has taken away any hope of prevailing in court on an emmenint domain case. Once you remove hope...people get desparate. Eventually, they are going to try and evict some old guy who has nothing to lose, and it will get very ugly, as I fully expect people to rally to the aid of the besieged.

ETA: Like I said in my paper, the lack of leadership is the main thing preventing a real movement. Also the War on Terror - the people who are pissed off, are the people who love this country, and right or wrong, they don't wish to sabotage their Nation. Look for the fight to start in 2008/2009, as a Democrat will surely be elected to office after a Two term Republican. Very hard to keep a party in power for more than 2 terms.

Comments?




Vin Suprinovicz(?) wrote a book called "The Ballad of ???".... (the fact that I can't remember who the Ballad was of is a good illustration of the point I'm about to make). Anyway, the point of the book was that each person has their own line in the sand, and that line is crossed by the .gov at different times/places. Point being that 2 out of 3 of the "flash points" you list above are not likely to spark any kind of "civil war". All you get is one "lone gunman" here and there being pushed over the line and deciding he ain't gonna take it any more. He snaps, kills a govt enforcer or two, gets killed for his trouble, and 2 months later nobody remembers his name.

Immigration might add up to a different story... think about the riots in France recently.

Bottom line in my opinion is that YES, people in this coutry are plenty polarized to start killing each other in the streets ala Yugoslavia.... and NO I don't think it will happen unless and until large numbers of them feel they have little or nothing to lose. As long as there's food on the table and the lights/heat come on at the flick of a switch, it ain't gonna happen. BUT, should America suffer another Great Depression or some catastrophy of that magnitude, I think it WILL happen.

But not to worry - if it does blow up in our faces, somebody will step in and "save us".... like the Chinese, or the Russkies, or even the friends of the black helicopter crowd - the U.N.




Personally I think this event will be the oil supplies squeezed into nothiness. It may be long from now, but I have a suspicion that we are closer to this then anybody realizes. We, the general public will not know about this until it happens for panic reasons. Call me crazy but when people cannot jump into their SUVs and drive little Timmy to his baseball game, things will get ugly.
Link Posted: 12/9/2005 5:15:33 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/9/2005 5:17:10 AM EDT by AShooter]

Originally Posted By dreemweaver:

Personally I think this event will be the oil supplies squeezed into nothiness. It may be long from now, but I have a suspicion that we are closer to this then anybody realizes. We, the general public will not know about this until it happens for panic reasons. Call me crazy but when people cannot jump into their SUVs and drive little Timmy to his baseball game, things will get ugly.




Maybe, but there's a lot info out there that says there's PLENTY of oil in Alaska, off the coast of Kalifornia, the Gulf, etc.... just politicians kissing the asses of the greenie-weenies won't let anybody at it. Might offend some damned seal or caribou or something.

Of course, that doesn't mean this won't be the catalyst. I think some of the hard-core Greenpeace types might actually LIKE to see a bunch of us lowly humans kill each other off, so as to "save the planet". If they had to choose between a collapse of society as we know it, or drilling holes in ANWAR or off the coast(s), I'm sure there are plenty of those whackos that would choose collapse....

Which is yet another good illustration of how polarized people are about these issues.


Link Posted: 12/9/2005 8:46:19 AM EDT
O.K. maybe we got off on the wrong foot, first off I didn't intend to imply that you are crazy, only that people who want to go to guns everytime they disagree with anybody are crazy, and I don't want to see guns pointed at you either, the same laws that guarantee people the right to voice their dissent also guarantee you the right to voice your dissent of their positions, no one should ever be silenced for what they say or believe. And I DO NOT HATE AMERICA, I believe deeply in the constitution of the United states and I think that it should be upheld to the letter in almost every respect. lets just get one thing straight, you can't selectively enforce the 1st amendment, the nature of free speech is all or nothing, so UNFORTUNATELY, yes if 200 Arabs want to peaceably assemble and scream death to America, the constitution says they have the right to do so, I use peaceably in the sense that so long as thet are not actively endangering anyone, you can not silence them, haven't you ever disagreed with the government on an issue (I infer from your demeanor that you have)ht) And remember that for all of its problems, America is inarguably the greatest triumph of human effort that the world has ever seen, and I for one would fight tooth and nail to make sure that what America REALLY stands for is not extinguished.
Link Posted: 12/9/2005 9:22:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AShooter:

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:
Very interesting this should come up now.
I'm currently writing a term paper called "Vote From the Rooftops: Why Violent Domestic Conflict in America is Inevitable"

Basically, I'm dealing with all the things you brought up.
How has it come to this?
Why is it inevitable?
How will it occur?

IMO - there are three major flashpoints

1) guns - people who own guns are political beings, as guns have themselves become polticized. Also, most who own guns are by nature, people who have commited themselves to the idea that they will someday have to take a human life. Again, a gun is more than just a gun to many. Who want's to see grand dad's M1 torch cut in a gun ban?

2) Illegal immigration - things in this country are not looking good as far as this goes. There is now a radical movement among the illegals to take back the Southwest. Eventually, this will become violent.

3) emmenint domain - this one shouldn't suprise anyone. The recent USSC ruling has taken away any hope of prevailing in court on an emmenint domain case. Once you remove hope...people get desparate. Eventually, they are going to try and evict some old guy who has nothing to lose, and it will get very ugly, as I fully expect people to rally to the aid of the besieged.

ETA: Like I said in my paper, the lack of leadership is the main thing preventing a real movement. Also the War on Terror - the people who are pissed off, are the people who love this country, and right or wrong, they don't wish to sabotage their Nation. Look for the fight to start in 2008/2009, as a Democrat will surely be elected to office after a Two term Republican. Very hard to keep a party in power for more than 2 terms.

Comments?




Vin Suprinovicz(?) wrote a book called "The Ballad of ???".... (the fact that I can't remember who the Ballad was of is a good illustration of the point I'm about to make). Anyway, the point of the book was that each person has their own line in the sand, and that line is crossed by the .gov at different times/places. Point being that 2 out of 3 of the "flash points" you list above are not likely to spark any kind of "civil war". All you get is one "lone gunman" here and there being pushed over the line and deciding he ain't gonna take it any more. He snaps, kills a govt enforcer or two, gets killed for his trouble, and 2 months later nobody remembers his name.

Immigration might add up to a different story... think about the riots in France recently.

Bottom line in my opinion is that YES, people in this coutry are plenty polarized to start killing each other in the streets ala Yugoslavia.... and NO I don't think it will happen unless and until large numbers of them feel they have little or nothing to lose. As long as there's food on the table and the lights/heat come on at the flick of a switch, it ain't gonna happen. BUT, should America suffer another Great Depression or some catastrophy of that magnitude, I think it WILL happen.

But not to worry - if it does blow up in our faces, somebody will step in and "save us".... like the Chinese, or the Russkies, or even the friends of the black helicopter crowd - the U.N.




Very good point, AShooter. Unhappiness of the masses is one of the deciding factors in a civil war, or a revolution, for that matter. Right now, I sincerely do not see anyone leaving the comfort of their house and decent jobs for a sublime change. I'm not ruling out the chances of it happening, as I believe that the end of our empire of freedom will come as a result of an internal decay, but I don't think we will see it for as long as we live.
Link Posted: 12/9/2005 9:26:28 AM EDT
With regards to the degree of polarization in this country, I agree completely that it has gotten way out of hand, it goes beyond simple disagreements now and is to the point that some look upon their political opposition with the same disdain as they view al quaeda and the hostile regimes of this world. I believe this is a product of the unprecedented comfort that we enjoy today as Americans, comfort breeds complacency, and complacency is the ultimate enemy of any entities continued existence.

Everyone in this country needs to swallow their pride and admit that we have more in common than we do in conflict. "the enemy of my enemy" and so on. Above all else we need to dial down the emotion and discuss the issues with cool heads. Passion has its place, but it is an anathema to problem solving.

We are far too close to a so called "boiling over", America is more divided now than it has ever been since the civil war. There are many people anxiously awaiting the spark to set off the powder keg, so that we can start killing each other in the streets like we were fucking Rwandans. But that way lies damnation. It is an irony that nations that grow so powerful that they have no significant outward threats turn their attention inwards and destroy themselves. Rome is the archetype of an empire that outgrew its leaders abilities to hold it together, they simply became complacent, and they slowly withered because of it, it is true that they were ultimately destroyed by external forces. It never would have been possible if they had not facillitated it themselves.

I just dont want Romes fate to befall America, I don't want people, centuries from now, to know America only from textbooks, and T.V shows. (or whatever cool multimedia shit they'll have by then), THAT would be the ultimate triumph for all of our enemies, THAT is what would really be telling of Americas fitness to survive as a nation. It is important to remember that the radicals don't hate Americans per se. They hate what America represents.
Link Posted: 12/9/2005 9:44:14 AM EDT
The book by Vin Syprowicz is called "The Ballad of Carl Drega"

No more Carl Dregas

Good read.
Link Posted: 12/9/2005 9:45:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Melvinator2k0:
If we did have civil war, it would weaken us really bad. Im afriad China will see it as prime real estate



That would be interesting . I don't know if it would necessarily be China with its eyebrows raised at the thought.

I'd also be curious which "side" the US allies would take. Like if the UK were going to offer a helping hand. Nevermind. That took all of 1 second of thought considering their current position on subjects owning firearms.

Fortunately, this country is so huge in comparison to other countries that have been through various stages of civil war it would be hard for an invading country to come in and try to stake any real estate without getting thrashed. Odds are both sides of a US civil war woudl still fight off invaders.
Link Posted: 12/9/2005 10:10:04 AM EDT
Another element that is up in the air is what side the military would take in the whole thing, it really is dependent on the dynamics of the conflict, meaning is this an attempt by those in the gov't to silence the half of the nation that disagrees with them. Or is it attempt by those not in power to overthrow those that are? I seem to recall a survey done in the late 90's in which almost 80% of those in the military said they would be willing to take action against American citizens if they were ordered to do so (but don't quote me on that). the point may be moot because as soon as the money and food stopped flowing, i'm pretty sure the military would effectively dissolve. It would really depend on what kind of impact the conflict had on the economy, as to whether the military maintained its cohesion. But historically, civil war has had uniformly devestating consequences for a nations economy.
Link Posted: 12/9/2005 10:14:15 AM EDT
The 'tolerance' in my state resulted in a governor (illegally) set into office by a judge, despite an admission of election fraud by King County voting officials during the recount. The key word here is judge. It was a judge who ignored the staight language of the law concerning the rules governing an election recount process & let the democratic party in this state force its way down our throats. I have no respect for the legal system in general or the judiciary in particular. The democratic bias in this state is so blatant that they can thumb their noses at the notion of honesty & truth w/ impunity.

As a direct consequence, I am becoming even more of an intolerant a$$hole than I was before. As much as I've always recognized that there are decent democratic candidates, I will be forever hard-pressed to ever vote for a democratic candidate in WA State ever again. I'm sick of the party's rampant power-grabbing & absolute lack of accountablity by the judiciary. It needs to fix itself, but it won't.

Dammit! I moved out of Kalifornya to get AWAY from this bullsh!t, not dive into more of the same. I was really hoping I wouldn't have to move again, but if WA can't save itself from the sh!t-hole, moving may be my only option.
Link Posted: 12/9/2005 10:41:35 AM EDT
Neither party has a monopoly on virtue, both are guilty of some pretty underhanded things to try to insure victory, ultimately it will continue until the electorate stops being sheep, and collectively declares that politicians that pull that kind of shit will not be tolerated, and then backs it up with VOTES. So many people don't understand that you have to vote intelligently if you really want the politicians to give a shit what you think. If they can just stand there and promise "no new taxes" or "I'll outlaw this or bring back that" and the people believe it, then thats what the candidates will keep doing. The key word in the whole thing is ACCOUNTABILITY, they must be held accountable for the the things they do, not blindly followed. But maybe thats just to much to ask of alot of people.
Link Posted: 12/9/2005 10:55:02 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/9/2005 10:55:59 AM EDT by AShooter]

Originally Posted By PanzerMK7:
Another element that is up in the air is what side the military would take in the whole thing...




That's why I mentioned China, Russia, U.N., or even some Latin-American country or group of countries! A pretty big portion of our boys are halfway around the world, and the rest of them would have a hard time taking effective control of a nationwide post-Katrina type of chaos. Especially since they'd be worried about taking care of thier own families.

Link Posted: 12/9/2005 11:04:52 AM EDT
There is a genuine debate in this country over how much and in what form government should be a part of our lives.

That doesn't mean we'll have a civil war. It means we WON'T have one. We never will have a conventional "war" again in the US, because our army is too strong. There can't be any realisitc chance of a home-grown movement ever standing against the government.

Luckily, this is America, and if you think your ways are best, then all you have to do is convince everyone you're right, and you are in control. The civil wars we fight are ideological, wars of rhetoric and debate, wars of ideas, and wars of politics.

Personally, I think that's a step up in the history of humanity. People who are not intelligent enough or educated enough to participate will naturally wish for a return to bloodshed.
Link Posted: 12/9/2005 11:20:55 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/9/2005 11:30:07 AM EDT by PanzerMK7]
Eloquently said Tdogg, but I must say that our uber-powerful military machine is an outgrowth of our awesome economic might. If anything were to disrupt that constant influx of cash/resources, the Military could quickly crumble to a mere shadow of its former self (a la U.S.S.R.). And then it is not so farfetched that they would perhaps even side with their home states rather than the federal government as a whole. This is effectively what happened when the Soviet Union collapsed, every country made a grab for as much hardware and as many soldiers as it could get. It is admittedly unlikely, but not impossible. It would take a disaster of mammoth proportions to cause such an event. but there are several possibilities, including eruption of the Yellostone super volcano, a successful nuclear attack on major port cities, an outbreak of human to human transmitable avian flu and/or smallpox, or the old cliche asteroid strike. (it is important to remember that America is an Oceanic power, A successful attack against even a few of our major ports could be catastrophic)
Link Posted: 12/9/2005 4:01:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By tdogg77:
There is a genuine debate in this country over how much and in what form government should be a part of our lives.



Unfortunately, while the debate is going on the .gov continues to extend well past its intended control.
Link Posted: 12/9/2005 4:15:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/9/2005 4:23:47 PM EDT by IceHandLuke]

Originally Posted By tdogg77:
There is a genuine debate in this country over how much and in what form government should be a part of our lives.

That doesn't mean we'll have a civil war. It means we WON'T have one. We never will have a conventional "war" again in the US, because our army is too strong. There can't be any realisitc chance of a home-grown movement ever standing against the government.

Luckily, this is America, and if you think your ways are best, then all you have to do is convince everyone you're right, and you are in control. The civil wars we fight are ideological, wars of rhetoric and debate, wars of ideas, and wars of politics.

Personally, I think that's a step up in the history of humanity. People who are not intelligent enough or educated enough to participate will naturally wish for a return to bloodshed.



So then when the government rules it can take your land for a mall or marina and force your children into a homosexual education class in the first grade and if you try and stop it you get forced into sensitivity training (Re-education/Re-programming) its because we are not educated enough to participate? Even when the majority in your population (city) feel this is acceptable? I guess when George Washington pitched his grand plan it was because he lacked the education needed to participate. After all a fair amount of people in the 1700’s had no problem with the crown at all. It’s about education right, that’s your point. That a use of arms will only be because of a lack of education in the ones who are armed is what I am picking up from your statement. Interesting.. so when the point comes where the nation wants to become communist then we all just have to accept it but if we dont it's because we are not educated enough to participate. When they want to start to outlaw Christmas and all the things I stand for I had better fall in line and become educated I guess.
Link Posted: 12/12/2005 1:01:11 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/12/2005 1:05:22 PM EDT by PanzerMK7]
As far as I'm concerned emminent domain rulings are criminal, and that would be one example of a situation where the use of force to resist the gov't is warranted. And as to your statment about homosexual acceptance, no I don't think your children should be forced to take such a class, and I think even if that become widespread practice (highly unlikely I might add) you could simply voluntarily withdraw your kids from that class, I feel compelled to say that as a person who dosen't believe in creationism, I feel similar concern when schools teach it along side or instead of the theory of evolution. I feel that, under separation of church and state, schools that receive public funding from the gov't should not be allowed to push religious doctrine. Private schools on the other hand can teach whatever they want as they have no affiliation with the Gov't and thus there is no conflict with separation of church and state.

Nextly, America is not going to turn into a communist state, and even if it did, it is EXACTLY that type of eventuality that the 2nd amendment was written for, the 2nd amendment was included to give Americans the means to usurp the power of a gov't that no longer serves the interests of the people. But before you can undertake paramilitary action against the gov't, a significant percentage of the population must feel that is a just cause for which you are fighting.

Lastly, and no offense meant with this but, there is no freaking war being conducted against Christmas or Christianity, when are the Christians going to get over their persecution complex, you've ONLY been the dominant religion in the west since emperor Constantine, you've ONLY had every president that America has ever elected. And ONLY 95% or more of the house and senate are Christians. If any elected officials support policies that seem "anti-christian", it is only because they are doing their duty under the constitution to keep religion and gov't seperated.
(and as far as I'm concerned they're not even doing so well at that, see first paragraph for example) America is not supposed to be a Christian theocracy as some would have you believe, The gov't is supposed to hold no allegiance to any religion, and if you don't believe me, then I suggest you read your copy of the Constituton a little more carefully.
Link Posted: 12/12/2005 4:04:21 PM EDT
You can't God is not a part of our Nation.


The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The signers of the Declaration represented the new states as follows:

New Hampshire
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts
John Hancock, Samual Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

For additional information about the Declaration of Independence, see these sites:

National Archives and Records Administration: Declaration of Independence
Library of Congress: About the Declaration of Independence

Link Posted: 12/12/2005 4:46:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/12/2005 4:50:45 PM EDT by PanzerMK7]
Originally Posted By IceHandLuke:
You can't God is not a part of our Nation.

Yeah you're right, I was typing to quickly and forgot that it dosen't speak of separation of church and state directly in the constitution. but Thomas Jefferson and many of the founders of this nation wrote on the subject and the consensus among most was that there should be a distinct division between the church and the gov't. take for example this excerpt from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802.

"I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

Thomas Jefferson


And the first amendment does read that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...." . which I interpret to mean that it is unlawful for the congress to establish a state sanctioneed religion. And just as a clarification I don't have any problem with a civil serviceman of faith, but I would and do have a problem with their faith exerting influence over their governing. Also, you can't make the sweeping statement that god isn't a part of our nation, most people are incapable of unbiased reasoning and thus religon has become involved in our nations governance. Whether it was originally intended to or not.

(Good catch by the way, there aren't very many people who would have recognized that mistake)

P.S. You pasted a copy of the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution. hat
Link Posted: 12/12/2005 11:17:46 PM EDT
Being an active-duty junior officer in constant contact with both senior and junior enlisted folks - not to mention my senior officers - I feel like I am in pretty good touch with the pulse of the military. That 80% statistic is probably pretty accurate.

Don't even think about a stupid civil war, and forget about a religious debate in this context. We care much more about the unity and strength of this country than any one individual's interpretation of what the American way of life means. The quick and dirty meaning of this is that we'd look past political leanings in following orders and "defending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC." FYI, the Declaration of Independence is not part of our law, merely an important piece of history. It's easy to read the Declaration and decide it means what you want - try digging into the Federalist Papers or something else with substance if you want to discover the Founders' intent. Yes, intelligence and education have a positive impact on your ability to participate in government. Tdogg77 was right when he said, "The civil wars we fight are ideological, wars of rhetoric and debate, wars of ideas, and wars of politics." Guess who has the advantage there? Educate yourself.

The integrity of this country is way more important than our individual opinions on how the government should run things. Feel free to speak out all you want, but remember before you have violent fantasies that we are all Americans and SHOULD be on the same side.

People, I want to see us stronger and more united, not divided over what are really just differences in political opinion. Ask yourself this: would you be willing to compromise with your political opponents on some issues to keep our democracy, or would you rather have it all your way and sacrifice our nation?
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 9:47:02 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/13/2005 9:57:36 AM EDT by PanzerMK7]
That's pretty much what I've been trying to say all along. I'm Glad someone agrees with me. Like I said in an earlier post, the disagreements that we have with each other as Americans are relatively minor, and we have to keep sight of the big picture. Ultimately the laws of America recognize everyones right to believe what they want to believe, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

(but don't get me wrong, that shouldn't stop us from having a spirited debate, There's nothing quite like a good discourse to clean the rust off your brain)
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 3:18:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/13/2005 4:38:53 PM EDT by IceHandLuke]

Originally Posted By McNamara:

defending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC


And what would be DOMESTIC to you? Do we all become Domestic bad guys to you once your orders are handed down? And using federal troops on US citizens is what the Constitution should protect us from first and foremost with our Amendment rights. I am very familiar with the Federalist papers as well as the Anti Federalist papers. My point in posting the Declaration of Independence was to counter the notion that this Nation was not founded with in the context of the acknowledgement of God. Congress shall pass no law in the establishment of a religion is a far cry from the teaching of intelligent design or even bringing it up in a two minute conversation. Schools are blocked by the government from even bringing it up as a possibility. And as far as me taking my child out of a forced homosexual education class, the 9th circuit court in California ruled two months ago that a parent can take a child out of school if they don’t like what is thought but they do not have the right to pick and chouse what class the child takes. You basically check your rights as a parent at the door and the school takes over. Don’t believe me. Look it up like you have just before every post you have made in this thread.


It’s pretty odd how this 80% is brought up in a thread debating civil war. That its something to worry about bringing federal troops down on civilians when it’s the civilians who own this nation. That other 20% along with the more than 50% of this nation will not take kindly in that every happening.

I was a US Army Ranger for 7 years with the 75th Mr Jr “O”. So talking about a pulse is not an issue with me. I might have a pulse on things as well as I did when I was in the military. When I was in, I hated any and all non 11B1V MOS types. We would have loved to knock off the dorks in the motor pool. So my pulse was different than yours.


Your point about us all being on the same side is what I am trying to keep in focus here. When you have someone holding up a sign that reads "I support our troops when they kill their officers" they are not on your side. When you have people in our nation holding what they call Anti War marches and yet they are funded by North Korea we have a problem. They are the Domestic bad guy I am talking about. Some say they have a voice. I say they use that voice to show me whos side they are on. your job mr JR 'O' is to protect us from this type of filth and yet the orders you will get will be to stop Americans from protecting this nation from that type of Domestic filth. We are all on your side I just dont want you thinking you are not on my side when or if that day ever comes.


Link Posted: 12/13/2005 7:35:55 PM EDT
I've been saying it all along, we SHOULD be on the same side and I hope we are. Dissent against the war does not mean that the protesters are not on our side, and you are taking very isolated incidents and extending them to everybody that disagrees with you. I'm afraid you're out of touch if you think the current government is against someone with your political leanings. You sound like a very conservative person, and you're incorrect if you think liberals are running the country. Those labels are mostly B.S. anyway. So stop worrying! It sounds like your biggest worry is how schools are educating your children. It's natural to worry about that, and obviously you care about your kids. But public school is always going to be a compromise. When you take what you see as wrong with schools and project it onto the rest of the country and the government, you're overreacting a bit. The eeeeevil godless commies are NOT taking over.

Now, when it comes to the touchy debate about soldiers vs. civilians, I think it would really depend on the situation. I'd gladly fight against a terrorist like Tim McVeigh, and as I recall he was a veteran too. But I wouldn't shoot at a bunch of harmless college students at a protest rally. There is a big difference between peaceful dissent and violent action against the government.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 12:15:06 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/14/2005 1:35:26 PM EDT by PanzerMK7]
I tried to keep this discussion civil, but I can no longer suffer your puerile assaults.

I'm not a constitutional scholar so I can't say definitively what domestic enemy does mean, but I can tell you it damn sure does't mean "all those people who disagree with that luke guy on ARFCOM" you really need to tone down the accusatory nature of your posts, as if anyone who dosen't agree that the gov't is being infiltrated with communists is a co-conspirator have
With regards to your assertion that I've looked up every post I've made, I assume you reference the Jefferson quote, because thus far that is the only thing that I have looked up prior to posting. My first response is that it is perfectly logical to RESEARCH something before you go blabbing it all over the place. And my second response is that you have little ground to stand on in this regard unless you typed the Declaration of Independence completely from memory, Oh you didn't do that did you, funny how that goes both ways huh, maybe next time you should do a some research on a little word called hypocrisy.

In finishing I would just like to say, WHO THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU ARE, just because you were (or at least claim that you were) a ranger for 7 years, that makes you the consummate expert on all things American, give me a break. Thus far in this thread you seem to have taken the stance that anyone who dares not agree with you is a disloyal commie insurgent who needs to be purged from our nation. The statement that we are all on the same side dosen't mean we all agree completely and think with one mind on every issue, THAT sounds like communist doctrine. "We are all on the same side" means that even though we have disagreements, we don't go cutting the legs out from under our own country just to get our own childish way.

I eagerly await your response, I'm sure it will be a doozie
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 1:13:58 PM EDT
I think most of his last response was directed at me, but I understand your frustration.
But you summed up nicely here:


Originally Posted By PanzerMK7:
"We are all on the same side" means that even though we have disagreements, we don't go cutting the legs out from under our own country just to get our own childish way.



Or, to put it another way, having a strong and unified nation is more important than satisfying any one interest group. Since none of us agree 100% on how to run the country, we have to compromise. Unfortunately it has become popular to label one's political opponents "un-American" or some similar nonsense in order to make your own position sound like the only right one. We've all been guilty of that at one time or another.

Just take a look at other countries under the black cloud of civil war and you'll see that the disagreements in THIS country are not nearly serious enough to justify a violent insurrection.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 1:34:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By McNamara: People, I want to see us stronger and more united, not divided over what are really just differences in political opinion. Ask yourself this: would you be willing to compromise with your political opponents on some issues to keep our democracy, or would you rather have it all your way and sacrifice our nation?


You can keep your filthy democracy.
I want my damn republic back!
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 1:56:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/14/2005 2:20:48 PM EDT by PanzerMK7]
The definiton of a republic is a representative democracy, in other words, any gov't in which the people elect officials to man the governmental positions counts as both a republic and a democracy. This as opposed to everyone getting together and voting on issues individually, a decidedly cumbersome way to do things when you have over 300,000,000 people in your country. The monikers of "Republican" and "Democrat" were just chosen because they sound good in campaign slogans, they mean little about their preferred sytems of governing.

But I think I get what you really meant, and I'd just like to say, POOF, there you go, I just put a Republican in the white house, gave you control of the House and Senate, and if your patient I'm pretty sure I can see to it that you have a majority on the Supreme Court.

What you guys do with it from here is up to you. Just don't make me regret this, (whoops too late).
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 2:45:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PanzerMK7:
The definiton of a republic is a representative democracy, in other words, any gov't in which the people elect officials to man the governmental positions counts as both a republic and a democracy. This as opposed to everyone getting together and voting on issues individually, a decidedly cumbersome way to do things when you have over 300,000,000 people in your country.



Republic: Roman Definition, "a system of government in which both the people and their rulers are subject to law".

Republic: as defined by Aristotle (The Greek), Livy (Roman), and Harington (British Statesman), "a government of laws and not of men."

Democracy from the Greek and means "government by the people".

definitions found here:
www.indixie.com/indixie/Articles/Republic.htm

Basically, republic is guided by morals- and every bit of evidence provided throughout the history of the USA points towards obtaining these morals from the Bible. Example: murdering someone is immoral and no amount of opinion of the masses will change the laws to say otherwise.

Democracy is guided by whatever the mass 'feel' is the best for society. Example: if the majority of society became pedophiles, the laws of the land would reflect this.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 3:07:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/14/2005 4:04:53 PM EDT by PanzerMK7]
Thats it, the kid gloves are coming off.

Republic as defined by the dictionary (you know, that thing that tells us what all of our words mean in TODAYS vernacular).

re·pub·lic Pronunciation Key (r-pblk)
n.

1. A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.

2. A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.

3. A nation that has such a political order.

4. An autonomous or partially autonomous political and territorial unit belonging to a sovereign federation.

Pay special attention to the big red one. My point in posting that was just to say that democracy and republic are not mutually exclusive. You can't have a republic without first having a democracy.

While were at it I'd like to get your opinion (if you actually have any of your own) on the irony of using a definiton from a culture that killed an estimated 100,000 Christians over a 250+ year period. Or didn't they teach you about that in bible class (I can't imagine they didn't, you guys love to talk about your own persecution)

And in the future, it would behoove you to get your information from a source that is a little more objective than a bunch of down home rednecks who still haven't gotten over losing the civil war, yet miraculously managed to build a website.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 3:29:51 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/14/2005 3:39:30 PM EDT by PanzerMK7]
And heres a bit more extensive definiton of democracy, just for the hell of it.

de·moc·ra·cy Pronunciation Key (d-mkr-s)
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies

1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

2. A political or social unit that has such a government.

3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.

4. Majority rule.

5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

You'll notice that both of the above terms describe the U.S.A. pretty well. The defense rests.

(Unless you have more irrelevant information to present)
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 4:11:06 PM EDT
LOL,,, the poor kid is worked up now.....
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 4:16:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/14/2005 4:25:05 PM EDT by PanzerMK7]
Oh, is that all you got now, no half-witted retort, no semi-smart ass insults too sling. I thought this would be more of a challenge. I honestly expected more out of a former ranger I'll be the first to extend the olive branch here, any time you guys want to, we can knock off this stupid shit and get back to discussing calmly and logically. But until then, we'll play it your way.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 6:22:01 PM EDT
The red/blue split is so deep now, I don't know how we could ever go back to the way we were a decade or two ago. There is an "in your face" intolerance on both sides that seems to indicate a gulf we can no longer traverse. It's sad, but it's here none the less. We should plan for the best but prepare for the worst.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 7:25:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PanzerMK7:
Thats it, the kid gloves are coming off.

While were at it I'd like to get your opinion (if you actually have any of your own) on the irony of using a definiton from a culture that killed an estimated 100,000 Christians over a 250+ year period. Or didn't they teach you about that in bible class (I can't imagine they didn't, you guys love to talk about your own persecution)

And in the future, it would behoove you to get your information from a source that is a little more objective than a bunch of down home rednecks who still haven't gotten over losing the civil war, yet miraculously managed to build a website.

...........................................

Oh, is that all you got now, no half-witted retort, no semi-smart ass insults too sling. I thought this would be more of a challenge. I honestly expected more out of a former ranger

I'll be the first to extend the olive branch here, any time you guys want to, we can knock off this stupid shit and get back to discussing calmly and logically. But until then, we'll play it your way.



Classic DU material. They still can't help but resort to name calling and putting people down while propping themselves up.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 7:34:41 PM EDT
There are simple ways to change things. #1 change your party affiliation to independant, This does not mean to stop supporting candidates that you believe in no matter what party. #2 when the Dems or Republicand start knocking on your door for money DO NOT DONATE, only give money to the candidates you support. And tell them why you are dissatisfied. #3 Get involved in Grass roots organizations of like minded people to get your voices heard. #4 Even if you have a problem with the NRA JOIN ANYWAY the more members we have the bigger our voice. A fundimental change in voters is what is needed most, if these jerks wont do what we want lets throw the bums out on their asses. #5 DO NOT SIT OUT ELECTIONS if you dont vote you are not a citizen you are a subject. Hold your nose if you have to but vote . #6 Talk of a armed inserrection does us no favors and just reinforces the arguments of the Anti Gunners that we are all wacko's. We can have another revolution but lets make it a peacefull one.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 8:15:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PanzerMK7:
The definiton of a republic is a representative democracy, in other words, any gov't in which the people elect officials to man the governmental positions counts as both a republic and a democracy. This as opposed to everyone getting together and voting on issues individually, a decidedly cumbersome way to do things when you have over 300,000,000 people in your country. The monikers of "Republican" and "Democrat" were just chosen because they sound good in campaign slogans, they mean little about their preferred sytems of governing.

But I think I get what you really meant, and I'd just like to say, POOF, there you go, I just put a Republican in the white house, gave you control of the House and Senate, and if your patient I'm pretty sure I can see to it that you have a majority on the Supreme Court.

What you guys do with it from here is up to you. Just don't make me regret this, (whoops too late).



No, you don't get what I meant.
I want a republic, like the one that the Founder's intended.
Example - no direct election of senators, specie instead of paper, a property or education requirement to vote, no more Executive orders, etc.
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 10:01:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Bigun1:
There are simple ways to change things. #1 change your party affiliation to independant, This does not mean to stop supporting candidates that you believe in no matter what party. #2 when the Dems or Republicand start knocking on your door for money DO NOT DONATE, only give money to the candidates you support. And tell them why you are dissatisfied. #3 Get involved in Grass roots organizations of like minded people to get your voices heard. #4 Even if you have a problem with the NRA JOIN ANYWAY the more members we have the bigger our voice. A fundimental change in voters is what is needed most, if these jerks wont do what we want lets throw the bums out on their asses. #5 DO NOT SIT OUT ELECTIONS if you dont vote you are not a citizen you are a subject. Hold your nose if you have to but vote . #6 Talk of a armed inserrection does us no favors and just reinforces the arguments of the Anti Gunners that we are all wacko's. We can have another revolution but lets make it a peacefull one.



I heartily agree, good post!
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 10:18:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AssaultRifler:
The South (plus all the newbie Red States) will rise again!




I don't think that association is really neccessary. Not flaming you but the only people I ever hear using that are racists bigeots with a 3rd grade education Louisiana is full of them.

Also if thier is a civil war I believe it will be a revolt against our government, not neccessarily shooting libtards. More likely citiczens shooting thier politicians, police, and National Guard. It would have to be a dramatic event on a new scale to get average joe off his ass to fight. Most Americans are lazy apathetic retarded cowards, they will not fight till they have no choice..
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 10:37:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Mattl:
Most Americans are lazy apathetic retarded cowards, they will not fight till they have no choice..



That's what I have been saying. The events leading up to the Declaration of Independance were so brutal, that it pushed people to the outcome of separation from England, and what is more- they clearly outlined all of the tresspasses and offenses the king had committed against his own people so that it was without a doubt to the rest of the world why they were doing what they were doing.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top