The coming American civil war.

[the]

Then don't assume that I don't know what a true socialist looks like.

/thread derail.

Well then how can you beliefs be challenged without a little assumption on their part?

 

[brightmoon]

A comment more directed at [MENTION=731]the[/MENTION] than you at [MENTION=4423]Sriracha[/MENTION], but directed at many American conservatives on the board. There seems to be this idea that everyone left of the Republican Party is a socialist. [MENTION=731]the[/MENTION] made the comment about socialists doing "pretty well lately in the U.S." There are no socialists elected to anything in the US, save one Senator, so how this could be seen as "doing pretty well" is beyond me. The Democratic Party was taken over a long time ago by Bill Clinton and his ideology. Clinton-ism is not socialist in my view, its barely even progressive, it's based on the idea of the "Third Way" also called "triangulation". In his in his 1996 State of the Union Address, Clinton declared that the "era of big government is over" Not socialist, not even close by any definition that I know.

 

[sprinkles]

There won't be a civil war. A civil war requires two legitimate sides and the government would never allow that to happen. Revolutionaries will simply be called terrorists.

 

[JJJA]

Then don't assume that I don't know what a true socialist looks like.

/thread derail.

I wonder how many times they will try to convince us in the States that Socialism has either 'never been tried' or that they have 'never met a true Socialist'? It's because Socialism has failed so many times in so many countries over the last 100 years that they simply have no choice but to start again from the grass-roots and restart the campaign for a centralised and robotic society, but with a twist of social justice thrown in for good measure. It's the usual authoritarian nonsense, and I am glad you're refusing to put up with it. Every time I display an opinion that appears to dissent from their Groupthink collectivist mentality, they keep calling me a 'Neo-con' or a Conservative, as if that constitutes a rebuttal, as if Conservatives and Neo-Conservatives are the undisputed evils that control political discourse. I'll tell you what controls political discourse: people obsessed with social justice that have infected most realms of media outlets and some realms of politics in both Europe and the US. We've just elected our mayor of London that said not one month ago that there are "too many white men on Transport for London". (http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2016...e-are-too-many-white-men-on-transport-for-lon)

"Social Justice" now means I cannot get an internship with particular organisations based on the color of my skin; I refer you to post #68 on this thread: http://www.infjs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30907&page=4

It's the 'No true Scotsman' fallacy; Socialist edition. If this ideology ever gained significant power, you should expect a dystopian society within a matter of a decade minimally.

 

[Sinny]

I wonder how many times they will try to convince us in the States that Socialism has either 'never been tried' or that they have 'never met a true Socialist'? It's because Socialism has failed so many times in so many countries over the last 100 years that they simply have no choice but to start again from the grass-roots and restart the campaign for a centralised and robotic society,

And how does Capitalism fair in comparison?

but with a twist of social justice thrown in for good measure. It's the usual authoritarian nonsense, and I am glad you're refusing to put up with it. Every time I display an opinion that appears to dissent from their Groupthink collectivist mentality, they keep calling me a 'Neo-con' or a Conservative, as if that constitutes a rebuttal, as if Conservatives and Neo-Conservatives are the undisputed evils that control political discourse.

Well they are and they do to an extent. And yea, you sound like one sometimes.

I'll tell you what controls political discourse: people obsessed with social justice that have infected most realms of media outlets and some realms of politics in both Europe and the US. We've just elected our mayor of London that said not one month ago that there are "too many white men on Transport for London". (http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2016...e-are-too-many-white-men-on-transport-for-lon)

Oh, how unPC of him, lol.

 

[Sriracha]

There won't be a civil war. A civil war requires two legitimate sides and the government would never allow that to happen. Revolutionaries will simply be called terrorists.

Damn straight they would, maintaining perspective that our constitution had been tampered. Thus the reason we have a right to bear arms, in protecting oneself and country in the event of overthrow.

In the words of Thomas Jefferson: "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

(Let's not also forget that the Democratic south lost to the Union after it seceded. This scenario has already been played out.)

 

[Eventhorizon]

Damn straight they would, maintaining perspective that our constitution had been tampered. Thus the reason we have a right to bear arms, in protecting oneself and country in the event of overthrow.

In the words of Thomas Jefferson: "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

(Let's not also forget that the Democratic south lost to the Union after it seceded. This scenario has already been played out.)

I whole heartedly agree. I am also a lifetime NRA member. However. .. I would like to ask if you are implying that you think the American people's right to bear arms could actually protect them from what our military has at their disposal? Or for that matter what law enforcement would be given to quell the masses should it come to it.

 

[Eventhorizon]

There won't be a civil war. A civil war requires two legitimate sides and the government would never allow that to happen. Revolutionaries will simply be called terrorists.

Im sure the government will try to use the term terrorists to begin with. But the people will know who is supporting Americas constitution and who is not. It will be a short lived pr campaign on that account.

 

[Stu]

The American population does not have the stomach for that kind of violence.

 

[Sriracha]

I whole heartedly agree. I am also a lifetime NRA member. However. .. I would like to ask if you are implying that you think the American people's right to bear arms could actually protect them from what our military has at their disposal? Or for that matter what law enforcement would be given to quell the masses should it come to it.

I think it would be a matter of citizens banding together to aid the military to protect the constitution, if that had to happen. I'm highly doubtful it would ever come to that ... unless Hillary comes into office (and is able to appoint all the new Supreme Court justices after they kick the bucket.) I should consider an NRA membership, we only had one gun before my father passed away. Now we have 10 (and before anyone starts squealing on here, yes we do have a gun safe and they are locked up.)

 

[Stu]

NRA keeps the stockpile of information at its national headquarters in Virginia and that it goes well beyond the group’s estimated 3 million members.“That database has been built through years of acquiring gun permit registration lists from state and county offices, gathering names of new owners from the thousands of gun-safety classes taught by NRA-certified instructors and by buying lists of attendees of gun shows, subscribers to gun magazines, and more,” Friess writes

so like the socialist traitors will never be able to confiscate all of our guns cuz that list is totally secure.

 

[Siimplicity]

**heartbreaking** we need to get back together and let go of this silly infighting. Can't we compromise choosing the best of both sides? I can't stand how divisive and discordant things are lately.

 

[SpecialEdition]

Yep most Canadians are, but we aren't Americans so we don't count

I am from Canada and am not very left wing or extremist. I don't know many who are.

 

[Sinny]

I am from Canada and am not very left wing or extremist. I don't know many who are.

The left wing extremist comment was satire.

 

[brightmoon]

I am from Canada and am not very left wing or extremist. I don't know many who are.

Like lot of ideas its all relative. You might not be a NDP supporter [MENTION=7838]SpecialEdition[/MENTION], but if you are a Liberal or even a Conservative you are likely to the left of most Americans on most issues.

 

[Eventhorizon]

I think it would be a matter of citizens banding together to aid the military to protect the constitution, if that had to happen. I'm highly doubtful it would ever come to that ... unless Hillary comes into office (and is able to appoint all the new Supreme Court justices after they kick the bucket.) I should consider an NRA membership, we only had one gun before my father passed away. Now we have 10 (and before anyone starts squealing on here, yes we do have a gun safe and they are locked up.)

I would like to think the military would support the citizens. An initial uprising would be labeled by a liberal administration and media sources as terrorism. The question would be how long could they support that lie.

All an NRA membership does is give the NRA money to fight its battles. It doesn't do much for its members though. Its sad to think they are even needed to defend the 2nd amendment in the first place.

 

[Eventhorizon]

The American population does not have the stomach for that kind of violence.

Or just doesn't care. They have the stomach for it. The things I hear about on the news that no one really cares about...they have the stomach for it. Try to get them off their couches though for anything, thats the battle.

 

[SpecialEdition]

Like lot of ideas its all relative. You might not be a NDP supporter [MENTION=7838]SpecialEdition[/MENTION], but if you are a Liberal or even a Conservative you are likely to the left of most Americans on most issues.

I will get my measuring tape out and let you know.

 

[Eventhorizon]

**heartbreaking** we need to get back together and let go of this silly infighting. Can't we compromise choosing the best of both sides? I can't stand how divisive and discordant things are lately.

View attachment 27519

A divided country. The idea that Holder would say that if he was younger he could see himself as part if the Black Lives matter movement. An organization that condones the killing of police officers.

 

[Stu]

[h=1]11 Major Misconceptions About the Black Lives Matter Movement[/h]

9. The movement hates police officers. Police officers are people. Their lives have inherent value. This movement is not an anti-people movement; therefore it is not an anti-police-officer movement. Most police officers are just everyday people who want to do their jobs, make a living for their families, and come home safely at the end of their shift. This does not mean, however, that police are not implicated in a system that criminalizes black people, that demands that they view black people as unsafe and dangerous, that trains them to be more aggressive and less accommodating with black citizens, and that does not stress that we are taxpayers who deserve to be protected and served just like everyone else. Thus the Black Lives Matter movement is not trying to make the world more unsafe for police officers; it hopes to make police officers less of a threat to communities of color. Thus, we reject the idea that asking officers questions about why one is being stopped or arrested, about what one is being charged with, constitutes either disrespect or resistance. We reject the use of military-grade weapons as appropriate policing mechanisms for any American community. We reject the faulty idea that disrespect is a crime, that black people should be nice or civil when they are being hassled or arrested on trumped-up charges. And we question the idea that police officers should be given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to policing black communities. Increasingly, the presence of police makes black people feel less rather than more safe. And that has everything to do with the antagonistic and power-laden ways in which police interact with citizens more generally and black citizens in particular. Therefore, police officers must rebuild trust with the communities they police. Not the other way around.

http://blacklivesmatter.com/11-major-misconceptions-about-the-black-lives-matter-movement/