PDA

View Full Version : The Second American Civil War: What It's About



Pale Rider
05-25-2007, 01:22 AM
THE SECOND AMERICAN CIVIL WAR: WHAT IT'S ABOUT


Whatever your politics, you have to be oblivious to reality to deny that America today is torn by ideological divisions as deep as those of the Civil War era. We are, in fact, in the midst of the Second American Civil War.

Of course, one obvious difference between the two is that this Second Civil War is (thus far) non-violent. On the other hand, there is probably more hatred between the opposing sides today than there was during the First Civil War. And I am not talking about extremists. A senior editor of the respected center-left New Republic just wrote an article titled, "The Case for Bush Hatred," an article that could have been written by writers at most major American newspapers, by most Hollywood celebrities, and almost anyone else left of center. And the conservative hatred of former President Bill Clinton was equally deep.

In general, however, the similarities are greater than the differences. Once again the North and the South are at odds (though many individuals on each side identify with the other). And once again, the fate of the nation hangs in the balance. The two sides' values and visions of America are as incompatible as they were in the 1860s.

For those Americans who do not know what side they are on or who are not certain about what the Second American Civil War is being fought over, I offer a list of the most important areas of conflict.

While the views of many, probably even most, Americans do not fall entirely on either side, the two competing camps are quite distinguishable. On one side are those on the Left -- liberals, leftists and Greens -- who tend to agree with one another on almost all major issues. On the other side are those on the Right -- conservatives, rightists and libertarians -- who agree on stopping the Left, but differ with one another more often than those on the Left do.

Here, then, is Part One of the list of the major differences that are tearing America apart:

The Left believes in removing America's Judeo-Christian identity, e.g., removing "under God" from the Pledge, "In God we trust" from the currency, the oath to God and country from the Boy Scouts Pledge, etc. The Right believes that destroying these symbols and this identity is tantamount to destroying America.

The Left regards America as morally inferior to many European societies with their abolition of the death penalty, cradle-to-grave welfare and religion-free life; and it does not believe that there are distinctive American values worth preserving. The Right regards America as the last best hope for humanity and believes that there are distinctive American values -- the unique combination of a religious (Judeo-Christian) society, a secular government, personal liberty and capitalism -- worth fighting and dying for.

The Left believes that impersonal companies, multinational and otherwise, with their insatiable drive for profits, have a profoundly destructive effect on the country. The Right believes that the legal system, particularly trial lawyers, lawsuits and judges who make laws, is the greater threat to American society.

The Left believes multiculturalism should be the ideal for American schools and for government policy. The Right believes that the Americanization of all its citizens is indispensable to the survival of the United States.

The Left believes that the Boy Scouts as currently constituted pose a moral threat to society. The Right believes the Boy Scouts continue to be one of the greatest moral institutions in the country.

The Left believes in equality more than in liberty. The Right believes more in liberty. For example, the Left believes that for the equality's sake, men's clubs must accept women. The Right believes that for liberty's sake, associations must be free to choose their own members.

The Left believes that when schools give out condoms to teenagers, they are promoting safe sex. The Right believes that when schools give out condoms, they are promoting more sex.

The Left believes that poverty, racism and psychopathology cause violent crime. The Right believes a lack of self-control, lack of religious practice and lack of good values are the primary causes of violent crime.

The Left believes that "war is not the answer." The Right believes that war is often the only answer to governmental evil.

Any one of these differences is enough to create an entirely different America. Added together, the differences suggest people who live in different worlds that are on a collision course.

And I have only listed some of the conflicting views.

The Left regards American nationalism as dangerous, is more comfortable celebrating world citizenship and prefers that America follow the lead of international organizations such as the United Nations. The Right celebrates American nationalism, distrusts world organizations, prefers that America lead humanity and regards the United Nations as largely a moral wasteland.

The Left believes that sensitivity to minorities' feelings trumps the majority's will. The Right believes that when not immoral, the majority's will trumps that of the minority. For example, because some employees do not celebrate Christmas, the Left believes that organizations should rename their Christmas party the "holiday party." The Right believes that because the vast majority of Americans celebrate Christmas, the party should be called a Christmas party.

The Left believes that a woman must have an unrestricted right to choose an abortion but no right to choose a silicone breast implant. The Right believes that society must decide when abortions are moral and legal but a woman has the right to choose to have a silicone breast implant.

The Left believes that attacking world poverty will greatly reduce Islamic terror. The Right believes that poverty is largely unrelated to Islamic terror.

The Left believes that George W. Bush attacked Iraq mostly for economic gain. The Right believes George W. Bush attacked Iraq to protect America and to change the Arab world for the better.

The Left believes that a high rate of taxation of people who earn more money is a moral imperative. The Right believes that allowing people to keep as much of their money as possible is a moral imperative.

The Left identifies with the values of most university professors in the liberal arts and values their insights. The Right regards most of these professors as moral idiots.

The Left believes that the greatest danger to mankind, as former Vice President Al Gore wrote in his book "Earth in the Balance," is the threat to the environment. The Right believes that the greatest danger to humanity is, as it always has been, human evil.

The Left believes that marriage should be redefined and that judges alone are entitled to do so. The Right believes that the millennia-old definition of marriage as between members of the two sexes is inviolable and that it can't be redefined by jurists.

The Left believes that in terms of parenthood, all a child needs is love, whether that love comes from a single parent, two men, two women or some other adult. The Right believes that children do best with the love of two married parents of the opposite sex.

The Left believes that opposing race-based college dorms, graduation ceremonies, congressional caucuses or professional organizations is racist. The Right believes that race-based college dorms, graduation ceremonies, congressional caucuses and professional organizations are racist.

The Left believes that labeling any enemy of the United States "evil" is wrong. It was wrong when President Ronald Reagan labeled the Soviet Union an "evil empire," and it was wrong when President George W. Bush labeled Iran, Iraq and North Korea an "axis of evil." The Right believes that not labeling such regimes "evil" is a sign of moral confusion and appeasement.

The Left is preoccupied with health. Leftist parents are more likely to believe that it is preferable that their teenager cheat on a test than smoke. Parents on the Right are more likely to believe that it is better that their teenager smoke than cheat.

The Left believes that just as America and the Soviet Union were equally responsible for the Cold War, Israel and the Palestinians are equally responsible for Middle East violence. The Right believes that just as the Soviets were responsible for the Cold War, the Arab enemies of Israel are responsible for Middle East violence.

The Left believes that criticism of Christianity is important and that criticism of Islam is bigoted. The Right believes that criticism of Islam is important and that most criticism of Christianity is bigoted.

I am well aware that not everyone on the Left agrees with every leftist position and not everyone on the Right agrees with every rightist one. Nat Hentoff is a leftist who doesn't support abortion rights; Pat Buchanan is a rightist who doesn't support Israel. But the existence of individual exceptions does not negate the fact that all the positions listed here as Left or Right are correctly labeled.

The fact is that this country is profoundly divided on virtually every major social, personal and political issue. We are in the midst of the Second American Civil War. Who wins it will determine the nature of this country as much as the winner of the first did.

http://members.cox.net/polincorr1/conpro7.htm

Hobbit
05-25-2007, 02:25 AM
Yeah, it's coming.

A lot of those left points you made, though, can be classified in the equality catagory. Christianity, whites, males, the rich, etc. are somehow 'higher' in society and Islam, minorities, females, the poor, etc. are somehow 'lower.' Towards the end of equality, the higher are demonized and the lower are canonized in order to bring them even with each other.

nevadamedic
05-25-2007, 02:28 AM
I really dont think we will go into another Cival War.

Hobbit
05-25-2007, 03:01 AM
I really dont think we will go into another Cival War.

Today, tomorrow, a hundred years from now...

There will be a day when we will either take up arms or accept our chains. Which will you do?

nevadamedic
05-25-2007, 03:04 AM
Today, tomorrow, a hundred years from now...

There will be a day when we will either take up arms or accept our chains. Which will you do?

Well, It wont happn in our lifetime.

Doniston
05-25-2007, 11:02 AM
Well, It wont happn in our lifetime. What about in late 2008, when Bush announces he is president for life???

Pale Rider
05-25-2007, 11:11 AM
Well, It wont happn in our lifetime.

I wouldn't be so sure. If this amnesty bill passes and we're strapped with the 2.5 trillion dollar bill to support all the illegals and the country goes broke, I can see lots of trouble, even civil war.

avatar4321
05-25-2007, 11:23 AM
Well, It wont happn in our lifetime.

i disagree.. it might be late in our lifetime. but it will happen.

avatar4321
05-25-2007, 11:24 AM
What about in late 2008, when Bush announces he is president for life???

Now that won't happen. Contrary to the leftist wackos Ive seen interest by the President for that to happen. In fact, he will probably be quite happy to get away from the nut cases going after him.

loosecannon
05-25-2007, 11:51 AM
Ya know PR there are definitely differences between the reds and blues that loosely follow freestate/slave state lines.

But I put no stock in that author to divine the ideological differences between the two.

I do have a question tho. Would you start a poll asking how many here actually would favor a division of the US along red state/blue state lines?

I think you are gonna find the blue states have almost all of the money.

Gaffer
05-25-2007, 11:53 AM
The divisons leading up to the civil war began twenty years before. There were tons of events leading up to it, Including insurections and border wars. And it was a democrat verses republican war.

The same hatreds that were present then are present now. It would be a different type of war now as all the states themselves are divided. But small militia groups forming up and attacking government buildings would be the start. mcvey type attacks would become daily news. The war would not be big armies fighting it out, but small groups taking on federal forces and maybe burning out certain minority or imigrant groups.

Dilloduck
05-25-2007, 12:23 PM
The divisons leading up to the civil war began twenty years before. There were tons of events leading up to it, Including insurections and border wars. And it was a democrat verses republican war.

The same hatreds that were present then are present now. It would be a different type of war now as all the states themselves are divided. But small militia groups forming up and attacking government buildings would be the start. mcvey type attacks would become daily news. The war would not be big armies fighting it out, but small groups taking on federal forces and maybe burning out certain minority or imigrant groups.

I'm guessing that it will take the form of cities, counties and states enacting laws that counter federal law.

(btw--there is a movie out called "the Second Civil War". It's funny as hell if you don't take in the serious implications)

-Cp
05-25-2007, 12:51 PM
I sure hope this happens - I'll have plenty of ammo on-hand with the words "Liberal Annihilator" on them... :D

Pale Rider
05-25-2007, 05:19 PM
I do have a question tho. Would you start a poll asking how many here actually would favor a division of the US along red state/blue state lines?

I think you are gonna find the blue states have almost all of the money.

If the country breaks into a civil war, it will have been a long time coming. The division and hatred between opinions is deeper and more intense now than it was when the first civil war started.

If this amnesty bill passes, the country will go broke, and there will be hell to pay. And it won't be just isolated little skirmishes. The country will be in an uproar, and we'll know why and who did it. The stock market goes through corrections, and at some point, the country is going to too. We're either going to turn into another third world shit hole, or we're going to take our country back.

glockmail
05-25-2007, 05:30 PM
If the country breaks into a civil war, it will have been a long time coming. The division and hatred between opinions is deeper and more intense now than it was when the first civil war started.

If this amnesty bill passes, the country will go broke, and there will be hell to pay. And it won't be just isolated little skirmishes. The country will be in an uproar, and we'll know why and who did it. The stock market goes through corrections, and at some point, the country is going to too. We're either going to turn into another third world shit hole, or we're going to take our country back.

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."

Thomas Jefferson

Pale Rider
05-25-2007, 05:45 PM
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."

Thomas Jefferson

And so it shall be.

Yurt
05-25-2007, 05:57 PM
This is the first I have heard of a so called civil war. It is troubling that so many posters here accept that it "will" happen. The only thing no one is sure about is "when."

A civil war now would be as bloody as it was in the 1860's. That is unless someone uses the N bomb. If this country roils into civil war, it will change the geopolitical face of the earth. It won't be just a civil war, it will be a world war. Imagine this country embroiled in a massive civil war, the enemies of this country (and for that matter any so called western country) will be immediately targeted.

Would like to know more about the context in which Jefferson made his comments. Also, would like to know from those that believe civil war is coming, how it will look and what will be the issues that made us go to war.

Doniston
05-25-2007, 06:32 PM
And so it shall be. At least "so it COULD be"

Doniston
05-25-2007, 06:36 PM
I think perhaps "Civil war" would be a misnomer More like a Rebelion or coup

and before it is brought up, I beleive that the Public would be supported by the Military. And perhaps even instigated by the Military. Bush's recent Power play could even be the trigger.

avatar4321
05-25-2007, 06:39 PM
This is the first I have heard of a so called civil war. It is troubling that so many posters here accept that it "will" happen. The only thing no one is sure about is "when."

A civil war now would be as bloody as it was in the 1860's. That is unless someone uses the N bomb. If this country roils into civil war, it will change the geopolitical face of the earth. It won't be just a civil war, it will be a world war. Imagine this country embroiled in a massive civil war, the enemies of this country (and for that matter any so called western country) will be immediately targeted.

Would like to know more about the context in which Jefferson made his comments. Also, would like to know from those that believe civil war is coming, how it will look and what will be the issues that made us go to war.

No idea what its going to look like. but i know its going to happen if we cant change things.

and you are right we would have a world war. A civil war here would trigger all the other nations to invade us to take our wealth and end our power in the world forever.

Gaffer
05-25-2007, 06:54 PM
I think perhaps "Civil war" would be a misnomer More like a Rebelion or coup

and before it is brought up, I beleive that the Public would be supported by the Military. And perhaps even instigated by the Military. Bush's recent Power play could even be the trigger.

I agree with everything but your last sentence.

Unfortunately we need to really clean house in washington and those elitists won't go out easy. But I think the military would join the rebelion too. And I'm not sure it would be as bloody as the last one.

And we would have to be careful that other countries don't try to get involved.

glockmail
05-25-2007, 07:17 PM
This is the first I have heard of a so called civil war. It is troubling that so many posters here accept that it "will" happen. The only thing no one is sure about is "when."

A civil war now would be as bloody as it was in the 1860's. That is unless someone uses the N bomb. If this country roils into civil war, it will change the geopolitical face of the earth. It won't be just a civil war, it will be a world war. Imagine this country embroiled in a massive civil war, the enemies of this country (and for that matter any so called western country) will be immediately targeted.

Would like to know more about the context in which Jefferson made his comments. Also, would like to know from those that believe civil war is coming, how it will look and what will be the issues that made us go to war.

I think it will start shortly after Hillary becomes president, raises taxes, screws up the econmy so the budget deficit goes up, then raises taxes again, then grants illegals amnesty and strats re-distribution of weath to pay for the whole thing, then socializes medicine and the oil industry. The last straw will be when she comes for our guns, and some BATF agents get shot, followed by a failed ambush of the presidential motorcade, and she declares marshal law....

Yurt
05-25-2007, 07:48 PM
Shit.

Who then do you think will be the first to pull the proverbial trigger?

Doniston
05-25-2007, 08:35 PM
I agree with everything but your last sentence.

Unfortunately we need to really clean house in washington and those elitists won't go out easy. But I think the military would join the rebelion too. And I'm not sure it would be as bloody as the last one.

And we would have to be careful that other countries don't try to get involved. Fine, but why do you disagree with the last sentence, do you think he is right in his action?

Doniston
05-25-2007, 08:36 PM
I think it will start shortly after Hillary becomes president, raises taxes, screws up the econmy so the budget deficit goes up, then raises taxes again, then grants illegals amnesty and strats re-distribution of weath to pay for the whole thing, then socializes medicine and the oil industry. The last straw will be when she comes for our guns, and some BATF agents get shot, followed by a failed ambush of the presidential motorcade, and she declares marshal law.... And that all dpends on Hilary getting the nod? Do you really beleive she will???

Gaffer
05-25-2007, 09:16 PM
Fine, but why do you disagree with the last sentence, do you think he is right in his action?

I don't think its a power play. If Bush wanted to take power and be a dictator he would have done it years ago. Right after 9/11 was a perfect time. His directive is just a short cut in case of a serious cataclysmic event. Like a giant meteor strike, a super volcano, a massive tsunamy or a nuclear strike. In such a case all middlemen have to be cut out.

glockmail
05-25-2007, 09:18 PM
Shit.

Who then do you think will be the first to pull the proverbial trigger? Someone who doesn't want the BATF taking their guns away. They will be tossed into jail, Hillary will attempt to railroad them, and then there will be an uprising. I could easily see 10,000 rifle weilding guys surrounding some jail and demanding that they be released.

TheSage
05-25-2007, 09:22 PM
If Bush wanted to take power and be a dictator he would have done it years ago..


This is not rational.

Hobbit
05-25-2007, 09:23 PM
I envision the civil war as being a series of riots followed by a surprise attack on Washington D.C. I envision many of those set to guard D.C. turning their guns inward and helping sweep the elites out of power in one fell swoop. Transportation is quick. The army would be indistiguishable from the general population. Unlike the protracted conflicts we've become accustomed to, I see an American Civil war coming to an end in a single weekend.

glockmail
05-25-2007, 09:23 PM
And that all dpends on Hilary getting the nod? Do you really beleive she will??? Rush thinks there is about an 80% chance. I've said all along, well before I heard Rush's prediction, that there is no doubt in my mind that she will be the next president. The Obama thing is a mere distraction, and the only people who could beat her are Reagan, John Wayne, or Jesus.


I am on record as saying that Hillary will be the next president, unless Ronald Reagan or John Wayne comes back to life, or Christ appears and endorses her opponent. http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=36515&postcount=37

glockmail
05-25-2007, 09:25 PM
I envision the civil war as being a series of riots followed by a surprise attack on Washington D.C. I envision many of those set to guard D.C. turning their guns inward and helping sweep the elites out of power in one fell swoop. Transportation is quick. The army would be indistiguishable from the general population. Unlike the protracted conflicts we've become accustomed to, I see an American Civil war coming to an end in a single weekend.
Every war is envisioned as quick and easy, and it never is. You've come up with a likely scenario but you forget that liberals never admit defeat. Look at the libs on this board as an example.

Gaffer
05-25-2007, 09:33 PM
I envision the civil war as being a series of riots followed by a surprise attack on Washington D.C. I envision many of those set to guard D.C. turning their guns inward and helping sweep the elites out of power in one fell swoop. Transportation is quick. The army would be indistiguishable from the general population. Unlike the protracted conflicts we've become accustomed to, I see an American Civil war coming to an end in a single weekend.

yep I agree. Think french revolution.

avatar4321
05-25-2007, 09:37 PM
This is not rational.

Actually it makes perfect sense. If he wanted to assume dictitorial control he wouldnt be allowing the 08 campaigns to start up.

avatar4321
05-25-2007, 09:38 PM
Every war is envisioned as quick and easy, and it never is. You've come up with a likely scenario but you forget that liberals never admit defeat. Look at the libs on this board as an example.

I agree. it wont be quick at all. And it will be bloodier than ever.

Gaffer
05-25-2007, 09:39 PM
Every war is envisioned as quick and easy, and it never is. You've come up with a likely scenario but you forget that liberals never admit defeat. Look at the libs on this board as an example.

like I said think french revolution. Then think of liberals as french royalty.

glockmail
05-25-2007, 09:41 PM
I agree. it wont be quick at all. And it will be bloodier than ever.
Since the liberals gave up their guns, expecting the guv'mint to protect them, it will be mostly their blood, and lots of fun for us. :laugh2:

glockmail
05-25-2007, 09:44 PM
like I said think french revolution. Then think of liberals as french royalty.
Like this:

lily
05-25-2007, 10:45 PM
I think it will start shortly after Hillary becomes president, raises taxes, screws up the econmy so the budget deficit goes up, then raises taxes again, then grants illegals amnesty and strats re-distribution of weath to pay for the whole thing, then socializes medicine and the oil industry. The last straw will be when she comes for our guns, and some BATF agents get shot, followed by a failed ambush of the presidential motorcade, and she declares marshal law....


WOW........that's a pretty stiff agenda. You think she could get all that done in 4 years?:laugh2:

lily
05-25-2007, 10:47 PM
I think perhaps "Civil war" would be a misnomer More like a Rebelion or coup

and before it is brought up, I beleive that the Public would be supported by the Military. And perhaps even instigated by the Military. Bush's recent Power play could even be the trigger.

I also have to disagree with the last statement. I honestly think if the Democrats really pushed for impeachment, that would divide this country enough to do something.

loosecannon
05-25-2007, 10:50 PM
I think it will start shortly after Hillary becomes president, screws up the econmy so the budget deficit goes up, then grants illegals amnesty and strats re-distribution of weath to pay for the whole thing

wait a minute you just described Bush in technically perfect detail.

What the fuck does Hillary have to do with Bush's fuck ups?

loosecannon
05-25-2007, 10:52 PM
like I said think french revolution. Then think of liberals as french royalty.

Think of Bush as French royalty, nimrod quack.

glockmail
05-25-2007, 11:46 PM
WOW........that's a pretty stiff agenda. You think she could get all that done in 4 years?:laugh2: I'm thinking 4 months. :cheers2:

glockmail
05-25-2007, 11:52 PM
wait a minute you just described Bush in technically perfect detail.

What the fuck does Hillary have to do with Bush's fuck ups?

What I wrote: I think it will start shortly after Hillary becomes president, raises taxes, screws up the econmy so the budget deficit goes up, then raises taxes again, then grants illegals amnesty and strats re-distribution of weath to pay for the whole thing,…”

What loose cannon quoted me as writing: “I think it will start shortly after Hillary becomes president, screws up the econmy so the budget deficit goes up, then grants illegals amnesty and strats re-distribution of weath to pay for the whole thing…”

Nice try, shit fer brains. But when you have to lie to make a point, then you haven't made one.

Doniston
05-26-2007, 10:24 AM
I don't think its a power play. If Bush wanted to take power and be a dictator he would have done it years ago. Right after 9/11 was a perfect time. His directive is just a short cut in case of a serious cataclysmic event. Like a giant meteor strike, a super volcano, a massive tsunamy or a nuclear strike. In such a case all middlemen have to be cut out.

OP-vs-OP I disagree.

Doniston
05-26-2007, 10:28 AM
This is not rational. Agreed. I consider what I would do under the same circumstances, (if I wanted to take over the world) and I would wait until just before or after the opening guns of the new campaign, (early 08)to get the most shock effect, and after the troops (public) are somewhat divided.

Doniston
05-26-2007, 10:31 AM
Rush thinks there is about an 80% chance. I've said all along, well before I heard Rush's prediction, that there is no doubt in my mind that she will be the next president. The Obama thing is a mere distraction, and the only people who could beat her are Reagan, John Wayne, or Jesus.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=36515&postcount=37 I sure hope you are wrong, and I really think you are

Doniston
05-26-2007, 10:34 AM
I also have to disagree with the last statement. I honestly think if the Democrats really pushed for impeachment, that would divide this country enough to do something. to do what. I also think we should go for impeachment. Bush would then resign.(so would Chenny)

avatar4321
05-26-2007, 01:51 PM
to do what. I also think we should go for impeachment. Bush would then resign.(so would Chenny)

In order to impeach someone he has to be guilty of some sort of crime. Neither Bush nor Cheney are. You can slander and libel them all you want. Until they actually break a law. you cant do a damn thing to them.

Doniston
05-26-2007, 03:02 PM
In order to impeach someone he has to be guilty of some sort of crime. Neither Bush nor Cheney are. You can slander and libel them all you want. Until they actually break a law. you cant do a damn thing to them.

1. I didn't say anything about impeaching Chenny

2. I beleive you are very much in the minority who think Bush isn't guilty of impeachable offenses. it hasn't been brought because there are too many republicans who would vote against it simply because they are republicans. There is plenty to impeach him for. And those things have been stated time and time again.

Gaffer
05-26-2007, 04:29 PM
Think of Bush as French royalty, nimrod quack.

I think of YOU as french royalty.

avatar4321
05-26-2007, 06:12 PM
1. I didn't say anything about impeaching Chenny

2. I beleive you are very much in the minority who think Bush isn't guilty of impeachable offenses. it hasn't been brought because there are too many republicans who would vote against it simply because they are republicans. There is plenty to impeach him for. And those things have been stated time and time again.

Being in the majority or minority is completely irrelevant to the fact that he hasnt committed any crimes. One is either guilty or not-guilty. Taking a vote doesn't change that.

Gaffer
05-26-2007, 08:18 PM
All I hear on here is impeach, impeach, impeach.

Can some one give something with varifiable evidence to impeach anyone for. A specific charge please. He lied doesn't cut it.

Hobbit
05-26-2007, 09:42 PM
1. I didn't say anything about impeaching Chenny

2. I beleive you are very much in the minority who think Bush isn't guilty of impeachable offenses. it hasn't been brought because there are too many republicans who would vote against it simply because they are republicans. There is plenty to impeach him for. And those things have been stated time and time again.

First off, no, I take it back, loose. THIS is the dumbest thing I've heard all day. You can't possibly be serious.

Second, facts are not up for a vote. They either are or they aren't. It's the same thing with how 'consensus' doesn't matter on the whole global warming scam because...facts are not up for a vote.

OCA
05-26-2007, 09:51 PM
I wouldn't be so sure. If this amnesty bill passes and we're strapped with the 2.5 trillion dollar bill to support all the illegals and the country goes broke, I can see lots of trouble, even civil war.

Why would we be strapped with 2.5 trillion if they become citizens like you and me and start paying taxes etc. etc. etc.?

Fill me in brother.

Pale Rider
05-26-2007, 09:52 PM
Well I think the way bush has totally ignored the millions and millions of illegal aliens pouring over our southern border, and his NAU ambitions damn near rise to an impeachable offense. He swore to protect this country when he took his oath. He's derelict in that duty, in my opinion. What he's done, or better said, NOT done, is facilitate the largest invasion from one country into another in the history of the world. If they moved to impeach him for that, I'd welcome it.

lily
05-26-2007, 09:56 PM
to do what.

....um to start a civil war, which is what this thread is about.


I also think we should go for impeachment. Bush would then resign.(so would Chenny

As nice as it sounds to impeach Bush there really isn't anything he has done that will stick to him. Also as I've said (and what this thread is about) trying to impeach him will divide this country even more than it is. Even the Republicans that "were out of town" duning their senate campaigns when he came into town, would rally around him if impeachment proceedings would begin, citizens would do the same.....not to mention, as I have many times before......it would put a viable candidate running in 2008 and right now the Republicans don't really have on.

Hobbit
05-26-2007, 10:14 PM
Why would we be strapped with 2.5 trillion if they become citizens like you and me and start paying taxes etc. etc. etc.?

Fill me in brother.

Even if they start paying taxes, those in the same income bracket as them get about $3 in tax money spent on them per $1 in taxes paid, still costing us money.

Guernicaa
05-26-2007, 10:19 PM
People aren't as aware or involved in the issues today as they used to be then.
For example, more people cared about the slavery issue than people care about immigration today.

There are so many people who dont know anything about politics. Even if they know a little bit, its not enough where they can identify their stance on all the current issues.

Some just identify themselves as "Democrat" or "Republican" for no reason at all besides the fact that they have to register to vote.

These people also tend to vote more for the person that they like in general...even if they aren't of the same party.

This idea about a "second civil war" can only be dreamed up by the farthest of radicals on each end.

OCA
05-26-2007, 10:34 PM
Even if they start paying taxes, those in the same income bracket as them get about $3 in tax money spent on them per $1 in taxes paid, still costing us money.

Then we got a problem with "already existing citizens" in that tax bracket. That is why I endorse an abolishment of all entitlements and welfare and a massive reduction in taxes.

Regardless of illegals staying or not, we've got and have had a massive income redistribution problem between earners and non-earners in this country, seems to me if you make more and pay more into the system than some schlep who makes 10,000 a year at BK the higher income should get more spent on him.

avatar4321
05-27-2007, 12:00 AM
This idea about a "second civil war" can only be dreamed up by the farthest of radicals on each end.

Dreamed up huh? I hope you are right. Signs point otherwise though.

Hobbit
05-27-2007, 12:20 AM
Then we got a problem with "already existing citizens" in that tax bracket. That is why I endorse an abolishment of all entitlements and welfare and a massive reduction in taxes.

Regardless of illegals staying or not, we've got and have had a massive income redistribution problem between earners and non-earners in this country, seems to me if you make more and pay more into the system than some schlep who makes 10,000 a year at BK the higher income should get more spent on him.

One problem at a time, please. Short of a coup, I don't think we can fix everything in one night, so let's stick to what we can do in the short term.

Geolibertarian
05-27-2007, 01:42 AM
Dreamed up huh? I hope you are right. Signs point otherwise though.

Insanity.

avatar4321
05-27-2007, 02:20 AM
Insanity.

Care to elaborate?