Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nikov]

The minority that would be reactionary/radical enough to launch a revolt are too weak to defeat the American Military, anyway. Look at Canada's FLQ during the 60s/70s, for example. I doubt the Tea Party could muster the force to actually win a civil war, let alone try one.

For a better example, look at the 60's in the United States. The 1860's. It could be argued the better half of the American military's officer corps defected and their best man, Lee, was against slavery. Not that we need to open that can of worms (here at least) but really, you can't assume the Army or Marines will react in lockstep one way or the other.

Unless you're suggesting that the Tea Partiers are going to convince entire States to defect with them and rally against the United States of America, this actually has nothing to do with the likelihood of a civil war.

I do not raise auspices about the likelihood, in fact I find it incredibly unlikely. However there are circumstances under which a civil war becomes likely to happen, and under some of those circumstances the military won't side with their nominal chain of command. That's all I'm saying.

Alway, I'm surprised at you. You have both contested the current rabble-rousing is done knowingly by corporate shills and yet at the same time corporations have an interest in not rocking the boat. Please clarify your point or eliminate the contradictions.

[mainiac]

The corporations want a government that is too weak and divided to provide benefits to the needy of society or divert their profits into investments in the future but strong enough to maintain rule of law.  It's a pretty big gap.

Edit: although it's less the corporations and more a rather small slate of right wing asshole billionaires and a large slate of suits who look up to them as gods.  Corporations want nothing.  CEO's and douchebag stock analysts...

[scriver]

I do not raise auspices about the likelihood, in fact I find it incredibly unlikely. However there are circumstances under which a civil war becomes likely to happen, and under some of those circumstances the military won't side with their nominal chain of command. That's all I'm saying.

Alway, I'm surprised at you. You have both contested the current rabble-rousing is done knowingly by corporate shills and yet at the same time corporations have an interest in not rocking the boat. Please clarify your point or eliminate the contradictions.

The "corporations" want political power and/or people who cater to them in the government. They support the people who they know will do so - Tea Partists (partiers?). That does not mean not mean they want actual civil war. The revolutionary rhetoric is just a means to an end, namely, rousing the rabble and getting members.
That is my take on what they've been saying. Not exactly a contradiction.

[Phmcw]

I love how a lot of poeple are all "don't start pointing fingers at a party in the midst of such a tragedy".

*On October 9, 2009, House candidate Robert Lowry of Florida held an event at a Broward County gun range during which he fired at a series of symbolic political targets, including a silhouette with his opponent Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz's initials on it.

*On January 10, 2010, Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle spoke of the need for "Second Amendment remedies" to congressional policies, and hinted that such remedies might be needed to address "the Harry Reid problems."

*On May 10, 2010, House candidate Brad Goerhing from California's 11th District wrote on his Facebook page: "If I could issue hunting permits, I would officially declare today opening day for liberals. The season would extend through November 2 and have no limits on how many taken as we desperately need to 'thin' the herd."

*On June 12, 2010, Rep. Giffords' very own Republican opponent Jesse Kelly held an event advertised locally as follows: "Get on Target for Victory in November. Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office. Shoot a fully automatic M16 With Jesse Kelly." Get that again. Remove Giffords. Shoot an M16.

*On October 21, 2010, Dallas pastor and House candidate Stephen Broden, said the violent overthrow of the U.S. government in 2010 should not be "the first option," but citizens ought to use "any means necessary" and that violence should remain an option "on the table."

These weren't 22-year-old loners or even local talk-radio hosts. These were candidates for Congress! Find me five Democrats from this past election who talked like that about their opponents or their government. Find me one.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2011/jan/10/usa-nasty-rhetoric-about-guns

Put the blame on those that deserve it. Especially if the result is several murder over several year.
Bill Gwatney, George Tiller, ...

[Decimator]

These weren't 22-year-old loners or even local talk-radio hosts. These were candidates for Congress! Find me five Democrats from this past election who talked like that about their opponents or their government. Find me one.

http://nation.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/10/obama-flashback-if-they-bring-knife-fight-we-bring-gun

Huh, that was easy.

[Urist is dead tome]

And remember, right now a huge chunk of the army is overseas.

Which we don't need because we have about one hundred thousand reserve and active duty Marines, and about two hundred thousand reserve and active soldiers. I think that enough to take care of a coupla riots. That's not even covering the National Guard.

[RedKing]

If you're seriously contemplating a 2nd American Civil War, this thread has gone off the rails.

You're seriously contemplating a 2nd American Civil War.

Hence, this thread has gone off the rails.

[Phmcw]

These weren't 22-year-old loners or even local talk-radio hosts. These were candidates for Congress! Find me five Democrats from this past election who talked like that about their opponents or their government. Find me one.

http://nation.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/10/obama-flashback-if-they-bring-knife-fight-we-bring-gun

Huh, that was easy.

Yup, fox news dug up a Washington time article that made a undocumented claim that Obama had mentioned a gun. The whole thing out of context. You must be watching fox news a lot.

[Decimator]

The washington times is an unacceptable source now?

Really?

[inteuniso]

Simply because they took the quote out of context. Pretty much all media does it, to add drama.

[Duke 2.0]

 Every media source is taking things out of context, becoming Fox News.

 Fox News takes quotes out of context.

 Thus every media source is becoming Fox News.

[Aqizzar]

Every media source is taking things out of context, becoming Fox News.

 Fox News takes quotes out of context.

 Thus every media source is becoming Fox News.

Hmm... Where have I heard that kind of additory logical reasoning before... Hmm...

[mainiac]

These weren't 22-year-old loners or even local talk-radio hosts. These were candidates for Congress! Find me five Democrats from this past election who talked like that about their opponents or their government. Find me one.

http://nation.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/10/obama-flashback-if-they-bring-knife-fight-we-bring-gun

Huh, that was easy.

Pure and utter bullshit.  One is saying that violence is good.  The other is using a "metaphor."  That's the difference.  Unless you actually can point out a knife fight that Obama participated in.

The intellectual hollowness of the conservative movement is never more on display then when they engage in semantics.

[GaelicVigil]

These weren't 22-year-old loners or even local talk-radio hosts. These were candidates for Congress! Find me five Democrats from this past election who talked like that about their opponents or their government. Find me one.

http://nation.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/10/obama-flashback-if-they-bring-knife-fight-we-bring-gun

Huh, that was easy.

Pure and utter bullshit.  One is saying that violence is good.  The other is using a "metaphor."  That's the difference.  Unless you actually can point out a knife fight that Obama participated in.

The intellectual hollowness of the conservative movement is never more on display then when they engage in semantics.

Don't move the goal post.  He answered the question pretty directly.

Here's another Democrat inciting violence

[mainiac]

Amazing, apparently Obama is "inciting violence" now, judging from your previous post.  And btw, Matthews ain't a Democratic official in any way shape or form.  Do you really want to compare the shit Chris Matthews says to the shit that the likes of Glenn Beck says?

Show me a point, anywhere, where democrats, actual elected democrats, advocate using violence against the opposition.  Then we can talk about 'moving the goalpost'.

The phrase 'have you at long last no shame, no sense of decency?' would spring to mind when thinking about the conservative response to this tragedy, except that question has been answered long before.