The Post-Millenium U.S. Civil War

I distinctly remember saying, several times, in the Backroom over the past week that I would consider voting Democrat, if only I could find one even remotely palatable. Translation: Not voting Democrat either.

I'm voting Libertarian. It's not throwing my vote away. I used to think that, but you know, if everyone buys that party line, then we're just as guilty of the status quo as the clowns in Washington. It's time for a change. Hell, I'd even vote for Nader at this point, not because I agree with him on a single issue, but at least I can believe that HE believes in it...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I distinctly remember saying, several times, in the Backroom over the past week that I would consider voting Democrat, if only I could find one even remotely palatable. Translation: Not voting Democrat either.

I'm voting Libertarian. It's not throwing my vote away. I used to think that, but you know, if everyone buys that party line, then we're just as guilty of the status quo as the clowns in Washington. It's time for a change. Hell, I'd even vote for Nader at this point, not because I agree with him on a single issue, but at least I can believe that HE believes in it...

---

So vote for candidates that are supported by the Republican Liberty Caucas. These are libertarians who actually try to get things done by working within the system to get their candidates elected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eclectic

How can you possibly argue polarization and similarity in the same thread?

---

I think what Don tried to say is that both parties do the same dirty tricks and in the end care more for their own power than for their average voter. In that sense they are similar. On the other hand there is polarization as the Democrats portray the Rupiblicans as "evil" and vice versa. It's up to the voter to see through the polarization.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke John

I think what Don tried to say is that both parties do the same dirty tricks and in the end care more for their own power than for their average voter. In that sense they are similar. On the other hand there is polarization as the Democrats portray the Rupiblicans as "evil" and vice versa. It's up to the voter to see through the polarization.

---

Well I can't argue with that. You are 100% correct.

There is only one real distinguishing difference: The Democrat Party Platform is to consolidate power and expand government. The Republican Party does not have that platform, and while they may have made some decisions contrary to their own party platform, it has only made them weaker. Thus I choose the party that screwed up and made mistakes over the party that will intentionally choose to make mistakes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eclectic

Well I can't argue with that. You are 100% correct.

There is only one real distinguishing difference: The Democrat Party Platform is to consolidate power and expand government. The Republican Party does not have that platform, and while they may have made some decisions contrary to their own party platform, it has only made them weaker. Thus I choose the party that screwed up and made mistakes over the party that will intentionally choose to make mistakes.

---

Ah you see this is where I would differ - i would vote for neither party and vote for a platform that fits me better - for instance, the libertarian platform. Unfortunately, there is an idea in this country that not voting is better than voting for the third-party since "they'll never win anyways."

Yeah, and the Republican party was once essentially a third-party that eventually garnered support and power.

What's actually really ironic is that once, a long time ago, the Republican party was the big party on federal government and federal power while the Democrats were the grass-roots states-right party. Now, they're just parties to get re-elected for these professional politicians.

See, Eclectic, your viewpoint is tiring because you absolutely view "the other side" as a terrible monster hell-bent on destroying the world the moment it is crowned on the throne, and "your side" as something of an angel-gone-wrong or a lost child that ought to be brought back to its original position, or something...

That is exactly the problem with America today.

Look, Democrats and Republicans are terrible terms to describe a political position, so why not just throw these damn names out of the window and look at the person for once? Who cares if you -- by God's evil grace -- have to vote a DONKEY!!! instead of a freakin' ELEPHANT!!! if the individual whom you're voting for supports the political position of yours?

What the United States require is a breakdown of the ancien regime and the rise of a more fragmented one; but, then again, what's a liberal's voice worth?

I want to hear more about this civil war. When is it going to start? Do I have enough canned goods and shotgun ammunition? Will it be more of a classic civil war, or will it quickly turn into a battle between villagers and the Lord Humongous and his leathermen?

Details, I want details.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

I'm impressed by your observation skills. The assumed fortress of leftist liberal agenda, Scandinavia and northern Europe haven't noticed this yet. :laugh4:

---

Speak for yourselfe. I think Swedish media is left-vinged.

A large majority of journalists are lefties too...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radier

Speak for yourselfe. I think Swedish media is left-vinged.

A large majority of journalists are lefties too...

---

And that indicates that they're a coherent and vital part of a bigger plan to get the NWO to unite the world under the banner of Socialism (non-democratic version) how?

As for media bias, always ask yourself what truly unbiased news would look like, compare it how it's reported and compare it to how you would have it reported.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I want to hear more about this civil war. When is it going to start? Do I have enough canned goods and shotgun ammunition? Will it be more of a classic civil war, or will it quickly turn into a battle between villagers and the Lord Humongous and his leathermen?

Details, I want details.

---

If your wife makes me brownie's with lots of nuts and chocolate. I promise that my hordes of gimp suited leathermen will save your current state of residence for last when we begin our conquest of the former United States of America when the civil war does erupt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eclectic

So here is an issue where the a human child is killed as it is born and there is no danger to the mother. The Republicans want to ban JUST THAT, and what do the majority of Dems think? *Ahem* *Cough cough*

Don't tell me the Republicans are polarized issue by issue. If anyone is being claimed by the fiddle, is is our prestigious Godfather. This liberal media machine is wrappings its dirty little claws around good conservatives and it makes me sick.

---

"partial birth abortion" is a populist misnomer that pro-life politicians have created for specific mid or late abortions. This alone was probably a reason for many democrats to vote against it.
Some interesting information for both sides: clickey (warning: contains descriptions that might unsettle you)

Personally I'm against abortion after 2 months of pregnancy. I'm therefore against the method, as it's not used before the second trimester.

Broadly speaking, Democrats and Republicans differ more in their empty rethoric then in their actions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eclectic

I'm no conspiracy theorist. UFOs, Area 51, "Bush Lied", 9/11 was missles, Saquatch, the boogie man: These are all just vehicles for the extremist paranoid or those that make money off them. Despite this, I'm starting to see a really scary trend in the United States that bodes ill for all: The leftist liberal agenda to dominate the world. I know I know.

---

My, feeling a bit paranoid today, Eclectic?

Reid my lips: there is no leftist liberal conspiracy in the US.

Does it seem a bit perverse to anyone else to name your lips after Harry Reid?

Viva la Revolution I always say.

Yo, Eclectic:

:wink3:




https://img79.imageshack.us/img79/4248/vacaani3ws4.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanamori

Does it seem a bit perverse to anyone else to name your lips after Harry Reid?

---

I couldn't nail the Sheehanigan or Obama Bin Laden puns I had in mind at first. :balloon2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanamori

It's funny how such a leftistist-liberal culture and nation have elected such a conservative majority... Am I missing something? Maybe the reason you and Dave see such bleak-'liberal' futures is becasue you spend your time feeding your strange obsessions w/ disgusting yourselves by looking for the most outlandish 'liberal' talk that you can find on the internet.

---

Aye. We came so close though in 2004. In reality Gore lost the popluar vote by about 1.5 million. Still, made it all the way to the Leftist Supreme Court which had been eroding the laws for so long.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

"partial birth abortion" is a populist misnomer that pro-life politicians have created for specific mid or late abortions. This alone was probably a reason for many democrats to vote against it.
Some interesting information for both sides: clickey (warning: contains descriptions that might unsettle you)

Personally I'm against abortion after 2 months of pregnancy. I'm therefore against the method, as it's not used before the second trimester.

Broadly speaking, Democrats and Republicans differ more in their empty rethoric then in their actions.

---

Very, very interesting website, Kralizec. I would say I found it enlightening, except, in the "Why are they performed section", there are absolutely no references, no statistics to prove that it's always in the case of: life of mother; long term health of mother; fetus already dead or will die.

It's been a little while, but when this issue came up last year, I found a statistic on the Planned Parenthood webpage that estimated 3100 D&E's are performed a year and approximately 60% of those were elective.

But it's gonna take me a while to find that link again, so if you want to call BullShhhhht, I can't back it up right now. I just know it's a lot more elective than you or that website think (and I'm pro-choice in the first trimester).

Back on topic... I don't know, laugh all you want. Eclectic's not the only guy on the right to echo these sentiments (though I wish he'd set them aside). Likewise, there's plenty on the far left Daily Kos crowd that are equally ready to start shooting up malls in red states...

People... at the end of the day... we're on the same side.

Bah! When the revolution comes I'm seizing control of my corner of the state. Then I'll control a majority of the US's raspberry production! (I think) (not to mention a lot of oil production).

Seriously, I get angry whenever I see people self righteously arguing for estate taxes (they're fair, they help the next generation...wtf? How, by taking their parents money and destroying inter-generational businesses?) or partial birth abortion. It's not so much that they're for it, its the arrogant sense of superiourity, the "its for the good of the people" line. I'm sick of the socialists and wish we could ship them all out to china or cuba.

Of course, the drunken sailor GOP is not much better.

But still, we've had congress and the presidency for what, six years? And basically nothing done. No stupid gun laws repealed, no large regulations done away with, nothing.

I think, if it came to civil war, it'd be armed & angry conservatives on one side and the lefties in power with their ATF and other assorted thugs. Most of them fear guns, after all.

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

But still, we've had congress and the presidency for what, six years? And basically nothing done. No stupid gun laws repealed, no large regulations done away with, nothing.

---

Well, at least we got a tax cut.... and um.... the AWB sunset? Hmm, nope, not alot for 6 years. :no:

I think the biggest achievement has been the SCOTUS appointments- but we still need at least one more of them. That'd be great, but still not a very impressive resume.

I don't agree with estate taxes. Let me state that first and foremost. But by the same token, I understand and can respectfully disagree with them.

The idea behind estate taxes is that the USA is supposed to be a meritocracy, not a hereditary oligarchy. We all talk about 'the level playing field'. How level is it if Carlton No-brain IV gets $15 million and a seat on Mobil-Exxon's board at age 21?

The problem that I have with the argument, which has its merits, is that there is a presumption that the wealth held by an individual in reality belongs to the government and is only on loan to said individual for the duration of their corporeal life. Any argument that relies on the assumption that government creates wealth (it doesn't) or generates productivity (it cannot) is inherently flawed. All a government can do is redistribute.

At the end of the day, the argument for estate taxes is the same argument for any sort of collectivization (which most people see as wrong). The only difference is, the victim of the collectivization in this case cannot plead their case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

. Any argument that relies on the assumption that government creates wealth (it doesn't) or generates productivity (it cannot) is inherently flawed. All a government can do is redistribute.

---

If the government cannot create wealth nor generate productivity, what is the best that we can say for it when it comes to those two topics. How can they effect wealth and productivity ? Only in a negative manner ? Can they spur, if not wealth, productivity ?

As to redistribution, isn't that focusing on the action and not the result ? Does Peyton Manning produce touchdowns or does he merely throw passes ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Likewise, there's plenty on the far left Daily Kos crowd that are equally ready to start shooting up malls in red states...

---

I kinda doubt it. The left in this country, from what I've seen, is more apathetic than anything else. If you want fire, thunder and threat of secession, you really have to go to the far right. It goes without saying that religious extremists can provide all of the end-of-world scenarios you could ever want.

If you have any examples of violent, revolutionary rhetoric from the left, I'd love to see it. I don't read Kos, so it's very possible I'm missing out on the fun ...

Killing over petty issues of politics, how pathetic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I kinda doubt it. The left in this country, from what I've seen, is more apathetic than anything else. If you want fire, thunder and threat of secession, you really have to go to the far right. It goes without saying that religious extremists can provide all of the end-of-world scenarios you could ever want.

If you have any examples of violent, revolutionary rhetoric from the left, I'd love to see it. I don't read Kos, so it's very possible I'm missing out on the fun ...

---

There's kooks on both sides to be sure. -A quick example would be Al Franken physically beating down a heckler at a Howard Dead rally...:dizzy2: And you must not remember all the sucession talk going around in liberal circles post election. Google for "liberal secession" if you want to hear from the kook left blogosphere on the matter. Then there were the people who applied to emigrate to Canada... or went to Japan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whyidie

If the government cannot create wealth nor generate productivity, what is the best that we can say for it when it comes to those two topics. How can they effect wealth and productivity ? Only in a negative manner ? Can they spur, if not wealth, productivity ?

As to redistribution, isn't that focusing on the action and not the result ? Does Peyton Manning produce touchdowns or does he merely throw passes ?

---

Show me how the government creates wealth or produces anything. They don't. They simply transfer funds from one party to another: taking by taxing and giving by appropriation.

The US government didn't pay to build the Seawolf, you and I did. They didn't build it, General Dynamics did. All they did was take money from one party and give it to another.

The government can incentivize. Through their tax policies, they can encourage certain behaviors and inhibit others. Example: the government wants you to own a house, as countless reams of data show that when you own a house, you're a more compliant, obediant citizen. So, they allow you to deduct your mortgage interest on your taxes, encouraging you to purchase a house (as there is no deduction for rent paid). But they didn't build the house. They didn't buy it and they didn't sell it.

Now, there is another whole school of thought which I believe Idaho believes in. (If I'm wrong, I hope he'll politely correct me, as it's an honest mistake). It's one of those fundamental principle type of arguments... do you believe a drawing is a white page with black lines or a black page with white shapes?

You can't argue conclusively that all wealth is private enterprise or collective enterprise. You can only as a society agree that it's one or it's the other. If society agrees to structure itself that way, Idaho's argument that 100% of your salary belongs to the government and you're allowed to keep some as a tax exemption is in fact perfectly valid, within that framework. Fortunately, we in the USA don't operate in that framework. We have collectively agreed upon private enterprise.

Lemur,
Remind me to show you some of the websites from right after the November elections. I was actually pretty shocked and surprised to see the vitriol and the demand from the far Left that we separate into two countries, red and blue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Show me how the government creates wealth or produces anything. They don't. They simply transfer funds from one party to another: taking by taxing and giving by appropriation.

The US government didn't pay to build the Seawolf, you and I did. They didn't build it, General Dynamics did. All they did was take money from one party and give it to another.

The government can incentivize. Through their tax policies, they can encourage certain behaviors and inhibit others. Example: the government wants you to own a house, as countless reams of data show that when you own a house, you're a more compliant, obediant citizen. So, they allow you to deduct your mortgage interest on your taxes, encouraging you to purchase a house (as there is no deduction for rent paid). But they didn't build the house. They didn't buy it and they didn't sell it.

---

So Peyton Manning does not score touchdowns, he merely distributes the ball and incents good behaviour with his wide receivers and running backs ? What a worthless sack.


Actually, to use your Seawolf analogy, Payton didn't score touchdowns, but neither did Marvin Harrison. You and I did! Because its our entertainment money at work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Remind me to show you some of the websites from right after the November elections. I was actually pretty shocked and surprised to see the vitriol and the demand from the far Left that we separate into two countries, red and blue.

---

Are you talking about that hilarious map that was being sent around? I thought that was all in good fun:

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...esusland-1.jpg

Do you realize that that map is almost exactly the old Imperial British territory?

Its like this in Europe either, no one cares, no one votes and no politician beleives in anything. Maybe you'll have a Civil War but you'll have to fight Islam, China and Europe first.

The next twenty years are going to read like Tom Clancy.