• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is the United States Nearing a Civil War?

Is the United States Nearing a Civil War?

  • Yes, Any further Obama backed Legislation might cause a Civil War.

    Votes: 4 3.7%

  • Maybe, It matters what happens in the near future.

    Votes: 21 19.4%

  • No, The U.S. is not nearing a Civil War.

    Votes: 70 64.8%

  • Somewhat, People like Alex Jones will cause the nation to further split along their opinion lines.

    Votes: 2 1.9%

  • Not Possibly, This is just a small uproar that will soon pass over.

    Votes: 11 10.2%
  • Total voters
    108
  • Poll closed .
code1211 said:
There are people who believe, as I do, that the country should strive as much as possible to not be in debt and that part of the road to this goal is to have rational tax program that while being progressive, demands contributions by all.

There are those who believe that the size of the debt makes no difference and that the need to pay taxes is the responsibility of someone else.

People in the former group take pride in making their own way, paying for their own living and not being a burden on others.

People in the later group demand as a birth right the standard of living that they envy enough to want, but not enough to earn.
Click to expand...

So long as this delusion persists about a substantial class of people who refuse to work, and who mooch off the efforts of others, then we will never have real political progress. There is no fact in this assertion. There are not two kinds of people, hardworking and lazy. There's really only the hardworking kind. The latter kind is a fictional construct created to justify blaming poor people for being poor, so as to allow a person to rationalize not helping them. So long as we allow the one of the main political mantras in this country to be that the poor deserve to be poor because they are of low moral fiber and will not take the same opportunities that we take, we cannot make progress. So long as we make decisions based on fantasy, rather than reality, we will never make significant enough to change to bring people up out of poverty, expand the middle class in this country, and build a strong economic force that can keep the United States on top for the next several centuries.

As to a civil war? I don't know. I can think of three situations where one might happen.

All the bigots, crazies, and Tea Party types running around keep threatening to rise up in a revolt, but they would surely lose. Their war would be with the entire structure of the American government, and basically to secure lots of freedoms for themselves and to destroy them for anyone else. It's not righteous and they would be completely alone in it.

Keep kicking the poor so much and they might rise up, and they would have a legit cause that a lot of others might take up. Nothing like desperate times to make people take desperate measures. I don't know if they would be alone in their actions. A lot of people feel that great injustice is being done to the poor of this country, being kept off the social ladder, with no means to advance. But I don't know if they feel that way enough to take up arms when they are not affected. It could go either way.

The increased militarization and "security" of our country might continue and lead to real fascist policies, which could lead to a revolution against the government. That one would be a lot trickier to win, since it's the scenario where there would be the greatest divide between government and people. The former has far more resources. That's the revolution that the gun folks want to fight, but it's the least likely to happen, and also probably the hardest to win, since we would be that much further from a free society by then. Rather than fight it, I'd rather stop it from coming in the first place. I don't see how any political ideology can include more surveillance on people, searching people and invading their privacy. The government should not be in the business of spying on people, not with cameras, not tapping our phones, not reading our e-mails, not scanning our bodies at the airport, nor stopping and hassling us on the street without cause.

Either way, change will come slowly, and slow change is a pretty solid deterrent against drastic actions. I don't think any kind of revolt or civil war is likely to happen.
 
Paschendale if you really believe that lazy people who abuse the system truly do not exist, you are so naive I doubt it'd be worth the trouble to show you video of the lot who work only as long as it takes to qualify for another year of unemployment, or make horribly immoral decisions because otherwise they would lose benefits.

Tell me you accept that at least one such person exists, let alone thousands. Its not the "two types of people in this world" as if 1/2 the population are looters, but we all exist on a continuum. There are some independent types, some full blown looters, alot of people who benefit from looting indirectly but still contribute to society (perhaps more than they get.) Then there are some who truly get more than they give, and will wield all the political power they can to protect their sacred cows.
 
Somerville said:
MMC wrote a lot of words and cites a very right wing historian in an attempt to support what I consider to be a rather distorted view of reality. There was one sentence however, that caught my eye as a prime example of historical ignorance



Right about what? That free markets provide a great living for less than one percent of the population? But then we may end up in a debate over the definition of "free markets" - which would take this thread off topic
Click to expand...

Yeah MMC put up what the good Professor had to say. The one that comes from very Right Wing John Hopkins University.....huh?
rolleyes.png


Myself I can believe the Country has taken a step closer.....whether you believe so or not.

Now as to disputing the Professor who studied the French Revolutions and the American Revolution.....which what was his Master was all about. Perhaps he might take notice of how you think his view is a distortion of reality.

Myself.....I wouldn't really have a concern.

As to those Markets.....would you rather have trade Restricted and not have Free trade with whomever?
shrug.gif
 
Thrilla said:
good luck with your war on corporations, money, and business... i'm sure you will be victorious one day and those evil bastards will be done away with :lol:
Click to expand...

Oh you misunderstood.....huh? Guess thats what happens when ones makes assumptions. I don't think I should have to war against corporations, money and business.

That's the good professor pointing out all those activists groups doing so over their own issue whatever it may be. Then like the poor over food and or property. Especially once manipulated to do so.
read2.gif
 
earthworm said:
We simply wish to improve things, without any war..
A dialog, is all we need for now.....at least for me...
However, if "one-way conversations" continue, then..........
And, I'll go as far as to say that accepting things as they are now is "un-American"./
Click to expand...

you can have any dialogue you want to... but if your solutions include infringing on other peoples rights, the conversation should rightfully end there...you've crossed the line

you don't have to accept things they way they are now... but as I said, infringing on other peoples rights is a no-no... and thus far, that's all the anti-gun side has for solutions.
abiding by the US Constitution is rather American... violating it is decidedly unAmerican... choose your side wisely.
 
Paschendale said:
So long as this delusion persists about a substantial class of people who refuse to work, and who mooch off the efforts of others, then we will never have real political progress. There is no fact in this assertion. There are not two kinds of people, hardworking and lazy. There's really only the hardworking kind. The latter kind is a fictional construct created to justify blaming poor people for being poor, so as to allow a person to rationalize not helping them. So long as we allow the one of the main political mantras in this country to be that the poor deserve to be poor because they are of low moral fiber and will not take the same opportunities that we take, we cannot make progress. So long as we make decisions based on fantasy, rather than reality, we will never make significant enough to change to bring people up out of poverty, expand the middle class in this country, and build a strong economic force that can keep the United States on top for the next several centuries.

As to a civil war? I don't know. I can think of three situations where one might happen.

All the bigots, crazies, and Tea Party types running around keep threatening to rise up in a revolt, but they would surely lose. Their war would be with the entire structure of the American government, and basically to secure lots of freedoms for themselves and to destroy them for anyone else. It's not righteous and they would be completely alone in it.

Keep kicking the poor so much and they might rise up, and they would have a legit cause that a lot of others might take up. Nothing like desperate times to make people take desperate measures. I don't know if they would be alone in their actions. A lot of people feel that great injustice is being done to the poor of this country, being kept off the social ladder, with no means to advance. But I don't know if they feel that way enough to take up arms when they are not affected. It could go either way.

The increased militarization and "security" of our country might continue and lead to real fascist policies, which could lead to a revolution against the government. That one would be a lot trickier to win, since it's the scenario where there would be the greatest divide between government and people. The former has far more resources. That's the revolution that the gun folks want to fight, but it's the least likely to happen, and also probably the hardest to win, since we would be that much further from a free society by then. Rather than fight it, I'd rather stop it from coming in the first place. I don't see how any political ideology can include more surveillance on people, searching people and invading their privacy. The government should not be in the business of spying on people, not with cameras, not tapping our phones, not reading our e-mails, not scanning our bodies at the airport, nor stopping and hassling us on the street without cause.

Either way, change will come slowly, and slow change is a pretty solid deterrent against drastic actions. I don't think any kind of revolt or civil war is likely to happen.
Click to expand...

I quit reading after you opined that lazy folks do not exist.
 
Thrilla said:
of course I meant government agents with guns not civilians.... der.

government agents with guns are good for your sort.. civilians with guns are bad..... same old song and dance.
Click to expand...

Thanks for destroying your own credibility...again. You'd think people would realize broad generalizations and stereotypes like yours make them look ridiculously ignorant, not to mention like enormous ideologues.
 
Thrilla said:
I don't know how to respond to your argument, so I'll attempt to belittle and ridicule you, and highlight my inability to debate the facts.
Click to expand...

I think that's what you were trying to say, right? It's not hard to respond to thought-out argument, if you've got the mind for it.
 
repeter said:
I think that's what you were trying to say, right? It's not hard to respond to thought-out argument, if you've got the mind for it.
Click to expand...

oh looky.. another dishonest person roaming the halls.

you need to edit your post and remove my name from your words.
 
repeter said:
Thanks for destroying your own credibility...again. You'd think people would realize broad generalizations and stereotypes like yours make them look ridiculously ignorant, not to mention like enormous ideologues.
Click to expand...

is this where you pretend to be pro-2nd amendment?
 
Thrilla said:
oh looky.. another dishonest person roaming the halls.

you need to edit your post and remove my name from your words.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's why I stepped in, and corrected you. You're welcome.

At the same time, it's great you understand that you're dishonest! Getting past denial is the first step :lol:

Now, how about this, you go back, admit Paschendale's post intimidated you, and then you address it.

I'm not holding my breath though. I can already see you complaining that there's nothing to address, or that Paschendale's post doesn't merit a reply. Don't worry though, at this point, we all expect you to ignore a substantive debate.

What's that thing that other guy says all the time? Dodge noted?

Well, your dodge here is noted.

P.S. You could surprise us all, gain some credibility and some respect if you address his post.
 
Thrilla said:
is this where you pretend to be pro-2nd amendment?
Click to expand...

No, not hardly. I'm not pro or against. The 2nd amendment requires an approach too nuanced to be called for or against.
 
repeter said:
Yes, that's why I stepped in, and corrected you. You're welcome.

At the same time, it's great you understand that you're dishonest! Getting past denial is the first step :lol:

Now, how about this, you go back, admit Paschendale's post intimidated you, and then you address it.

I'm not holding my breath though. I can already see you complaining that there's nothing to address, or that Paschendale's post doesn't merit a reply. Don't worry though, at this point, we all expect you to ignore a substantive debate.

What's that thing that other guy says all the time? Dodge noted?

Well, your dodge here is noted.

P.S. You could surprise us all, gain some credibility and some respect if you address his post.
Click to expand...

sorry liar, I will not address any you say until you stop lying and change your post.

do it now.
 
Thrilla said:
sorry liar, I will not address any you say until you stop lying and change your post.

do it now.
Click to expand...

Yes, we all thought so. I'm curious, why would you join if you have no intention of actually debating politics?

Again, your dodge is noted
 
repeter said:
Yes, we all thought so. I'm curious, why would you join if you have no intention of actually debating politics?

Again, your dodge is noted
Click to expand...

I have no problem debating/discussing anything... I just have a problem with liars.

you have the power to put the discussion on the right track, but that would take honesty and integrity on your part... we'll see if you have it in you or not.


correct your post and we can continue... or keep lying... I don't care either way.
 
Thrilla said:
I have no problem debating/discussing anything... I just have a problem with liars.
Click to expand...

How do you live with yourself then?

Thrilla said:
you have the power to put the discussion on the right track, but that would take honesty and integrity on your part... we'll see if you have it in you or not.
Click to expand...

I'm not part of this debate. It's between you and Paschendale....or it was until you realized you were in over your head.

Thrilla said:
correct your post and we can continue... or keep lying... I don't care either way.
Click to expand...

You mean correct your post. And I did that for you already.
 
repeter said:
You mean correct your post. And I did that for you already.
Click to expand...

No, we don't do that here. Changing the posts of others is not an acceptable debate/discussion technique here. By doing so you have invalidated anything further you have to say on the topic.
 
It can only be a Civil War if the insurgents obtain uniforms and have a top military General, or leader. Otherwise it's just criminals getting shot, killed, and arrested.

Besides, I can't pick a side. I'm neutral.
 
clownboy said:
No, we don't do that here. Changing the posts of others is not an acceptable debate/discussion technique here. By doing so you have invalidated anything further you have to say on the topic.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but I do believe I've been around longer than you have. Certainly a longer time period than you. As long as the...technique...doesn't violate the forum rules, it's permissible. To my knowledge, deciphering what another person here says is indeed central to the premise of presenting a rebuttal. If you've never done it before, well I daresay that your debating style is fundamentally flawed.
 
d0gbreath said:
It can only be a Civil War if the insurgents obtain uniforms and have a top military General, or leader. Otherwise it's just criminals getting shot, killed, and arrested.

Besides, I can't pick a side. I'm neutral.
Click to expand...

Except that's not the definition of "civil war".

A civil war is a war between organized groups within the same nation state or republic,[1] or, less commonly, between two countries created from a formerly united nation state.[2] The aim of one side may be to take control of the country or a region, to achieve independence for a region, or to change government policies.
Click to expand...

Source
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom