• 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?


  • Total voters
    108
  • Poll closed .
That must make things really confusing for you then. Do you trust yourself?

nah, not confusing at all....you have lied to me, and about me, more in one afternoon than I have lied to myself in 60 years....

some folks are cut out for honesty, some aren't.... the two normally don't get along well.


You could have just manned up and changed your post, you instead chose to double down on your bull****. ....but meh, your character flaws are your problem.
 
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.

trying to validate your dishonesty?.. really?.. why am i not surprised.

sorry bud, but you attributed words to me that were not mine... those were your words .... you simply lied.
lying is not a valid debate technique... and it's a fundamental character flaw.

the only thing worse than a liar is a liar who is trying to convince people lying is good and proper.... **** that.
 
The last election saw an almost 50/50 popular vote. Plus the debates over Healthcare, Gun Control, Etc.

Most elections are pretty close to 50/50. We still get along.... usually.

Our country is growing more divided, but its still no where near on the scale as the division in pre-civil war America. No where close.
 
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.

You call changing someone else's post "debate"? I call it "chicken****."
 
It's between you and Paschendale....or it was until you realized you were in over your head.

A bit of life advice for you, kid: be careful making assumptions about people you don't know.
 
Isn't it funny that those who crow the loudest about the constitution are the ones who threaten violence instead of following the constitutionally created methods for change?

It's not changes to the Constitution that worry us, it's circumventions of the Constitution that worry us. And it's those to execute the latter that don't use the constitutionally created methods.
 
It's not changes to the Constitution that worry us, it's circumventions of the Constitution that worry us. And it's those to execute the latter that don't use the constitutionally created methods.

Oh come on, let's be honest. It is people who interpret the constitution differently than you that worry you. You all think only your interpretation is valid.

In some ways I would love to see that revolution. Purge some of the stupid from the gene pool. Too many innocents any good people would get hurt in addition however.
 
nah, not confusing at all....you have lied to me, and about me, more in one afternoon than I have lied to myself in 60 years....

some folks are cut out for honesty, some aren't.... the two normally don't get along well.


You could have just manned up and changed your post, you instead chose to double down on your bull****. ....but meh, your character flaws are your problem.

I think you might actually be ignorant of what you did wrong, so much so that you think I'm lying, so let me enlighten you. Post #158, you side-stepped Paschendale's post by replying you couldn't finish reading it, a real sad side-step at that. Then, in post 160, I posted a quote from you, and asked you if that's what you really meant to say. Obviously, your couldn't read it thing was a shoddy attempt to get out of a conversation you knew you weren't going to win.

I'm not sure how you made the leap of imagination to me being dishonest, but you then attempted to tell me I was pro gun control, while in post 163 I highlighted your failed attempt at dodging Paschendale's argument, but by then you started to cling to the "but you're a liar!" defense. Then, in a great example of circular logic, you said you wouldn't believe my position on gun control can neither be categorized as pro or anti gun because I was dishonest about my opinion on gun control.

It's all there, pages 16 to 17, friend. The conversation proceeded from there. Again, I'd refer you to post 163 as to your options for the actual debate in this thread. But by now, I'm sure you've conveniently lost all interest in addressing arguments against you.
 
You call changing someone else's post "debate"? I call it "chicken****."

It's called paraphrasing :roll:

Usually, I just think it, but it's occasionally useful to write it out, to point out a person's attempted deceit.
 
A bit of life advice for you, kid: be careful making assumptions about people you don't know.

I don't make assumptions, I make inferences and conclusions based on evidence and experience. I can understand it's hard for people who haven't been around here a long time. But there are patterns that repeat in nearly every debate, and Thrilla fell perfectly into the one I pointed out.
 
Meh, it's just the crazies that are rattling louder than usual. The majority of Americans have no appetite to pick up arms against their own citizens over gay marriage or tax increases on the rich. Especially when most Americans are content with the society they're in. Why would they leave their comfortable middle-class lifestyle to go shoot each other over politics? We're supposed to be a "first-world" country, as they say.
 
It's called paraphrasing :roll:

Usually, I just think it, but it's occasionally useful to write it out, to point out a person's attempted deceit.

You didn't paraphrase what Thrilla said. Claiming that you did really is deceitful, and anybody can go back a few pages and see this for him/herself.
 
Oh come on, let's be honest. It is people who interpret the constitution differently than you that worry you. You all think only your interpretation is valid.

In some ways I would love to see that revolution. Purge some of the stupid from the gene pool. Too many innocents any good people would get hurt in addition however.
This is how I feel as well. If it were possible for idiots to revolt in a way that only got them arrested and permanently removed from society without hurting anybody else, I'd be all for it. Society would be able to progress a lot more easily.
 
I think you might actually be ignorant of what you did wrong, so much so that you think I'm lying, so let me enlighten you. Post #158, you side-stepped Paschendale's post by replying you couldn't finish reading it, a real sad side-step at that. Then, in post 160, I posted a quote from you, and asked you if that's what you really meant to say. Obviously, your couldn't read it thing was a shoddy attempt to get out of a conversation you knew you weren't going to win.
horse****... i'm getting a lil bit tired of you trying to validate your dishonesty.
I was not in conversation with Pash... I merely commented in his delusional opinion the lazy people do not exist.... I won't entertain anyones writing who is either that dumb or that delusional,no sense in wasting my time on such idiocy.
anyways, there was no conversation...I stopped reading his arguments after the first few sentences..... and then your dumba ass chimes in to draw conclusions about me that you dreamed up and try to pass off as fact
you are simply dishonest.






I'm not sure how you made the leap of imagination to me being dishonest, but you then attempted to tell me I was pro gun control, while in post 163 I highlighted your failed attempt at dodging Paschendale's argument, but by then you started to cling to the "but you're a liar!" defense. Then, in a great example of circular logic, you said you wouldn't believe my position on gun control can neither be categorized as pro or anti gun because I was dishonest about my opinion on gun control.
really?... you are not sure how I made the leap?... despite you changing the words of my posts and replacing my words with yours.. despite drawing conclusions that you dreamed up in your little mind... you do not understand how i made the leap?
it seems i have given you too much credit here... i figured you would understand what dishonesty is.... and It's obvious I have erred in that estimation.

listen dude... I did not type what you presented as my post.... those were not my words... they were YOUR words.
YOU were DISHONEST in changing my post... it really is that simple.

as for your position on gun control.. I don't give a flat ****... the overriding issue is that you are dishonest and i do not trust anything you have to say... you have proven yourself to be untrustworthy, period.
seriously dude, it's not my fault you lied.... you will not spin this into being my fault.... I will not allow it.


It's all there, pages 16 to 17, friend. The conversation proceeded from there. Again, I'd refer you to post 163 as to your options for the actual debate in this thread. But by now, I'm sure you've conveniently lost all interest in addressing arguments against you.
I highly doubt more than a few are interested... but for those whom are, your dishonesty is on display here..... your words that you attributed to me have not been changed, not do I expect them to be ( were you possessing of integrity, they would have been changed long ago)

don't be "sure" of things you cannot and do not know... I have zero problem addressing any arguments against me... I do, however, have a problem with dishonest people like you... I will not respond to folks like you with anything but the disdain and incivility they deserve.


if anything comes of this, I would hope it is you learning not to change other peoples post...such dishonesty will not win you favor or benefit your credibility.
 
You didn't paraphrase what Thrilla said. Claiming that you did really is deceitful, and anybody can go back a few pages and see this for him/herself.

If I claimed that was what he actually said, it'd be lying. As it is, I make no effort to disguise the fact that I changed the exact wording he used. Again, the altered version presents an accurate paraphrase. For further analysis, I'd direct you to post 163. Post 184 clearly summarizes the timeline of this conversation, though I leave out you, clownboy, and the recruit; you weren't primarily relevant to Thrilla's attempt at escaping what he knew was a losing battle.

Interesting side note, by now Thrilla has undoubtedly convinced himself that his motivations in dodging Paschendale's post were different from what I've presented. Surely, some wisp of accurate recollection is present, but overall, his mind has probably overwritten his original thoughts on the matter. I just wanted to point out that possibility, I love cognitive science, and I think it's important to note its relevance in daily life.
 
horse****... i'm getting a lil bit tired of you trying to validate your dishonesty.
I was not in conversation with Pash... I merely commented in his delusional opinion the lazy people do not exist.... I won't entertain anyones writing who is either that dumb or that delusional,no sense in wasting my time on such idiocy.
anyways, there was no conversation...I stopped reading his arguments after the first few sentences..... and then your dumba ass chimes in to draw conclusions about me that you dreamed up and try to pass off as fact
you are simply dishonest.

He responded to you, ergo he started a debate with you. You quickly backed out, and the motivations for doing so have been repeated many times in this thread.


really?... you are not sure how I made the leap?... despite you changing the words of my posts and replacing my words with yours.. despite drawing conclusions that you dreamed up in your little mind... you do not understand how i made the leap?
it seems i have given you too much credit here... i figured you would understand what dishonesty is.... and It's obvious I have erred in that estimation.

It's okay, you're obviously too invested in finding your own innocence to think through this rationally; it's become a pride issue for you, and hubris won't let you even conceive you're wrong.

listen dude... I did not type what you presented as my post.... those were not my words... they were YOUR words.
YOU were DISHONEST in changing my post... it really is that simple.

Yeah, I know. But the fact of the matter is, they present your true motivation for responding to Paschendale in the manner that you did. I never claimed you actually said what I addressed, and I made no effort to disguise that I changed your words. Regardless, they present your motivation for ignoring Paschendale's response to your comment.

as for your position on gun control.. I don't give a flat ****... the overriding issue is that you are dishonest and i do not trust anything you have to say... you have proven yourself to be untrustworthy, period.
seriously dude, it's not my fault you lied.... you will not spin this into being my fault.... I will not allow it.

See? Pride issue. To be fair, I made it a pride issue with post 163, and it's hard for you to not go down the path you did at that point. I'll be nice. Maybe up until this point, you actually think I'm claiming that the words addressed were yours. They are not, nor have I ever claimed they are. I have, and do claim, however, that they present your motivation for addressing Paschendale in the way that you did. I've seen it a hundred times, I've done it myself. It's bound to happen when you make comments on threads you're slightly interested in, and receive a lengthy response, as was the case here. You could've completely ignored Paschendale, but you chose to instead dismiss his argument on its face but making a superficial claim.

I highly doubt more than a few are interested... but for those whom are, your dishonesty is on display here..... your words that you attributed to me have not been changed, not do I expect them to be ( were you possessing of integrity, they would have been changed long ago)

If it lets you sleep comfortably, just keep thinking that.

don't be "sure" of things you cannot and do not know... I have zero problem addressing any arguments against me... I do, however, have a problem with dishonest people like you... I will not respond to folks like you with anything but the disdain and incivility they deserve.

Yes...Post #158. I feel it's become a quite common sentiment here, but I feel obligated to say that you just lied.

if anything comes of this, I would hope it is you learning not to change other peoples post...such dishonesty will not win you favor or benefit your credibility.

May I say, I appreciate how straightforward and easy to understand you make yourself, I can pretty much predict what you're going to say next
 
If I claimed that was what he actually said, it'd be lying. As it is, I make no effort to disguise the fact that I changed the exact wording he used. Again, the altered version presents an accurate paraphrase. For further analysis, I'd direct you to post 163. Post 184 clearly summarizes the timeline of this conversation, though I leave out you, clownboy, and the recruit; you weren't primarily relevant to Thrilla's attempt at escaping what he knew was a losing battle.

Interesting side note, by now Thrilla has undoubtedly convinced himself that his motivations in dodging Paschendale's post were different from what I've presented. Surely, some wisp of accurate recollection is present, but overall, his mind has probably overwritten his original thoughts on the matter. I just wanted to point out that possibility, I love cognitive science, and I think it's important to note its relevance in daily life.

why do you keep insisting things about me that aren't true?
 
He responded to you, ergo he started a debate with you. You quickly backed out, and the motivations for doing so have been repeated many times in this thread.
dear lord, you can't even get the basic facts correct.
no, he did not respond to me.. he responded to Code.






It's okay, you're obviously too invested in finding your own innocence to think through this rationally; it's become a pride issue for you, and hubris won't let you even conceive you're wrong.
do you understand how ****ing arrogant you sound?.... who the **** are you to tell me what I'm thinking?
sorry chum, you don't get to make **** up about me and pass it off as fact....you do not know what my thoughts are, you have no way of knowing... stop pretending you do.

Yeah, I know. But the fact of the matter is, they present your true motivation for responding to Paschendale in the manner that you did. I never claimed you actually said what I addressed, and I made no effort to disguise that I changed your words. Regardless, they present your motivation for ignoring Paschendale's response to your comment.
more lies.
Pasch didn't respond to me....and yes, you did pass off your words as mine.... you attributed your words to me... no amount of spinning with allow you to escape the truth.
and again, do not pretend to know my motivation.. you do not.. you are woefully ignorant as to anything i'm thinking.




See? Pride issue. To be fair, I made it a pride issue with post 163, and it's hard for you to not go down the path you did at that point. I'll be nice. Maybe up until this point, you actually think I'm claiming that the words addressed were yours. They are not, nor have I ever claimed they are. I have, and do claim, however, that they present your motivation for addressing Paschendale in the way that you did. I've seen it a hundred times, I've done it myself. It's bound to happen when you make comments on threads you're slightly interested in, and receive a lengthy response, as was the case here. You could've completely ignored Paschendale, but you chose to instead dismiss his argument on its face but making a superficial claim.

I happen to know those words were not mine, I am not confused in the least over whose words those are... I have no problem setting hte record straight, despite your attempts to further your lies.
I happen to know what my motivation is....you do not, you have no way of knowing , yet you still try to claim, as fact, that you hold this knowledge..... your are not short on arrogance, that's for goddamn sure.


If it lets you sleep comfortably, just keep thinking that.
you are not important... i'll sleep well no matter how dishonest you want to be.



Yes...Post #158. I feel it's become a quite common sentiment here, but I feel obligated to say that you just lied.
ahh gee, and here you are claiming to know what i'm thinking again.

give it up dude, you are not a good liar, nor are you a good mind reader.



May I say, I appreciate how straightforward and easy to understand you make yourself, I can pretty much predict what you're going to say next
I'm sure you believe you can read minds.
 
This is how I feel as well. If it were possible for idiots to revolt in a way that only got them arrested and permanently removed from society without hurting anybody else, I'd be all for it. Society would be able to progress a lot more easily.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn: “If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”

The problem though is that reality is much more complicated than that.
 
If I claimed that was what he actually said, it'd be lying. As it is, I make no effort to disguise the fact that I changed the exact wording he used. Again, the altered version presents an accurate paraphrase. For further analysis, I'd direct you to post 163. Post 184 clearly summarizes the timeline of this conversation, though I leave out you, clownboy, and the recruit; you weren't primarily relevant to Thrilla's attempt at escaping what he knew was a losing battle.

Interesting side note, by now Thrilla has undoubtedly convinced himself that his motivations in dodging Paschendale's post were different from what I've presented. Surely, some wisp of accurate recollection is present, but overall, his mind has probably overwritten his original thoughts on the matter. I just wanted to point out that possibility, I love cognitive science, and I think it's important to note its relevance in daily life.

I love watching you trying to tango by yourself. You changed somebody else's words. You've tried to back-pedal by describing this as "paraphrasing," and if you truly love "cognitive science," then you surely hope to serve the integrity that intellectual rigor requires.

So man up. You thought you were being clever, you were called on it, and now it's time to admit what you did. You weren't "paraphrasing" at all; you were inventing a fake quote.
 
I suspect the ones who will be looting and being shot or detained by LE and military will be those who depend on government programs for their survival when the government is no longer able to meet their needs. There may be some civilian violence as those who have defend themselves against those who steal, but in the beginning at least it is more likely the armed citizens will be sitting back defending themselves rather than attacking anybody. The real danger will begin when military weapons get in to the hands of civilians.
 
I suspect the ones who will be looting and being shot or detained by LE and military will be those who depend on government programs for their survival when the government is no longer able to meet their needs. There may be some civilian violence as those who have defend themselves against those who steal, but in the beginning at least it is more likely the armed citizens will be sitting back defending themselves rather than attacking anybody. The real danger will begin when military weapons get in to the hands of civilians.

You dont seem to be hearing who exactly is talking civil war at this time.

Civil War?s A-Brewin?

The Freedom Fighter's Journal: A PATRIOT WRITES OF CIVIL WAR

CIVIL WAR: OBAMA DENIES STATES’ PETITIONS TO SECEDE FROM UNION… | Tea Party

CIVIL WAR: SENATE TO GO FOR HANDGUNS | Tea Party
 

I hear who is talking about it. Sat in a restaurant last week with almost 100 other people who are active members CERT, medical first responders and search and rescue people who were talking about it. What we were discussing was how we keep people safe when those who are living in the cities decide to head out to the mountains to escape the looting and military occupation that will follow a financial crisis. What we mostly train for are natural emergencies, the three biggest concerns here are tornadoes, wild fires and ice storms. But we have to be realistic about other scenarios as well. What do you do when thousands of people flee toward your rural community with a half a tank of gas and a sandwich? Our resources would be wiped out in a big hurry.

BTW, this group started off as the Georgia State Militia back before the "M" word was scary. The state charter actually discusses it and it used to be by county and responsible to the governor's office. But then the state, in the aftermath of a few nutjobs who called themselves militia but did not appear on any state lists anywhere, did some bad things (planned but never executed) discontinued the recognition of the groups thru the state, at least on an official basis. So you know what happened? We contacted FEMA and partnered with them for training. Yup. The group still exists and is growing, except now we get our training fro free thru FEMA and GEMA. The term "militia" still exists in the group's charter, except now we response to FEMA and GEMA but are largely autonomous. Our last alert was for an elderly man (I knew him) who wandered off and died from hypothermia. The call came from the sheriff's office in another county and was passed to us by our sheriff's department. This is a militia group that works for the better interest of the community and hand in hand with local authorities.
 
Back
Top Bottom