• 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!

If the long threatened "civil war" breaks out, will you enlist?

If Civil War Breaks Out - Will You Enlist?

  • Total voters
    43
  • Poll closed .
Fishking said:
Fascism incorporates many leftist/socialist ideologies. They differ in other ways but both economic models favor almost complete control of the means of production to benefit the workers. That, most definitely, is not on the right side of the spectrum.

The biggest differences are seen in it's nationalistic bent where socialism prefers a no-nation policy. That's the part of fascism that the dim-witted and low-education people always focus on, always forgetting the leftist economic model of fascism.
Click to expand...

One of Fascism's main tenants is literally "leftism/socialism/ communism/ whatever should be destroyed". That's simply a product of the 1930s, where large amounts of government involvement/control in the economy was a common--- and popular--- theme. That's not proof of "leftism"; that's simply a product of the times.

lol Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy didn't give a **** about the workers. All those slave labor camps are pretty much exhibit A in debunking that idea.

People who think they are smarter than they actually are always dive into the minutiae, ignoring the most basic facts about fascism--- such as its adherents' attempts to totally exterminate "leftists" in their societies.
 
Tangmo said:
The right are also certain they are the patriots and the only patriots. Yet I note General retired Michael Hayden of the Air Force who'd been director of NSA then CIA. He was asked on television whether he'd take the quarterback (Kaepernick) of the president (Trump) and the general said he'd take the quarterback. I have zero doubt Gen. Hayden the four-star speaks for virtually all of the commanders of the armed forces across all the services. The oath of the armed forces commanders is to the national security and sovereignty, republicanism and to democracy itself. So I wouldn't want to be Trump when dawn breaks on their D-Day. Days actually as it will be a gradual and open process rather than anything swift, sudden or secretive. Generals and admirals are naturals when it comes to leadership and inspiring confidence. They are disciplined in going about it. The military is not a democracy yet the mission of the armed forces is to protect democracy, defend it and to preserve it. It leaders restoring democracy and Constitutionalism in the USA will also come naturally to 'em. I don't doubt it for a moment.
Click to expand...

It is interesting that the ONE CENTRAL POINT in that entire Kaepernick caper which is TAMPED DOWN is where the idea of kneeling came from.
The Right is desperately trying to keep anyone from finding out who gave Colin Kaepernick the idea to kneel, because he originally was going to sit out the anthem and he said he had misgivings because he felt that sitting it out WOULD BE disrespectful.

A Green Beret named Nate Boyer talked to Colin and told him that, in his opinion as a Green Beret, kneeling would be perfectly respectful.
Colin Kaepernick decided to kneel on the suggestion of a decorated Green Beret soldier, and the Right can't stand the fact that the suggestion came directly from one of the greatest defenders of democracy on the planet, Nate Boyer.

The Right are absolutely convinced that they are the real patriots, and that it is impossible to even be liberal and be a patriot.
That right there is the most disrespectful action imaginable, because it flies directly in the face of democracy itself.
 
democrats or liberals would never start a civil war period. we would protest and vote people out of power like we have always done. civil war is for rednecks
 
American said:
Weren't we talking about impeachment?
Click to expand...

Are you able to answer my question?
With some on the Right engaged in stirring up anger by mumbling about "possible civil war" (see Alex Jones, for instance - see Rush Limbaugh, for instance, see some on Fox News, like Hannity, for instance) I feel perfectly reasonable asking the question in the poll.

Now you are bringing up impeachment, so I have to ask if you're equating impeachment with...WHAT?
Possible justification for civil war?
Where are these "armies of the Left" which are, in your own words, able to destroy cities?
 
American said:
No I haven't.
Click to expand...

Maybe it's time.
Some on the Right have been VERY busy these last thirty years, especially in the last twenty.
Some of their attacks have changed the entire course of history in this country.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Come on, it's a perfectly valid poll question and you know it.
The whole reason people post polls is to gauge the public, take the temperature.
IT'S CALLED POLLING...oh my God, how else does one gauge the temperament on an issue?
I did not have any pre-conceived notions, I honestly wanted to know.

You think I like breaking balls.
Want to know the truth? I think it's tiresome most of the time.
The only time I really do enjoy it is when it's with people I know well enough that everyone knows it's just for grins.
More often than not, in cases like that, it's entertaining, even funny.
My best friends and I, it's the coin of the realm, it's our ****ing OXYGEN.
And I come from an Italian family, so you know how that works as a family dynamic.

People I don't really know, or barely know, or only know in an anonymous forum? It's ****ing tedious.
I get a lot more mileage out of tearing apart the subject at hand instead.
The more I am wrong, the more I'll learn, and that's gratifying, because I must be a "gol-durn genius" by now...

jethro.jpg


And I actually spent the better part of fourteen months LISTENING to Alex Jones daily right after 9/11.
That guy actually made some salient points about The Patriot Act so I paid attention.
And at that time, we were living in Dallas, Texas...that's Alex Jones country, so I was in good company, so to speak.
But soon after, he started morphing into what he is today, and I'd had enough.
My wife was relieved, too.
Click to expand...

Part of the problem is that "enlisting" centers on a certain age group, I at 55 would not be accepted in a "military" operation. Would I be underground helping out, you betcha, so what exactly do you mean by enlisting?
 
lefty louie said:
Part of the problem is that "enlisting" centers on a certain age group, I at 55 would not be accepted in a "military" operation. Would I be underground helping out, you betcha, so what exactly do you mean by enlisting?
Click to expand...

Pffft, I should have put that word in quotes, obviously.
Look, seeing as how I do not believe that the mumbling about the so called "impending civil wars" are REALISTIC (see Alex Jones, Sean Hannity, etc) I am also not seeing "enlistment centers" as realistic either.

You already saw me stating that I personally think that it will likely amount to scattered skirmishes and senseless acts of violence here and there, and that's about the extent of it, should "it" ever come to pass. "Your mileage may vary", of course.

Again, I didn't post the poll to gin up tensions. I posted it as a means of asking just how realistically anyone views all this mumbling and grumbling.
For example, on the occasions (several, in fact) where Hannity has "threatened that there will be a civil war", do large numbers of Fox viewers take him at his word?

 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Pffft, I should have put that word in quotes, obviously.
Look, seeing as how I do not believe that the mumbling about the so called "impending civil wars" are REALISTIC (see Alex Jones, Sean Hannity, etc) I am also not seeing "enlistment centers" as realistic either.

You already saw me stating that I personally think that it will likely amount to scattered skirmishes and senseless acts of violence here and there, and that's about the extent of it, should "it" ever come to pass. "Your mileage may vary", of course.

Again, I didn't post the poll to gin up tensions. I posted it as a means of asking just how realistically anyone views all this mumbling and grumbling.
For example, on the occasions (several, in fact) where Hannity has "threatened that there will be a civil war", do large numbers of Fox viewers take him at his word?

Click to expand...


While I'm aware of which side all major news outlets are on I as a somewhat informed citizen knows enough to ignore 80-90% of opinion pieces out of any of them, I'm sure you do the same.

It's a sad state of affairs in this country that media no longer reports the news and instead gives an editorial of what they want you to hear.

It serves one big purpose, it keeps us, the people divided instead of bring us together. We, that is you and me need to find some mutual ground and stop buying into the BS being feed us on a 24/7 basis.
 
lefty louie said:
While I'm aware of which side all major news outlets are on I as a somewhat informed citizen knows enough to ignore 80-90% of opinion pieces out of any of them, I'm sure you do the same.

It's a sad state of affairs in this country that media no longer reports the news and instead gives an editorial of what they want you to hear.

It serves one big purpose, it keeps us, the people divided instead of bring us together. We, that is you and me need to find some mutual ground and stop buying into the BS being feed us on a 24/7 basis.
Click to expand...

I am glad to hear you say that.
Perhaps you might have learned that a lifetime ago, I used to be a photojournalist who did some freelance news coverage for a few years.
Originally I'd pinned my hopes on being an actual journalist. Geraldo Rivera was one of my heroes. I wanted to be the next Geraldo.

JeffH1979a.jpg

But I'd been trained in the Edward R. Murrow/AP style and method, and to my shock and surprise, the news business was rapidly transitioning away from that model. It was 1980 - and the last segments of the old Fairness Doctrine was being killed off and TV news was moving toward a model that necessarily had to chase profit instead.

If it bleeds, it leads...so instead of shooting journalistic stories, car crashes, gang shootings, structure fires, riots, I became a stringer, or what they now call "nightcrawlers".

JeffH1982a.jpg

The Fairness Doctrine made it possible for TV news outlets to have a sort of gentleman's agreement which allowed them to present the news as something of a public service, and though news departments weren't expected to show a profit, the stations and networks could trade on the prestige of being accurate, fair, objective and reliable. Naturally it wasn't perfect but it was a lot better than what we have today.
Today, the Fairness Doctrine would be difficult or maybe impossible to impose however some elements of it can be applied, but we must be willing to reeducate people as to what news actually is first.
You see, for the last forty years, Americans have been trained to view news as sensationalism.

I do not know your age group but I feel it safe to say that, in your father's time, news which was sensationalized wasn't taken seriously.
Today, it is, and the public regards the news media AS sensationalists.
Well, perhaps it is a fair assessment because in today's age, sensationalism translates to the one thing news departments must have - PROFIT.

News channels HAVE to make a profit. If Fox News Channel or CNN don't make a profit, they die, it's just that simple.
But that doesn't mean that they all cannot agree to follow a set of standards, and right now, there is no set and agreed upon standard in this country. News consists of whatever the outlet wants to put out.
And that's part of the problem, because "if it bleeds, it leads".
 
Fishking said:
Depends on how you look at the left/right paradigm. If it's being used interchangeably with liberal/conservative then revolutionaries are always liberal as conservatism can be defined as the status quo. Of course, using that dynamic wouldn't really be fair and it wouldn't match up with the ideological left/right paradigm in the US.
Click to expand...

I look at the right/left spectrum the way every major university in the entire world teaches it, and has taught it, for over a century.
Also, I do not look at right/left in binary fashion because most human beings eschew binary thinking in politics, thus few people are PURE right or PURE left.
Revolutionaries are sometimes binary thinking individuals but not all successful revolutions (clarification needed on definition of "success") are composed of purely binary goals. Solidarity in Poland was not a binary ideology, for example, and Lech Walensa had plenty of conservative views as well as some liberal ones.
He had to, because the Jarulzelski regime was a Leftist regime, so while Solidarity's revolution might have embraced certain liberal ideas, the push to extricate Poland from the grip of Jarulzelski had to be, by its very nature, an effort to reassert some major conservative values, like free market capitalism.
There is NO "ideological left/right paradigm in the US", there is a concerted and well funded effort to enact historical revisionism.
Every time you or someone else on the Right pretends that Mussolini or Hitler were liberal Leftists, you are firing a salvo of historical revisionism, which is patently false, easily disproven, and bordering on criminal intent.
You are Lisenkoists, and your revisionism shall fail.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Harshaw, that sandwich must taste mighty fine...to you.
But don't try to serve it, it's an acquired taste and you're probably the only one who likes it.

a0421254062_10.jpg
Click to expand...

Checkerboard Strangler said:
Hmmmm, far Right nutcase - considered fringe, eh?

Texas Monthly - March 2010

That was EIGHT YEARS ago, when it was still very difficult to track him down on terrestrial radio.

Today he is carried on almost one hundred stations nationwide and TWENTY of them are ten thousand watts or more.
Several of them are FIFTY THOUSAND WATT CLEAR CHANNEL "flamethrowers" on AM which can be heard regionally.

And that's JUST terrestrial radio, not even counting the majority who tune in via the net.

Sorry kiddies, he's one of yours, and no matter how much you flail, he's VERY VERY popular with a TON of people right here on DP.
Click to expand...

You know, the way you frequently respond to me without actually quoting me, one could almost draw the conclusion that you don't actually want me to know that you responded.

Alex Jones is fringy nutcase. His "views," if you can call the bull**** he spews "views," are all over the place, generally designed to get him the most attention. He's a conspiracy theory whackjob.

Now, of course, if, as you have shown to be so, you think there's no difference between the mainstream American Right and "Confederates" hoping the south will rise again, then of course you're going to try to make him some kind of spokesman for the Right. But that doesn't make it so.
 
Last edited:
Tigerace117 said:
One of Fascism's main tenants is literally "leftism/socialism/ communism/ whatever should be destroyed". That's simply a product of the 1930s, where large amounts of government involvement/control in the economy was a common--- and popular--- theme. That's not proof of "leftism"; that's simply a product of the times.
Click to expand...

Control of the means of production is leftist ideology, glad to see you admit this.

People who think they are smarter than they actually are always dive into the minutiae, ignoring the most basic facts about fascism--- such as its adherents' attempts to totally exterminate "leftists" in their societies.
Click to expand...

Sorry, you already admitted to fascism having heavy controls over the means of production. That's already an admission to their economic model falling on the left. Contradicting yourself in your own post doesn't work out well for making a solid point.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
I look at the right/left spectrum the way every major university in the entire world teaches it, and has taught it, for over a century.
Click to expand...

Again, it depends on how you look at it. What I stated is perfectly viable.

Also, I do not look at right/left in binary fashion because most human beings eschew binary thinking in politics, thus few people are PURE right or PURE left.
Click to expand...

Don't believe I said anything about "pure" anything.

There is NO "ideological left/right paradigm in the US", there is a concerted and well funded effort to enact historical revisionism.
Click to expand...

You say this-----^ But then say that-------v. That makes no sense.

Every time you or someone else on the Right
Click to expand...

pretends that Mussolini or Hitler were liberal Leftists, you are firing a salvo of historical revisionism, which is patently false, easily disproven, and bordering on criminal intent.
You are Lisenkoists, and your revisionism shall fail.
Click to expand...

It's not pretending anything. It's a fully educated and informed analysis of the issue. The left/right paradigm in the US is =/= to the left/right paradigm in other countries. Right, or conservatives, would fall more in line with the ideology of the founders where you have government playing a limited role vs the left, or liberals, wanting the government to play a greater role.

Now, not all liberal things are bad, we got rid of slavery due to what would be considered liberal actions for the day or voting rights for everyone, those are good things.
 
Tangmo said:
Paddling upstream on the river of denial you are. You missed or ignored or dismissed arbitrarily each point I have made. I'll not continue posting the same points repeatedly however. Many others get the content and substance of my posts and they do it without a ton of time or effort. I would simply reiterate that EP do, while officers command. That is the division of labor and management in the modern armed forces of the modern state (since Napoleon). I am pointing out the Constitutional oath of the commanders of the armed forces across the armed forces of the United States and that the commanders don't need all the armed forces in one place in a unitary presence and obedience to their commands. And that any Constitutional action designed by the Founders and taken in the present time and circumstance will be orderly and peaceful rather than swift and sudden while being decisive.

Armed forces commanders active duty and retired alike have been building toward the inevitable since the campaign when they spoke out initially. General retired Michael Hayden of USAF, formerly director of NSA and then CIA was the first to speak out -- against any illegal orders being issued by Trump were he to be elected and ex officio become commander in chief. Gen. Hayden has remained consistent, up front and firm, saying last week he'd choose Kaepernick over Trump. Indeed, Trump presently entering the new dimension of being the usurper of power, authority, jurisdiction redefines the nature of Trump's abuses against institutions and citizens to committing offenses against the Constitution. Direct offenses against the Constitution. All you yourself need to know and respect is that Republican rightwing service personnel serving and engaged abroad will need to continue with their theater mission and to obey their commanders straight up the theater chain of command. The joint chiefs of staff are of course not in the chain of command. The joint chiefs are in the law the principal advisers to Potus/CinC and the chairman is the principal uniformed adviser to the SecDef and to the Potus. The SecDef is the principal cabinet adviser to Potus. In other words, when the time comes this Potus will need to follow their advice and to heed it.

Dismissing the posts I make in this means there are still some who don't yet know how this ends -- or who are in denial of it. While some people don't honestly know yet, others who are supportive and protective of Trump are in a flat out denial of it. That's a fail.
Click to expand...

I don't have the patience to keep educating you on the subject. You won't get.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
I look at the right/left spectrum the way every major university in the entire world teaches it, and has taught it, for over a century.
Also, I do not look at right/left in binary fashion because most human beings eschew binary thinking in politics, thus few people are PURE right or PURE left.
Revolutionaries are sometimes binary thinking individuals but not all successful revolutions (clarification needed on definition of "success") are composed of purely binary goals. Solidarity in Poland was not a binary ideology, for example, and Lech Walensa had plenty of conservative views as well as some liberal ones.
He had to, because the Jarulzelski regime was a Leftist regime, so while Solidarity's revolution might have embraced certain liberal ideas, the push to extricate Poland from the grip of Jarulzelski had to be, by its very nature, an effort to reassert some major conservative values, like free market capitalism.
There is NO "ideological left/right paradigm in the US", there is a concerted and well funded effort to enact historical revisionism.
Every time you or someone else on the Right pretends that Mussolini or Hitler were liberal Leftists, you are firing a salvo of historical revisionism, which is patently false, easily disproven, and bordering on criminal intent.
You are Lisenkoists, and your revisionism shall fail.
Click to expand...


Speaking of fascism it's funny how if Trump had joined the military he'd have turned out to be yet another corporal turned dictator. E-4 and all of that while even Elvis made sergeant. That's provided of course Our Beloved Bigfoot didn't get his big ass shot through while retreating in Vietnam.

As to Mussolini he split to Switzerland in 1902 to avoid military service. He returned to Italy on a general amnesty for deserters. Still however, to get a pardon the stained underwear guyz who received amnesty had to join the Army. After Benni's one year term ended in 1906 the young Private Mussolini had completed his farcical military experience.

Which takes us full circle to Ol' Bone Spurs, his pardons and -- the WH former physician. The admiral guy who blew smoke about Trump's tip-top physical condition, health and mental state. And whose failed candidacy as Trump's choice for VA secretary proves further Trump's reverse midas touch.
 
Tangmo said:
Speaking of fascism it's funny how if Trump had joined the military he'd have turned out to be yet another corporal turned dictator. E-4 and all of that while even Elvis made sergeant.
Click to expand...

John R. Cash, aka Johnny Cash:

Last Rank
Staff Sergeant
Last Primary AFSC/MOS
29251-Morse Intercept Operator

175599.jpg
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
John R. Cash, aka Johnny Cash:

Last Rank
Staff Sergeant
Last Primary AFSC/MOS
29251-Morse Intercept Operator

175599.jpg
Click to expand...


While the right reads palms you're being precient reading minds...a high skill and art indeed.....







Johnny Cash and June Carter are singing up there with the best of 'em.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom