Is another Civil War possible in the United States? (compared, election, elect)

[diva360]

Originally Posted by parfleche

hey i just play the game. i dont get to make the rules. but i pay very close attention and act to my best interests. just like a welfare mama. keep givin it away we keep licking it up. viva obama everything is free viva obama

Well, you could choose to actually try to persuade those who disagree with you. One good place to start would be to avoid insulting them, and then adding injury to insult by implying they should serve you by getting you a bevvie. Makes sense to me.

[parfleche]

Originally Posted by diva360

Well, you could choose to actually try to persuade those who disagree with you. One good place to start would be to avoid insulting them, and then adding injury to insult by implying they should serve you by getting you a bevvie. Makes sense to me.

i did not insult anyone where did you get that from? and damm right im gonna let them do what they want.heck go for it if it means giving me free health care heck break a leg God bless you. sept i aint paying for it .aint my choice.you wanna pay for it fine. id rather sit in obamas jail

[chattypatty]

Originally Posted by pollyrobin

Only if I get to play Scarlett O'Hara

Sorry, toots, the role has already been promised to me.

[HotinAZ]

Well, I personally think a civil secession is possible. But it will not happen with guns blazing, nor some sort of violent overthrow of the federal government.

Can't happen, and won't happen. Why?

It would be like trying to kill an elephant with a flyswatter. They have the biggest guns, and the most powerful bombs in ALL the world. Even to suggest something like that is cause for treason or imprisonment. Violent overthrow that is. Talking about secession though, is not. According to Title 18:

But if enough people want this sort of change, all they need to do is elect the proper people in the local and state elections who advocate returning to a more sound republic, with even maybe a sound currency.

I think Alaska or Texas or Montana have the best chances at this. But the second they draw weapons, even if the Federal Authorities do first, will be the cause of a instant ending.

Civilization has come too far to resort to a barbaric way of approaching this topic. MLK Jr effectively caused the most change in the last 50 years, and he did it peacefully. Sadly, he was wrong in the outcome, as this empowered the federal government even more so, and stripped states and private businesses of their rights secured under the Constitution.

If you listen to his words, he sounds a lot like Obama. He even surrounded himself with Marxists and Communists, and even went to speeches made by those who openly claim these philosophies.

But another could arise who feels the opposite. If enough people supported them, not unlike the recent Ron Paul Revolution, then effective change can come, starting locally(how it should be) and working on up.

If you wound up having major disputes over these idiological differences, then secession is possible. But this is the right way to do it. Peaceful. Then, if they decided to kill everyone for standing up for their beliefs, so be it. I am ready to die for this,,,for freedom. True freedom, not the sweet words of it.

But that is my 2 cents worth.

[HotinAZ]

Just another thought.

The third option on the poll which has the most votes.

Maybe. If enough Americans feel enough freedoms are endangered

Would not the loss of just 1 fundamental unalienable right be enough? If you take just 1 of these away, have you not lost total freedom in it's entirety?

Everyone in the world is "partiallly" free. Some are just more free than others.

But basic fundamental rights are another thing. These, under our constitution, cannot be taken away or legislated against under any circumstance. They are unalienable. Untouchable.

So by losing one, you are forfeiting the rest, eventually.

[diva360]

Originally Posted by parfleche

i did not insult anyone where did you get that from? and damm right im gonna let them do what they want.heck go for it if it means giving me free health care heck break a leg God bless you. sept i aint paying for it .aint my choice.you wanna pay for it fine. id rather sit in obamas jail

To me, when you say, as you did, to the original person trying to talk to you, "where is your head?" then you are offering an implicit insult. When people say, "where is your head," isn't what they are really saying that they think who they are talking to is stupid? I mean, isn't this really kind of fundamental information about how people talk?

So "where did you get that from" is actually your own words. I am saying that your tone tends to be, and has tended to be in all your interactions with those you disagree with here, so disagreeable that I have a hard time imagining arguing with you. So, for example, I'm not expecting for you to pay for "it" all. How could I expect that, when you don't even take enough time to explain what "it" is? If "it" is something like medicaire, then, of course, no one in their right minds would expect you, parfleche, to single-handedly pay for "it." That, I would submit, would be impossible. The fact is, we all pay for "it," and we will all, theoretically at least, benefit from "it." I'm asking you to quit asking the people you oppose whom you routinely insult to bring you a beer, and instead define what exactly "it" is. It seems to me that none of this is very complicated. You may well prove me wrong.

[parfleche]

Originally Posted by diva360

To me, when you say, as you did, to the original person trying to talk to you, "where is your head?" then you are offering an implicit insult. When people say, "where is your head," isn't what they are really saying that they think who they are talking to is stupid? I mean, isn't this really kind of fundamental information about how people talk?

So "where did you get that from" is actually your own words. I am saying that your tone tends to be, and has tended to be in all your interactions with those you disagree with here, so disagreeable that I have a hard time imagining arguing with you. So, for example, I'm not expecting for you to pay for "it" all. How could I expect that, when you don't even take enough time to explain what "it" is? If "it" is something like medicaire, then, of course, no one in their right minds would expect you, parfleche, to single-handedly pay for "it." That, I would submit, would be impossible. The fact is, we all pay for "it," and we will all, theoretically at least, benefit from "it." I'm asking you to quit asking the people you oppose whom you routinely insult to bring you a beer, and instead define what exactly "it" is. It seems to me that none of this is very complicated. You may well prove me wrong.

shut up and get me a beer

[tindo80]

If the left didnt start asking for war when Bush was eroding their freedoms (or so they thought), then the right probably has NO grounds asking for war when they think Obama's taking their freedoms.

Truth about it is, Obama and Bush and Reagan and Clinton are all keepers of the status quo. The anti-Obama idiots main opposing point to him is that hes a black guy (hes half black, but a lot of the 'traditionalist conservatives' believe in the 1-drop rule still) and that he ran on some mythical idea of change from what Bush was doing. He hasnt changed anything, but the tea partiers and glenn beckers are going crazy with paranoia afraid he will.

[annika08]

Doubtful. Americans are too sedated with their football/porn/Dancing with the Stars to take up arms over anything that matters.

[AONE]

Originally Posted by Boompa

I hope so, the sooner we start hanging Secessionist and Traitors from street lights the better. Our problem the last time was that we gave them amnesty.

Can we start with Bush,Cheney and Rumsfeld?