liberals are pretty screwed if cons decide to wage war

jverne

Newbie
Joined
Aug 6, 2004
Messages
4,302
Reaction score
0
most conservatives are probably gun owners if they organize and act quickly, non-gun owners are kinda in a disadvantage here.
well there's probably not gonna be a war, but alot of them have an itch in their trigger finger...basically they're looking for an excuse to use their guns.

how would a civil war in the US look like?
 
not too worry; the slack-jawed yokels are easily outwitted despite being heavily armed. I suggest sock puppets or shiney objects followed by a quick kick to the groin


also:

southern_revenge.jpg


idiots, they'll slowly irradiate themselves
 
I like to imagine that a bullet just went through that man's hat.
 
if usa gets into a civil war china and russia will go conquer it
 
This liberal owns 2 guns. But your question is a little funny. The police are there to stop criminals from waging wars. And if a criminal wants to go after you your gun isn't gonna help you much.
 
I don't think there is enough :| in the world to express how I feel about OP.

Oh wait, it's jverne lol
 
There won't be a war between liberals and conservatives. The size of the groups of liberals and conservatives who are extreme enough to be willing to fight the other are too small and spread out to manage a war. Most people are more moderate than that.... most people are more reasonable than that.

Oh and just to be clear, the Civil War was not a civil war abut a war between the U.S and Confederacy, and it was not about Slavery but about State's Rights.
 
Oh and just to be clear, the Civil War was not a civil war abut a war between the U.S and Confederacy, and it was not about Slavery but about State's Rights.

/bangs head in to wall
 
I agree, slavery was just a convenient rationale.
 
most conservatives are probably gun owners if they organize and act quickly, non-gun owners are kinda in a disadvantage here.
well there's probably not gonna be a war, but alot of them have an itch in their trigger finger...basically they're looking for an excuse to use their guns.

how would a civil war in the US look like?

most people on the internet are probably troglodytes who think they know something about politics but really dont. if they organize and act quickly, non-troglodytes are kinda in a disadvantage here.
well, there's probably not gonna be a flame war, but alot of them (like jverne) have an itch on their keyboard finger...basically they're looking for an excuse to post nonsensical drivel.

how would a flame war in the HL2.net look like?
 
/bangs head in to wall

Are you banging your head to the slavery bit? Because the war really wasn't started and fought over slavery. Politically speaking, it was a big part, sure. And during the war, Lincoln made abolition of slavery a goal of the war. But there were many other reasons earlier than that, which pushed each side into an actual war. Disagreements over slavery alone wouldnt have started a war at all.
 
Oh and just to be clear, the Civil War was not a civil war abut a war between the U.S and Confederacy, and it was not about Slavery but about State's Rights.
Pssst: it was about economics.
 
Are you banging your head to the slavery bit? Because the war really wasn't started and fought over slavery. Politically speaking, it was a big part, sure. But there were many other reasons that pushed each side into an actual war. Disagreements over slavery alone wouldnt have started a war at all.

This is true. The war started for many reasons, but anyone who says slavery was not a big part of it is either mistaken or not being truthful. The South's major complaint with the US government was the fact that congress was placing limits on slavery in the frontier, and de-facto limits on slavery in the south.

It was about "state's rights" only insofar as it was about "state's rights to legalize slavery," and by extension "state's rights to circumvent federal law as they see fit."

The election of Lincoln really kick-started the war, because he was a republican president who openly opposed the spread of slavery on the frontier, and many in the south said that secession would be the only option if Lincoln were elected.

There were many other reasons of course, trade, taxation, the military, foreign engagements -- just to name a few -- but the elephant in the room was slavery.
 
Yeah, i'm certainly not saying slavery wasnt a big deal, and I edited my post to try and reflect that a bit better. But it wasnt as big as most people seem to think it is. I've talked to people who thought the issue of slavery was the only reason we got into a civil war, which is far from the truth of the matter.

and by extension "state's rights to circumvent federal law as they see fit."

This probably sums it up much better. Slavery was the, poster child I guess. It wasnt so much about slavery itself, but the idea that states should have the power to dictate such things.
 
As Kadayi is suggesting, any uprising on the part of Americans on American soil would be suppressed so quickly and efficiently by the military/national guard it would be laughable. And the fact that gun nuts use that line over and over again--the potential need for a citizen's coup against the government--makes me laugh. May as well call it the 'right to have your ass handed to you.'
 
I think it would be interesting to see 370 million people (a third of which are registered firearm owners) versus a few hundred thousand heavily armed military.
 
As Kadayi is suggesting, any uprising on the part of Americans on American soil would be suppressed so quickly and efficiently by the military/national guard it would be laughable. And the fact that gun nuts use that line over and over again--the potential need for a citizen's coup against the government--makes me laugh. May as well call it the 'right to have your ass handed to you.'

You don't really think it would be that easy do you? An actual uprising would take a long time to quell. It took us six years in Iraq to beat down a group of insurgents enough to safely leave the area, its been more than eight years since we went after Al Qaeda and we aint done shit on that front. Now imagine a quarter of the united states becoming, essentially, insurgents. If you think our military is capable of turning on its own people to take out several million people then... hah. Not only that, but as soon as action is taken, others will join the movement for "revenge"/"justice" and eventually it would be quite similar to the first Civil War in terms of numbers.
 
I like how this went from jverne flamebaiting to a serious discussion of the causes of the Civil War.

Anyway, my two cents on the reason for the Civil War is that it was about states' rights.


To, you know, make money. Slavery was, at the time, an economic necessity for cotton growers to really make money. There's actually belief that if they had waited 15 more years slavery would have been sufficiently outdated for a peaceful revolution. I love studying cause and effect of wars.
 
Pssst: it was about economics.

Yea. I should have been a little more clear about that. To say that the Civil War was about one thing or another is really over simplifying the issue. America gained some and lost some. One of the losses I think we suffered is that states now have less freedom to act on their own. This is a loss because if states were able to manage more of their domestic policies then each citizen's vote would have more effect on decisions, and policies would be able to better match the opinions of the people. Granted this also has the drawback of inconsistencies in law between states that could cause problems for people moving from one state to another. Same sex couples moving into a state that does not recognize their marriage or civil union, owning a certain type of gun that is banned in the state you are passing through. And, yes, there are ways to handle these inconsistencies.

Everything in life has a trade off. to get one thing you must give up another.
 
It took us six years in Iraq to beat down a group of insurgents
In a country you invaded, relying on foreign infrastructure and a confused and scared populous.

Now imagine a quarter of the united states becoming, essentially, insurgents.
Good luck with that, considering you can barely get enough people to vote.

If you think our military is capable of turning on its own people to take out several million people then... hah.
Yes, except ideologically the military would be protecting their own country from loonies and would have even more at stake if they lost.

Let me reiterate--The. U. S. Military. Against, what, 10k poorly armed secessionists? Fighting in their own country? K.

Oh and iirc, the National Guard had a pretty fun time with the armed survivors in Katrina.
 
I think it would be interesting to see 370 million people (a third of which are registered firearm owners) versus a few hundred thousand heavily armed military.

You're not really up on the whole Civil War Vs a Revolution thing are you?

Firstly I'm not even sure that there are 370 million people in the USA. Secondly I'm pretty sure most of them aren't frothing at the mouth combat ready conservatives (the ability to shoot pigs at point blank range whilst standing in their pen does not count). Thirdly those that are I doubt have access to the sort of Sears Catalogue of Weapons and hardware either the Iraqi insurgents or US military have access to.

150 years ago when cannons & rifles were the mutts nuts the right to bear arms might of made sense, but today in a world where the 'enemy' has access to this sort of hardware: -


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OkoWEMCnLQ&feature=related


It really doesn't make much sense to talk about a civil uprising, unless as viperdae rightly points out you love getting your ass handed to you, though in this case it would be the US military handing your grieving relatives your ass given that's probably all that would be left of you after they'd carpet bombed you and your peoples militia buddies back into the stone age. Want change? Elect the other guy. Don't like him? Get politically active then.
 
Alot of what-if's, but its not going to happen.

At the end of the day, liberals and conservatives are both Americans and mutually entitled. If anything, we should wage war against the opportunists who polarize the respective parties and propagate ignorance, fear and confusion through media. Its almost as if it's encouraged. We might believe different things, but the hate and polarity is a little ridiculous.

And next to Letterman porking a desk jockey, and Kayne West interrupting Taylor Swift, is the inner strife of our political workings.

*applauds* very true. I hate the way that the "Extremists" define politics in this country. Most conservatives and liberals are much more moderate and reasonable than the extremists we hear about.
 
Any revolution would be more effective than you think. One the government would be shooting at voting and tax paying citizens. Every one the kill is some lost money and prosperity. If there are enough people revolting it becomes reprehensible for the government to kill them. When there is a revolution the government does not want to kill all the revolutionaries... that is counterproductive in the long run. and many of the new military weapons wound not and could not be used in cities and suburbs... there would just be too much collateral.

Guerrilla warfare is amazingly effective at fighting large armies. and If the government ever uses their military power against the greater American people in a revolt then chances are that the government will deserve to fall.

I Love my country. but my country is not my government.
 
There just simply won't be a civil war in the sense of a people revolting against our government in America. The government from day one has been too good at turning all of us against each other to keep us distracted from the fact they they are screwing 99% of us over while making themselves richer. Just look at the modern media in America-all it does is control, either by tranquilizing us with BS talkshows, sitcoms, or daytime TV, or it spreads hatred and fear with government (read: corporate) propaganda and 'news'. Men vs. women, blue collar vs. white collar, Democrat vs. Republican, white vs. black. As long as we see the other people in our country who are not part of the privileged elite as some sort of 'other' who are somehow anti- our own interests, the government will maintain total control. What do you think so many of our wars have been about? Not only have they been about protecting our corporate interests abroad, they have also all served to quell the growing dissent of the masses because too many people were waking up to the horrific situation in which the government has kept most of the population for centuries. War solves this problem by ostensibly uniting the country under the BS notion of patriotism so that we join together against a common enemy instead of the real one that caused the unrest in the first place.

I am reading a philosophy book right now where the author (and filmmaker) has conversations with some of the great thinkers of our time. One of them discusses going to El Salvador in the 80s to help with their revolution. The students he met with told him to go back to America and start a revolution there because it would help them more. Sad but true.
 
Any revolution would be more effective than you think. One the government would be shooting at voting and tax paying citizens. Every one the kill is some lost money and prosperity. If there are enough people revolting it becomes reprehensible for the government to kill them.

......so in essence you're saying the government is shooting itself in the foot by shooting it's citizens during an uprising because they wouldnt have enough tax money to run the actual government? this doesnt sound ridiculous at all. no siree

When there is a revolution the government does not want to kill all the revolutionaries..

no that never ever happens

Kent_State_Guardsmen-shooting.jpg



kent_state.jpg





that is counterproductive in the long run. and many of the new military weapons wound not and could not be used in cities and suburbs... there would just be too much collateral.

lol, I'm sure there's more than a few angry iraqis who would like to set you straight

Guerrilla warfare is amazingly effective at fighting large armies. and If the government ever uses their military power against the greater American people in a revolt then chances are that the government will deserve to fall.

lol, you keep believing a rag tag group of gun nuts will overthrow the world's most powerful military/government. you'd be slaughted in a matter of days, your leaders dragged through the streets as traitors to america and not a single person would support them for free of being branded traitros. you dont have the resources, you dont have the media, you dont have the manpower. the whole idea is nothing but a gun industry/NRA/political lobbyist's fabricated justification to keep them in business and their pockets lined

"oh but we may have to take back the country from FASCIST LIEBRALS"

I for one wish these types of people would try to overthrow the government, the american medium IQ would definately jump by more than a few percentage points as a result ..not too mention that the bloody one sided slaughter would be more than entertaining and would lead to a spike in threads about the stupidity of conservatives
 
If we pit 150,000,000 or so citizens against 500,000 trained military. Well, I guess 30 to 1 odds per person. But when the driver pops out for a piss or food, I would take a tank and bring that bitch to the nearest Shell station. I'd put hydraulics on it and pimp that shit. Government would get stomped. A bullet is a god damn bullet.
 
the population of the US is 300 mil. 150 mil of that are female and another 144 million of that are male. of those numbers fighting age males (18-44) number at around 57 million, discount all those that are unfit, unwilling, unable to fight that number drops dramatically. The number of military in the US is around 1,097,050. they're trained, willing, and able to die to protect their country. they have the training, they have the means, they have the support, they have the media. it would be a quick one sided slaughter.

if americans (78%) supported a bullshit war in some backwards assed middle eastern country based on ridiculous and totally transparent claims then what makes anyone think that a revolt on american soil wouldnt be seen as attack by treasonous TERRORISTS out to destroy america? there's probably a long line of americans who would gladly rip the throat out of people like Timothy McVeigh with their barehands so what makes people think that any "revolution" would be greeted by open arms by the populace? McVeigh was fighting what he saw as an ever growing government threat and acted accordingly. Also the military would GLADLY shoot you. hell as of 2008 84% of american troops stationed in iraq belived saddam had something to do with 9/11. it wouldnt take a whole lot of convincing to convince the military that any uprising would be an act of treason against america. american patriotism can also be used against you, and your kind doesnt seem/is unwilling to see that
 
Can it CptStern. just a year ago you were probably saying that the government was a bunch of stupid conservatives. Only now that your preferred party and policies are currently in favor you now think ght gov will solve everything.

The government hasn't changed. The same bureaucracy is still there. In a few years the pendulum will swing the other way and you will goes back to being the oppressed liberal. At least I remain constant. Government is a necessary evil that should never be trusted. I disliked Bush for lying, being trigger happy, and touting family values while trampling over the constitution. I don't like Obama's policies because he has increased spending, will raise taxes, and constrict the free market. And I think that most of the yelling going on is just mindless dribble that the extreme ass-holes yell at each other to make themselves feel better.
 
Can it CptStern.

ok

canned_hate.jpg


anyone have a can opener?

just a year ago you were probably saying that the government was a bunch of stupid conservatives. Only now that your preferred party and policies are currently in favor you now think ght gov will solve everything.

? what? what the hell are you talking about? point out where I said anything about obama's government much less that I said they'd solve everything. you're just mashing the keyboard hoping something semi-coherent will emerge. well stop, because it's not happening

The government hasn't changed. The same bureaucracy is still there. In a few years the pendulum will swing the other way and you will goes back to being the oppressed liberal.

I'm not even american. how the hell could Sarah palin repress me? if anything you're the one who will be repressed because whomever the next republican presential candidate is chances are very high that he/she'll be an idiot

At least I remain constant. Government is a necessary evil that should never be trusted.

so superficially naive and classic textbook partisan thinkspeak condensed to a sound bite that even the slackiest jawed yokel will comprehend and further regurgitate to his like minded cronies

I disliked Bush for lying, being trigger happy, and touting family values while trampling over the constitution. I don't like Obama's policies because he has increased spending, will raise taxes, and constrict the free market. And I think that most of the yelling going on is just mindless dribble that the extreme ass-holes yell at each other to make themselves feel better.

yet pretty much everything I see you post is a right wing talking point diluted and repackaged in it's most simplest form. really half the time I believe you have no idea as to what you're talking about
 
hey at least he is right that you suddenly are like on side whit the goverment and military while some time ago you where calling the american soldiers bay eaters or something along those lines

is funny how everyone who hates the usa find the idea of civil so ridiculous and praise the usa miltiary for it
its like:

"those stupid amercians waging war and that shitwhit theyr patriotics chants and such,what a civil in the usa? LOL you are crazy they have the best military in the world whit tons of trained and patriotic soldiers and they have so much patritism they will see that as a attack of traitors so it wouldnt work and would be laughable"

if a civil war erupts you all will be dacing hapilly while watching it on tv

"yes,burn las vegas,burn!!!"
 
hey at least he is right that you suddenly are like on side whit the goverment and military while some time ago you where calling the american soldiers bay eaters or something along those lines

I'm on side of the governemnt because I post threads that shows conservatives making an ass of themselves? is this some retarded 6 degrees of separation thing because i dont know how laughing at one side is "supporting" the other

oh and ffs, it's WITH not WHIT. you've been using that incorrect spelling for years. stop it


is funny how everyone who hates the usa find the idea of civil so ridiculous and praise the usa miltiary for it

you're not making sense. if I hate the US why the hell would I praise their military? really making a statement that basically says a homegrown militia will be steamrolled by the military is "praise"? really? it sounds to me RJMC that you only have a very superficial understanding of the issues

I dont hate the US. if that's all you've gotten from reading my posts over the years in this section well I can only say you have to work on your reading comprehension


its like:

"those stupid amercians waging war and that shitwhit [WITH GODDAM IT] theyr patriotics chants and such,what a civil in the usa? LOL you are crazy they have the best military in the world whit tons of trained and patriotic soldiers and they have so much patritism they will see that as a attack of traitors so it wouldnt work and would be laughable"

you probably shouldnt put quotes around as it implies I actuially said that ...in broken english no less

if a civil war erupts you all will be dacing hapilly while watching it on tv

"yes,burn las vegas,burn!!!"

yes that's exactly what I'll be doing :upstare: ..just like I do a happy dance every single time an american, ANY american is killed and or injured


"oh look he just died of cancer lollolololololo ,...oh wait, he's from france, how sad ..."


ferme la bouche s'il vous plait
 
oh yes you do hate the usa

and is funny to see you talking all nice to them suddenly,I though you where going to post something like "well this guy do looks ready for it *post video of screaming glenn beck*" cuz thats the thing you allways do whit this kind of threads
or going into a rampage whit guys like that lord kraken whit if he post something oposites to you you respond whit segmenting his lines whit such dedication whit gets anoying to read in the forum whit these nonsesical forums whit whit whit whit whit whit whit whit whit whit whit whit whit whit whit whit whit whit whit whit whit whit whit whit whit whit whit whit whit whit whit whit whit whit whit whit whit whit whit whit whit whit whit whit whit whit whit whitwhit whit whitwhit whit MUAHAHAHA!
 
to whit, things clearly lacking in whit whitlessly amuses you, proving once again what a whittle whittle man you truely are
 
And this marked the beginning of an era known as the Cold War.
 
hey..don't start with the personal attacks.

IMO if a civil war broke out which is highly unlikely it would start by a few extremists making trouble, but then at a breaking event it would drag everyone in. then, sooner or later the army leaders will split sides and that's where all hell would break loose.

but i think most here agree that most developed governments today are not really that much for the people as they should be. career politicians are a joke, lobbyists have way too much power, inappropriate people get appointed to powerful seats, lack of transparency,...
putting full faith in the government is just as bad as putting none.
 
Civil Wars, in practice, are never a minority of the citizens. If it is, then it's a rebellion.

I don't know why this is being argued as the level of agitation in the population is nowhere close the pressure-cooker atmosphere that precedes a Civil War. By the time that happens the populace will be disarmed anyway.
 
This liberal owns 2 guns. But your question is a little funny. The police are there to stop criminals from waging wars. And if a criminal wants to go after you your gun isn't gonna help you much.


LOL that is ASS backwards. The police aren't going to help you do jack shit. Your gun is more likely to save you.

My gun can shoot in less than a second. The police will be here in 5 minutes.
 
Back
Top