# A Second American Civil War?



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 13, 2004)

Is it possible?

I've heard the saying "theres gonna be a revolution here" usually in reference to all the BS the polititians do.  The idea that the American people will get so fed up that they will take up arms and overthrow the 'despots'.

The first American Revolution was about breaking free of an oppressive government an ocean away.

The second American Revolution / first Civil War was about the issue of states rights vs federal rights and control of the institution of slavery.

IF a third revolution / second civil war were to occur, it strikes me that it would be over one of 3 things:
- Gay Rights
- Religious Rights
- Political Abuses.

I don't believe the "Gay" issue will turn into another major conflict.  I do however fully expect it to be marked with similar violence as the race riots of the 60s and 70's.

The Religious issue will be fought in the courts, and quietly, in the homes. I don't see that turning majorly violent, though I do expect there to be several more skirmishes.  Regarless of law, I will continue to believe as I do. My heart knows the truth.  The symbol on the wall can hide a lie.

Political abuses.  This one would be the key.  The question here is, are the American people up for it? A tier 1 nation will usually not revolt.  There are several Tier 2 nations (most noticibly Russia) that with the collapse of their political system, have degenerated into an unstable situation that is more than 'unrest, yet less than a full blown civil war.  

The question here is, are we heading in a similar direction? 
If Bush wins, will the opposition take up arms?
If Bush loses, will he relinquish power?

Would it take an even greater disaster similar to the Great Depression to really put the US over the edge?

Can 20-30 "gun nuts" really offer much of a challenge to the highly trained forces in our military today?


I've thought about it for a long time now...and, I don't think, short of a major disaster, that the US will ever again war with itself. I don't think the people care enough to fight, and I don't think small groups of 'militia' will pose much of a threat to the mainline military.  Unless a major army unit rebels (equipment and all), I just can't see it.

Thoughts?


----------



## MisterMike (Aug 13, 2004)

Of the items in the list, political abuses may be the worst but may not be enough to spark anything.

I think when all guns are outlawed, that's when the fireworks are going to be lit.

After all, it's the gun owners who are going to be the majority factor in any revolt. Most aren't going to pick up arms over gay marriage, but take away their toys and look out....


----------



## MisterMike (Aug 13, 2004)

Oh, kind of a followup - I guess that wouldn't be a Civil War.

I can't find any reasons for the States to have at it. Plus I think a majority of the gun owners are on the right, so there would have to be some issue to reallllly divide them in order to have at it in Civil War fashion.


----------



## dearnis.com (Aug 13, 2004)

> Can 20-30 "gun nuts" really offer much of a challenge to the highly trained forces in our military today?



Short answer is yes.  We aren't going to use things like close air support in our own communities (one hopes...).  Many "gun nuts" are prior military.  The best historical example is probably the Warsaw Ghetto uprising.  Without entering a debate, a handful of starved, beaten, mostly unarmed Jews held off the German army, if only for a little while.

Chad


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 13, 2004)

The first thing that's of interest to me in this topic is the extent to which extreme right-wing and fundamentalist Protestants in this country actively hope that some sort of national conflagration would break out.

Look at the fiction, from those loonbox "Left Behind," books all the way through to right wing sf by Pournelle, Ringo, etc. And I liked "Red Dawn," but c'mahn...

It isn't a matter of, "rights," at all. It isn't even a matter being offended by something like gun control. Essentially, the hope seems to be one of setting the clock back as far as possible--or more exactly, it's a hope of going back to a fantasized America that never actually existed, one in which women and darkies of every sort knew their place, one in which ever'body believed in the fundamantalist Jehovah, one in which there were no gay people, one in which a White Man was free to do exactly as he damn well pleased, without no interference from no lib'ral. 

Oh yes--also prominent in these, "turn back the clock," dreams are fantasies of an America once again uber alles in die Welt. They bother us, we bomb them. Or send in the Marines, who will always be somebody else's kids.

They're interesting fantasies, shared--oddly enough--by the very people so despised in these images, dreams, books, movies--shared by fundamentalist Islam nutbars, that is to say, who also want to go back to the thirteenth century.

The "civil war," crap, in other words, is simply code for, "Let's get rid of everything I don't like, especially if it involves giving women, darkies and fags any rights." 

And oh yes--I wouldn't trust the yahoos in these militias to watch my back for a second. Typically--well, let's just say that Ollie North comes quickly to mind; damn few of 'em are anything like, say, Bo Gritz. You notice, for example, that Timothy McVeigh and those guys never admitted what they'd done, let alone stood up for it; the Waco wacko shot himself, and took as many helpless kids with him as he could. And the Ruby Ridge guy basically used his kids and wife as human shields. Are they dangerous? Sure, if they outnumber you and they've got more guns and it's dark and they're behind you.

They'd never have the guts of the Viet Minh and Viet Cong, who whatever else can be said about their barbarity, gutted it out against colonial oppressors for about thirty-five years. Nor do they have the same level of moral justification.

The folks who push these sorts of fictions always forget something even more basic: the complexity of the society they rely upon for everything. And they forget just how poorly small arms work against modern weapons. And they refuse to understand that is is far too late in history for this sort of nonsense...which is why they're always dragging in the Antichrist, or space aliens, or plagues, as excuses.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 13, 2004)

I can certainly see the South attempting to secede again. I don't think it would be about political misbehavior, or about gay rights ... but it will be all about religion; fundamental Christian religion. To a certain extent, the gay rights argument & religion are one and the same, at least to the Christian Conservative. "God intended 'Man and Woman' to go together". What supreme arrogance to speak of God's intentions. Good Grief!

I think many of those in the 'Bible Belt' are offended that the 'Lord's Prayer' is no longer allowed in school; that you can't display the 10 Commandments in the Courtroom; that human biology (human sexuality) is taught in the schools. 

As long as the United States Supreme Court continues to define the First Amendment to the Constitution; "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion", to mean that the State shall not support any one religion over another, the 'Moral Majority'/'Religious Right'/'Bible Belt' is going to get hot under the collar. With increasing immigration from the far flung reaches of the globe, more and more lawsuits against Protestantism are going to arise. This will no doubt create a backlash. Such a backlash could be fueled by the satellite fundraising organization ... oops ... preaching organizations, calling all believers not just to send in their money, but to take up arms in defense of some sick prophet (David Koresh). 

"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." John 15:13

I know, even the Devil can quote scripture if it serves him


----------



## kenpo tiger (Aug 13, 2004)

Guys,

I have no idea of where Robertson is from, but notice you're all Easterners otherwise (me too - and female, to boot!)

I agree with the notion that the South may attempt to secede again on religious grounds.  There's still way too much display of the rebel flag south of the Manson/Nixon line - and bedsheets as well.  Under our basic freedom of expression, I guess they're allowed to do all that, but it scares me.  In fact, it scares me enough to not want to visit points south at all (Florida is a whole other world and let's don't go there, thank you).  The bible thumpers around here are Black Southern Baptists and usually keep to themselves, except the once or twice a year the missionaries come by.  Telling them what my religion is usually dissuades them from any argument/discussion, and they leave.  However, also BECAUSE of my religion, I'd be one of the first targeted, along with them, if the 'deliverance' boys do run amok.

So, should I be taking off to the woods to hide behind MichaelEdward in glorious New Hampshire?  Or, should I add weapons training to my ma training?  Or - are they a non-issue, as was also stated above?  As long as people like our current president have any say, I'm frightened for my children's rights and liberties.  At least he can't draft them.  KT


----------



## Mark Weiser (Aug 13, 2004)

KT! I am or will be adding Firearms Training to my school. My Plan is to have a combat ranch to train civies combat tactics in reference to firearms such as snap shooting (this is done while clearing a room or walking thur unfamiliar areas), fast draw shooting from a concealed holster (this is done while on the streets you have about 3-5 seconds in a firefight to win), The Three shot rule (Two to the Body and then One to the Head), shooting while on the move,  This is not target practice empty your weapon and reload never taking your eyes off the bad guy, etc....

To give someone who owns a handgun the confidence to use it in a confrontation with criminals and or terrorist.


----------



## Melissa426 (Aug 13, 2004)

Funny, I was just thinking about this today...

I have a crazy  (not literally psychiatrically crazy) Uncle Wally, who is in his mid '50's, who hates the federal government with a passion.

He hasn't paid taxes in 30 years.
He believes 9-11 was a government conspiracy, and he has videotapes to prove it.
He doesn't go any where with out his guns ( and he has several ).  He keeps them in his car trunk, cause other wise you never know when the Feds are going to break into your house and take them all away.
He was a member of the Indianapolis Baptist Temple which got into serious trouble with the government over not withholding income taxes from their employees' wages  (said government can't dictate that because of separation between church and state).

I expect to see him in the paper someday as part of a group that did try to secede from the Union or overthrow the government.

He claims that there are millions of Americans who feel the same way he does, but they have been brainwashed by the government that there is nothing they can do about it.


----------



## Mark Weiser (Aug 13, 2004)

I have actually been offered a Commission in a Milita group once as a Captain due to my background. I turned them down. 

I was also approached by another local group for recuritment and all the material and info I got was turned over to the KBI after they came to my house that is the KBI. 

So I have been around them a little and I do worry about thier motives.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Aug 13, 2004)

Melissa426 said:
			
		

> Funny, I was just thinking about this today...
> 
> I have a crazy (not literally psychiatrically crazy) Uncle Wally, who is in his mid '50's, who hates the federal government with a passion.
> 
> ...


Melissa,
We must be related somehow.  One of my relatives always carries a gun - even at my wedding - 'because you never know when your enemies will surface.'  He, too, did his part for 'civil disobedience', but I won't go into that -- because he carries a gun.  KT


----------



## kenpo tiger (Aug 13, 2004)

Mark Weiser said:
			
		

> I have actually been offered a Commission in a Milita group once as a Captain due to my background. I turned them down.
> 
> I was also approached by another local group for recuritment and all the material and info I got was turned over to the KBI after they came to my house that is the KBI.
> 
> So I have been around them a little and I do worry about thier motives.


Mark,
I guess Kansas isn't all Dorothy and Toto, too.
How are there commissions in militia groups?  Naive Easterner needs to know. KT


----------



## Melissa426 (Aug 13, 2004)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> Melissa,
> We must be related somehow. One of my relatives always carries a gun - even at my wedding - 'because you never know when your enemies will surface.' He, too, did his part for 'civil disobedience', but I won't go into that -- because he carries a gun. KT


There's probably one somewhere in every family  !
We just smile and try very hard not to get him too riled up.  Fortunately, my brother and sisters and I are the only ones in the family he really likes.

Peace, 
Melissa


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Aug 13, 2004)

Melissa426--we have a surprising number of people like your uncle in Indiana.  Ask him if he buys his guns at Bradis Guns on Rt. 67.  If he doesn't, he ought to.  Good prices.

No, I don't think there will be a revolution here in the U.S.  Ideology and violence don't mix the way they used to, and given all the problems of our economy, we still are a well fed herd.  Well fed people are complacent people.

But your speculation as to what would happen if Bush were to NOT step down is interesting.  What if there were an attack after the election and he refused to hand over the office?

Yeah...I think that would cause some serious problems.  You'd have Democrats buying guns, I suppose. That is, more Democrats than the current number, which is two.  The other guy's name is Phil, and he lives in Nebraska.  

We're our own support group.


Regards,

Steve


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 13, 2004)

Well, the sad part is, every time these topics come up, I realize that Lewis', "It Can't Happen Here," migh as well have been written yesterday.

It is also important to remember that a lot of the "intellectual," justification for this sort of horrror is coming from the likes of Michael Savage, G. Gordon Liddy, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Ollie North, Rush Limbaugh and--regrettably--our current Administration.

Why? Well, because who else is it who is getting on the airwaves and telling us to, "Shoot the ATF in the head...they wear body armor" (Liddy); or screaming that so-and-so is, "a traitor to their country," (Savage, Hannity, Limbaugh); or attacking John Kerrey's service in Vietnam (fill in the blank)? Who's circumventing federal law (Ollie North) to finance death squads that attacked elected governments in Latin America, and who makes his living going around selling this crap (Ollie North) to fundamentalist Christians? 

Oh yes--when a sitting President (Ronald Reagan) gives speeches to evangelical groups in which he talks about the End Times as due any day now, and gets on the radio and makes jokes about bombing the Soviet Union (look it up), it's  dangerous. It's dangerous because it encourages violence.

It helps legitimate the notion that this country is already engaged in civil war; it encourages religious hatred; it aids and abets dangerous claims that somebody with whom we disagree is actively evil.

And, these clowns are not all that far from "The Turner Diaries," only a little removed from screeching about ZOG and mud people...kissin' cousins in discourse, in fact. 

Remember, too, it's not so long ago that the likes of John Ashcroft and a host of conservative flacks started getting on TV and debating the legitimacy of "preventative detention," and torture in times of national emergency--and what happened next?

It's appalling, and it ought to be repudiated. By Republicans, since Democrats don't  seem to be pulling this crap--at least not this time around. By martial artists, who should know enough to see violence of any kind as an ugly, immoral, unglamorous last resort.


----------



## Disco (Aug 13, 2004)

IF a third revolution / second civil war were to occur, it strikes me that it would be over one of 3 things:
- Gay Rights
- Religious Rights
- Political Abuses.

Didn't you overlook a 4th thing? Those other 3 impact and bolster the 4th. I won't say what it is, but I will talk around it and see who picks up on it.

-4th - A segment of society that has been downsized, outsourced, rejected because of political correctness and unquoterized.  :uhohh:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 13, 2004)

ok... are we talking about 'white males' or 'tech workers'?  Both would fit, I think.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 13, 2004)

Unfortunately, as a white male, I find myself in a situation where Im "afraid" to complain about such topics for fear of being labeled various things......


----------



## Cryozombie (Aug 13, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, as a white male, I find myself in a situation where Im "afraid" to complain about such topics for fear of being labeled various things......



Agreed.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Aug 13, 2004)

Well, that's the glory of the internet.  If you don't want your messages being labeled based on your identity, you don't have to identify yourself.  To an extent, anyway.


----------



## MisterMike (Aug 13, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> The first thing that's of interest to me in this topic is the extent to which extreme right-wing and fundamentalist Protestants in this country actively hope that some sort of national conflagration would break out.
> 
> Look at the fiction, from those loonbox "Left Behind," books all the way through to right wing sf by Pournelle, Ringo, etc. And I liked "Red Dawn," but c'mahn...



So are you saying you missed the extent to which the leftists hope to have the same? Or is it just "not as far?" One needn't look too far on the net, or even off this board.

And from what I remember, the "Left Behind" books don't mention Civil war, but rather the takeover by the "U.N." figure after a conspired nuclear attack on the U.S. Great stuff actually.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Aug 14, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> So are you saying you missed the extent to which the leftists hope to have the same? Or is it just "not as far?" One needn't look too far on the net, or even off this board.


A good point; the gun control issues themselves concern a liberal attempt to control individual behavior, and a conservative resistance.  I don't mean to imply that gun control is bad; in fact, I agree with it to some extent.  But the issues over which revolution is being questioned, at least in this thread, concern individual rights from government intervention of both liberal and conservative origin, not just some Far Right members trying to impose their views through revolt.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 14, 2004)

Ah yes, I was wondering when the Terrible Plight of the Poor, Picked Upon White Men of America would come up as an issue. I too feel for them, what with their domination of the government, the media, the economic system, the military...oh, you poor, poor, poor lads. My goodness. It must be Terrible. A man cain't hardly beat his woman and slaves no more, on account of them damn liberals. Them Thoreaus and Emersons. Them Sojourner Truths and them Frederick Douglasses. 

It's racist fantasy that lies at the bottom of these claims, from "Red Dawn," to whatever. And it's fear of women.

As for the "Left Behind," books, yep, Mike, thanks for the precise reinforcement of my point.  They feature a) Millenarialist fantasy; b) civil war in this country and abroad; c) hatred of liberal ideas; d) an identification of the UN with Satan. All of which are long-standing, fully-articulated themes of such books as, "The Turner Diaries."

We can do better than Tim La Haye, David Koresh, Pat Buchanan, Michael Savage, and the rest of these clowns. Shame on them for their lack of faith in  this country, and shame on those who take their ugly little notions seriously. We can do better. 

Warning: later, I shall be engaging in a tirade about the way that some bespeak an utter lack of faith in the founding principles of this country--freedom of belief, of speech, of thought--and the utter lack of faith, for that matter, in democratic and humanist principles that it has taken the human race several thousand years to articulate and to begin to make realities.

I believe in what's best about this country, and in human history. Shouldn't you?


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Aug 14, 2004)

Strange, I don't remember anyone complaining about not being able to beat women and slaves anywhere earlier in the thread.  Guess I should double-check.....


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 14, 2004)

Absolutely right. When guys start in on "a second American Civil War," complain about gun control, mention things like gay rights and civil rights as  causes of said war, then segue on to kvetching about the abuse of the Poor White Male, there is no reason whatsoever to say anything about misogyny and the rest, or to invoke the sorry history of race and gender in this country. Whatever was I thinking.


----------



## Mark Weiser (Aug 14, 2004)

To quote a famous announcer in the recent years.

"*Lets get ready to ruuuuuuuummmmmmmbbbbbbbblllllllleeeeee*!!!!!!"

DING! DING!!


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Aug 14, 2004)

My sincerest apologies to all other readers if this is too off-topic. I just didn't want to dedicate an entire thread to an argument. 



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Absolutely right. When guys start in on "a second American Civil War," complain about gun control, mention things like gay rights and civil rights as causes of said war, then segue on to kvetching about the abuse of the Poor White Male, there is no reason whatsoever to say anything about misogyny and the rest, or to invoke the sorry history of race and gender in this country. Whatever was I thinking.


The simple topic has been whether the current political conflicts over gay rights, religious rights, political abuses, and gun control (the latter seems to have included itself throughout the thread) could lead to any sort of revolutions, as did happen during the Civil War and Civil Rights Movement in the past. Asking whether such an event could unfold is not saying "get in the truck, boys, we got some liberal yankees to keel!!" 

And mentioning that white males are subject to discrimination in political discourse (as I have seen happen in college classes myself) does not constitute a cry for the good old days when white men could beat their wives and slaves and lynch negroes whenever they want and without trial, nor a claim that they're being oppressed on all social fronts. I fail to understand why you think that the mention of reverse discrimination is nothing more than a call for the return of the Confederacy. 

But wait, I forgot. Some of my ancestors may have ran a plantation, or beat their wives, so in a twisted version of original sin, I, as a white male, have no right to make any complaints about social discourse. Shame on me.....


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 14, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> So are you saying you missed the extent to which the leftists hope to have the same? Or is it just "not as far?" One needn't look too far on the net, or even off this board.


Please go on with this first thought. I am about as lunatic-left-wing-latte-drinking New Englander as you are going to find on this board or any other, and I missed my call for a civil war.  The only weapons I have employed to stir others to my side of an argument is my superior intellect (I hope) and rigourous debate.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 14, 2004)

My intent for this thread wasn't to get into the details of real or imagined issues, but examine what could possibly cause a revolution in the US, and if the US population would actually go through with it.  If we can see some areas that require more indepth analysis, lets spin them off into their own thread where they can be more properly examined and debated and reserve this thread for the main topic.

Thanks.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Aug 14, 2004)

I highly doubt any of the issues mentioned would actually spark any type of revolt.  Reason being that they are political issues, and for any major part of the population to revolt over such issues, there would have to be a great deal of unity among them.  If there is one thing that can be said about the common man's politics, it's that it's fragmented.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Aug 14, 2004)

I think that a large-scale political or racial injustice would trigger...something in this country.  Like the LA riots after the Rodney King verdict - but on a larger, national scale.  I'm not quite sure what that would be, but I can envision it happening.

People are getting squeezed out of the middle class, and the failing economy - as measured by the "typical" or "modal" American - is putting social stresses on each person, and on society.  If an(other) election is "stolen".... I'm not sure.  But I think the feelings of discontent are there.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 14, 2004)

Again, my point is that these notions about, "revolution," especially violent revolution, are typically right-wing fantasies these days. 

Exceptions, I suppose, would be LeVar Burton's "Aftermath," and Eric Flint's "1633," but far more typically these books and films and what-have-you revolve specifically around the notion that white men are somehow pushed to revolt by gun control, gays, feminists, the abolition of forced fundamentalist prayer in schools, and similar oppressions.

The difference from, say, the REAL Civil War is that in this case, members of the very race and gender that's in power are doing the complaining. Hm...maybe it's not so different, given the extent to which white slaveowners portrayed themselves as victims.

Of course, the other weird thing is that these very same guys are supporting "leaders," and issues, that contribue to their oppressions--like, for instance, working class men who support Bush's awarding gigundo tax cuts to the wealthiest members of our society on the grounds that this will somehow magically help the economy, and respoding to criticism by claiming the the people doing the criticizing are the real enemy.


----------



## Kane (Aug 14, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> working class men who support Bush's awarding gigundo tax cuts to the wealthiest members of our society on the grounds that this will somehow magically help the economy, and respoding to criticism by claiming the the people doing the criticizing are the real enemy.


Who says those tax cuts only help the rich? I support the tax cuts and yet I am not near rich. Oh and just to clarify, the rich does pay most of the taxes, why do you think it benefits them the most? I just wanted to point that out.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 14, 2004)

Kane said:
			
		

> Who says those tax cuts only help the rich? I support the tax cuts and yet I am not near rich. Oh and just to clarify, the rich does pay most of the taxes, why do you think it benefits them the most? I just wanted to point that out.


Kane, How is the Kool-Aid? 

Those tax cuts for the wealthy (people averaging 87 million dollars a year in income) aren't being cut ... they are being shifted to you and me. Yes, our tax rate has dropped as well, under Bush, but look at the countries' credit card debt .... In the last three years, the country has piled billions and billions of dollars onto the Federal Debt. Who do you think is going to pay when that bill comes due? (Hint - After Reagan / Bush1 - Clinton Raised Taxes on everybody in 1993.)

Our Federal Income tax system is a 'Progressive Tax System', this means that those who are most able to pay, pay more. Those who are less able to pay, pay less.

For years, the right has been selling the idea that you, too, may one day be rich, and therefore, anything that benefits the rich today, might possibly benefit you tomorrow. The problem with this argument is the deck is stacked against you. You are never going to be rich. You are never going to have to worry about the 'Death Tax'. You might, someday have to worry about Social Security, but by that time, it will have imploded in on itself, in no small part because President Bush did not treat the Social Security trust fund as he promised to during his campaign; he gave it all to his rich buddies (and you ain't one of them - oh, yeah, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity both are).

Kane, I don't want to re-hash all of the debates we have already had about fiscal policies. There are enough news reports (not editorial opinions) that show how bad the Bush Administration has been for the 'Average Joe' when it comes to monetary policy. 

And me telling you this here, isn't going to change your opinion. But Please Please Please ... read some newspapers, read some books, turn off the radio, turn off the television.

Good Luck, Mike


----------



## PeachMonkey (Aug 14, 2004)

Kane said:
			
		

> Who says those tax cuts only help the rich?


 
 Anyone who actually looks at the facts.  In fact, over the long run, those tax cuts will hurt *everyone*.



			
				Kane said:
			
		

> I support the tax cuts and yet I am not near rich.


 The only thing more depressing than the fact that the wealthy have been so successful in waging class warfare is that so many of their victims happily buy into it.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Aug 15, 2004)

> Kane, How is the Kool-Aid?


 lol



> Those tax cuts for the wealthy (people averaging 87 million dollars a year in income) aren't being cut ... they are being shifted to you and me. Yes, our tax rate has dropped as well, under Bush, but look at the countries' credit card debt .... In the last three years, the country has piled billions and billions of dollars onto the Federal Debt. Who do you think is going to pay when that bill comes due?


Not only will the costs be shifted to the rest of us in the future (paying off the whopping, mind-boggling, record-breaking National Debt), but we are paying for it *now* - as federal funding is cut from state programs, and states have to raise taxes (which we pay), states cut programs.  The large, well-known university I work at has been hiking tuition, and trying to "cut corners" every way possible, while still remaining a leader in education and research.  Now that the state is in such a bind (due to having to take over funding more programs that the federal govt used to fund), programs and institutions will either fold, or pass the cost on to each of us in other ways.

Luckily for those poor rich folks, they can afford whatever they would like to begin with, and now even more with these huge financial gifts from Bush the Second to his buddies.  Too bad for the rest of us.


----------



## Kane (Aug 15, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> And me telling you this here, isn't going to change your opinion. But Please Please Please ... read some newspapers, read some books, turn off the radio, turn off the television.
> 
> Good Luck, Mike


Mike, Are you telling me just because I have a different opinion on this than you that I am wrong and never read a book, read a newspaper, and only get my info on TV? My friend, I have probably read more books on political perspective than you might ever read. What you are basically saying is that just because my views are not mostly liberal means I am ignorant and only get source from off the TV. No Mike, it doesnt work that way.



Now that we are on the subject, can you tell me specifically where you get your sources? I actually think TV is liberal bias, so I dont see how you think I only watch TV. Anyway, please name a few sources. Cheers!


----------



## DoxN4cer (Aug 15, 2004)

dearnis.com said:
			
		

> Short answer is yes.  We aren't going to use things like close air support in our own communities (one hopes...).  Many "gun nuts" are prior military.  The best historical example is probably the Warsaw Ghetto uprising.  Without entering a debate, a handful of starved, beaten, mostly unarmed Jews held off the German army, if only for a little while.
> 
> Chad



I have to agree with Chad.  Look at the historical examples of insurgency, even the examples of today in Iraq.  A handful of highly motivated gueriilas in their home turf can really play havoc on highly trained military troops; particularly when those troops are restricted by rules of engagement that limit what course of action they may take.  

Tim Kashino


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Aug 15, 2004)

Kane said:
			
		

> Now that we are on the subject, can you tell me specifically where you get your sources? I actually think TV is liberal bias, so I dont see how you think I only watch TV. Anyway, please name a few sources. Cheers!





Gee, didn't we have a whole thread on that where we essentially established the fallacy of such a notion?

Kane, I find it difficult to believe you've read more than Michael insofar as books with a political perspective.  Don't take this personally.  After having read his posts, I think he's probably read far more than most of us here, including me.

But you left yourself open with the line stating that GWB's tax breaks benefit more than just the wealthy.  How did you miss the Congressional Budgeting Office's report on taxes last week?  The tax burden has shifted off of the wealthy and on to the middle class.  Two thirds of all tax breaks were directed to the top 1% of the nation's wealthy.

Regards,


Steve


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 15, 2004)

Kane said:
			
		

> Mike, Are you telling me just because I have a different opinion on this than you that I am wrong and never read a book, read a newspaper, and only get my info on TV? My friend, I have probably read more books on political perspective than you might ever read. What you are basically saying is that just because my views are not mostly liberal means I am ignorant and only get source from off the TV. No Mike, it doesnt work that way.
> 
> Now that we are on the subject, can you tell me specifically where you get your sources? I actually think TV is liberal bias, so I dont see how you think I only watch TV. Anyway, please name a few sources. Cheers!


Kane, I am not saying anything about your views because they are different from mine. I am calling you *willfully mis-informed;* specifically, when you make statements like :


			
				Kane said:
			
		

> Who says those tax cuts only help the rich?


after I have posted hyper-links to stories such as:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5689001/



			
				msnbc said:
			
		

> WASHINGTON - Since 2001, President Bush's tax cuts have shifted federal tax payments from the richest Americans to a wide swath of middle-class families, the Congressional Budget Office has found, a conclusion likely to roil the presidential election campaign.


According to this news report, the answer to your question is "The Congressional Budget Office" says those tax cuts only help the rich.

As long as you are willing to ignore statements by organizations like the CBO, which is supposed to be politically neutral (even if both houses of congress are Republican), you are behaving in a willfully ignorant manner, much like the followers of Jim Jones in Jonestown, Guyana (e.g. Kool-Aid).

Now, the statements about the newspapers and books, yeah, that was perhaps a bit over the top. But, reading Sean Hannity's book, is not the same as reading, say, "The President of Good and Evil - The ethics of George W. Bush" by Peter Singer of "The Myth of Ownership" by Laim Murphy & Thomas Nagel. (which are two of the books I have recently read, although there are others).

Now, since you asked:
I rarely watch TV News, either broadcast or cable. I do watch *occassionaly*, 60 Minutes and Now (with Bill Moyers). When there is a big political story, I may tune in to the Sunday Morning News Discussion programs.

My internet home page is 'MSNBC'. I regularly visit the 'CNN' website and the 'BBC' website. I also have 'The Nation', 'Altercation Blog', and 'MichaelMoore's' website stored on my favorites list.

As my vocation is a 'Field Service Representative', I spend a great deal of time in my car, I regularly listen to 'Don Imus', 'Bill O'Reilly' and 'Laura Ingraham'; as well as local voices 'Jay Severin' and 'Mike Barnicle'. All Conservative voices.

My library of books is decidedly from the left point of view. Although I do own, and have read both 'The Way Things Ought to Be', and 'See, I Told You So' by the GRAND poo-bah of talk radio. 

So, I am guessing, that I willingly seek out and receive more information from the other side of the political spectrum than my counterparts from the right. So, Kane, can you tell me where you get your information concerning 'Liberal' ideas. What Liberal Books have you read? What Liberal Radio shows do you listen to (OK .. there is no liberal radio ... so you can forget that one). 

Thanks for playing - Mike


----------



## sma_book (Aug 15, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Please go on with this first thought. I am about as lunatic-left-wing-latte-drinking New Englander as you are going to find on this board or any other, and I missed my call for a civil war.  The only weapons I have employed to stir others to my side of an argument is my superior intellect (I hope) and rigourous debate.




Hey, I know for an absolute *fact* that you don't drink latte, and you sure as heck don't have a Volvo. You might be called an Orvis-wielding Jeep driver, but definately not a Volvo......

- Sheryl


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 15, 2004)

DoxN4cer said:
			
		

> I have to agree with Chad.  Look at the historical examples of insurgency, even the examples of today in Iraq.  A handful of highly motivated gueriilas in their home turf can really play havoc on highly trained military troops; particularly when those troops are restricted by rules of engagement that limit what course of action they may take.
> 
> Tim Kashino


 I think theres a difference between 'cause problems' and 'have a chance'.

Right now, I'm seeing casulty rates of 400 rebels to 1 US marine in Iraq.  Thats killed, not wounded.  I've seen numbers of overall losses of over 100,000 Iraqi and Foriegn vs < 10,000 US K/W/M.  If the US can domestically deploy 100,000 troops, combined with the mostly honest* local police forces, I can't see more than speedbump skirmishes that result in alot of civilians injured, and a good amount of property damage, but only a few govmt. losses and the majority of the rebels killed.

The US has proven that it has no problem using force against it's own people.  Waco, Ruby Ridge, Kent State and more prove that.  The last American uprising was fought using scortched earth policies, human wave tactics against a technically inferior and outnumbered foe who was deeply religious and fighting for thier own right to self determination.  This time, we as a people are pretty much even technically but the military has all the 'good toys'. The fact that a few functional machine guns or AAM's may be floating around doesn't negate the fact that a true army just doesn't shop at Walmart for it's weapons. We simply don't have the quantity or quality of weapons one would find in Iraq or Somalia. Another problem would be, I honestly don't think the people have it in their hearts to fight.  Sure, they complain, whine and *****...but how many vote?  Speak out?  campaign?  Woman and Blacks and other minority groups fought for generations for the right to vote...yet less than 50% are registered to vote, and less than 50% of registered voters use the right.

Robert will muddy the issue by thinking the first civil war was mostly about wealthy slave owners keeping people in bondage and women in thier place.  He chooses to ignore the fact that slavery was a dying institution, the bulk of the southern army was made of non-slave owners, that 5% of slave owners were of African decent, and that there were a significant number of troops on the southern side who were also of African decent. One has to wonder how things like race relations would have turned out if things had progressed without war. We will ignore that reality for the moment and say that Slavery was the galvinizing force that brought the country to war. But, we can leave the in depth debate on the first war to another thread, which I'll be posting shortly as soon as I have time to finish my own research into it. I think it will be an interesting one. 

What issues do "we the people" feel so passionately about that we would take up arms and willingly sacrifice our lives for?

I see defence of my home, my friends, my family as 3.  As much as I believe that Gays are 'just people' and should have the same rights as anyone else, I don't know if I'd die for it.  I wouldn't go to war for either Bush or Kerry. When they put on the uniform and lead an infantry charge..maybe...but, I don't 'believe' in either enough to think they are worth getting a splinter for, much less dying for. I just can't think of much of hand.

One thing I do believe in though is States Rights...or at least the right to succede. WNY really should go the way of W. Virginia and leave NYS.   But, I wouldn't risk my life for that issue either.

Another point is, do we have any real regular militias left?  These formed the core of the armies in the first war.  Where will the core come from in a second?  30 'gun nuts' in Montana just isn't the same thing.  


*Mostly Honest Police Forces - Reference to the fact that over 90% of the LEO in the US are honest, good minded people who do their jobs and do not abuse the privilage or position of being a LEO.  This is in comparison to places such as Iraq where bribery, extortion and terror are the norm.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 15, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> What issues do "we the people" feel so passionately about that we would take up arms and willingly sacrifice our lives for?
> 
> Another point is, do we have any real regular militias left? These formed the core of the armies in the first war. Where will the core come from in a second? 30 'gun nuts' in Montana just isn't the same thing.


Bob, living in the Northeast, I think we sometimes are unaware of the strength of beliefs held by our countrymen in other parts of the country. I'm not sure how much you get to travel around the country, but in my job I do. And sometimes it is a bit spooky, at least to me.

I was implementing a software program at a business in Mobile, Alabama ... and beneath each of the cash registers was a loaded hand-gun. To my knowledge, that doesn't happen up here in the Northeast.

I re-state my position that those in the Bible Belt believe strongly enough in the Protestant Religion to fight and die for it. If there is another incedent of the ATF or DEA surrounding a religious organization (Waco), we could see televangalists calling the faithful to rise up against a government attacking their religous beliefs.

I think it is also note-worthy that there was rarely any 'real regular militias'. They were farmers, and when the need arose, the picked up their weapons and lined up in the field. With all of the guns in the country, raising a militia, I think, would not be a difficult thing for Pat Robertson.

Mike


----------



## Flatlander (Aug 15, 2004)

Bob, thank you for putting this de-railed monster back on track.  

I think that revolutions and civil wars are borne out of an extreme dissatisfaction with the status quo.  I can see that a continuance in the trend of class separation could light a few fuses.


----------



## Mark Weiser (Aug 15, 2004)

Okay putting on my Military Thinking cap (yes it is possible lol).

I can see this in a bigger picture gentlemen let try to explain.


Another Terrorist Incident occurs on US Soil with much a higher body count than 9/11
Civil Rights will be further cut back to the point of being in a quasi Martial Law State
We will as a people will be dubbed into having our focus on Muslim people for the "incident" pretty much similar to the German People focus on Jewish people during the 30's 
Giving Americans an 'enemy" to focus on and redirect us from the real true enemy that sits in power whom ever that is or will be. 
We will be fighting on several fronts with the following issues-- Civil & Religious to make "us" more secure. 
There will be a massive round up of Ethinc groups by either Military and or Milita(private) to make us feel safer while certain people consolidate its power base. 
Just some food for thought


----------



## Melissa426 (Aug 15, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I re-state my position that those in the Bible Belt believe strongly enough in the Protestant Religion to fight and die for it. If there is another incedent of the ATF or DEA surrounding a religious organization (Waco), we could see televangalists calling the faithful to rise up against a government attacking their religous beliefs.
> 
> 
> Mike


Oh, please.
Mike, I like to read your posts and I  respect them for their thoughtfulness and insight, but you are way off base here.

I don't know if you are involved in a mainstream Protestant religion, but I am.
I can tell you that David Koresh's Branch Davidians were a cult. They have about as much in common with the average believer in the Bible Belt as Madonna (the singer)  and Judaism. 

There may be some people who would heed such a call, if you can find a televangelist who'd spew that garbage, but they are on the  (lunatic) fringe, IMHO.

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=Matthew+7%3A+15-23&version=NIV

Posting items of a religious nature is risky.  Fools rush in where angels fear to tread. So, I'm an idiot.:uhyeah: 

Peace, 
Melissa


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 15, 2004)

Among the ideological and intellectual premises for these discussions are:

1. The notion that politics divide simply into, "liberal," vs. "conservative," two diametrically opposed forces.

2. The reluctance to examine history accurately, or to put present discussions in anything resembling their actual historical context. For instance, "states' rights," as a term and point of discussion, has a long and exceedingly dishonorable history in this country, which can be traced back through the likes of Lester Maddox, through the Jim Crow laws, and on into the South's self-justification for civil war.

3. The bizarre idea that the words, "religious," and, "Christian," are synonyms, so that typically in these discussions the word, "Christian," never even appears, since most take it for granted that there is only one religion.

4. The notion that the terms, "Chritisan," and, "Protestant fundamentalist," are synonyms; out here  in California, one often hears it said that, "Catholics aren't Christians," as the underpinning of attacks on, a) Mexican and Latin American immigrants; b) farmworkers' and other trade unions.

5. The notion that the, "status quo," is somehow owned and operated by liberals (which is  why we hear incessantly about Hollywood liberals) and minorites, which is recurrently  used to organize class resentment against everybody but the rich white guys who actually own and operate this country. For example, both Reagan and Bush II have run for office on the peculiar grounds that they are somehow, "outsiders," fighting to defend the American working stiff against Them.

6. The inability to meaningfully connect facts and theories, which would force the theories to change. Case in point: it remains odd to see working-class and lower-middle-class folks not merely defending, but actively arguing for, their own expropriation on behalf of the wealthy. Yet this takes place precisely at a time when jobs, medical care, access to education, public services of all kinds, are being taken away from most people in order that the very wealthy receive larger and larger tax cuts. 

7. The failure to see oneself as a participant in American history, which for all its screwups, has generally moved towards improving civil rights, working conditions, education, medicine, etc., in a democraatic society. One case is point is the ongoing attacks on the very unions and collective bargaining groups  that secured all sorts of rights (like the right to a 40-hour work-week)  for workers. In other words, what remains remarkable is the extent to which the very people who call upon American history loudest and longest seem completely unaware of the nature of that history--and, in fact, actively repudiate American history in favor of fantasy.


P.S. I might also have listed the bizarre willingness to accept violent, racist, repressive nut-cults as regular old religions. It would  be useful to study the history of such cults--try David Erdman's, "Blake: Prophet Against Empire," whose history is by and large very, very different from the cults we now see in this country. Groups  like the Muggletonians were indeed radical in both their religion and their politics--yet curiously, they consistently opposed central authority, extended civil rights to women, black people, etc., and argued for something very like socialism. Today's groups--and Koresh's is an excellent example--tend to be violent, Fascist, extremely racist, and radically capitalist. This would seem to be in direct contradiction of the teachings of Christ--or did I miss the part in which Jesus advocated stockpiling automatic weapons, and commiting suicide if you don't get what you want?


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 15, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Case in point: it remains odd to see working-class and lower-middle-class folks not merely defending, but actively arguing for, their own expropriation on behalf of the wealthy. Yet this takes place precisely at a time when jobs, medical care, access to education, public services of all kinds, are being taken away from most people in order that the very wealthy receive larger and larger tax cuts.


I often wonder, Robert, if the 'working-class and lower-middle class folks' you are refering to understand *a)* that they are in that socio-economic class and *b)* the vocabulary, sentence structure and argument.

As always, thanks. Mike


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 15, 2004)

Well, I see your point. But a) I put things plainly previously, and got yelled at; b) these ideas are well within the reach of anybody on this forum--after all, I got them.

But then, I went through the public school system at a time when--for all the little probs like segregation--there was an actual, growing commitment to educating every single student. And teachers actually knew stuff (again, for all the probs in what they knew), tried to teach it to students, and--above all-worked to teach students to think.

This included teaching weird stuff--like evolution, which remains the basis of a decent science education, and the wacky, radical notion that this was a democratic country in which all sorts of people had a part to play--not some creepy European monarchy, where you had to worship is only one way, rich people could order you around, and you hated everybody else.

That's why these notions about civil war are so ugly--they are an absolute rejection of everything this country has traditionally stood for.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 15, 2004)

Melissa426 said:
			
		

> Oh, please.
> Mike, I like to read your posts and I respect them for their thoughtfulness and insight, but you are way off base here.
> 
> I don't know if you are involved in a mainstream Protestant religion, but I am.
> ...


Melissa, Thanks for your post.

I am an Athiest. 
I was baptised, raise and confirmed in the Catholic Church. I served as an acolyte in my Church. Throughout my youth, I participated in the music ministry in our church, and was further involved in evangelical outreach. For several years, I was a regular attendee at the local 'Full Gospel Business Men's Fellowship' meetings.

Do you think the followers of David Koresh thought they were members of a cult? Do you think the followers of Muqtada al Sadr think that they are members of a cult? I think the rift between 'believer' and 'true believer' is not as wide as you think. 

I think back to the uproar about Judge Roy Moore's Rock. It was up front and in the news for months. Judge Moore was *elected* to serve as the Chair of the Alabama Supreme Court, presumably by the citizens of Alabama. His election occurred *after *he disobeyed the orders of Federal Circuit Judge to remove the plaque of the 10 Commandments from the walls of his courtroom. After this order was issued, the Governor of Alabama said he would be willing to "call out the State Police and to mobilize the National Guard, if necessary, to prevent anyone from attempting to remove the plaque."

I think that perhaps ... getting the good people of Alabama, who seem to willfully ignore the 1st Amendment to the Constitution, to rise up in defense of the 10 Commandments might not be that far of a stretch.

Anyhow ... I hope you are correct. I hope those are in the 'lunatic fringe'. I hope that I am wrong. 

Mike


----------



## Phoenix44 (Aug 16, 2004)

Well, I think this country is more divided now than anything I've seen since the 60s. And yes, I think there could be some sort of a revolution, and I think the issue would be political abuse.

People are tired of reading about school board embezzlement, corporate criminals, and pension plan misuse. We're tired of rich people getting away with things that the rest of us would be in jail for. We're tired of our elected officials lying to us for the purpose of lining their own pockets. We're tired of people in power using our young people's lives for their own purposes, without ever sacrificing anything of their own. We're tired of people in power denying us the benefits of scientific research...until they realize it would benefit them. We're tired of the "news" media acting like the Jerry Springer show. We're tired of the fact that our politicians think they're entitled to better health care benefits than we are. We're tired of our politicians putting corporate profits above human needs.

I don't think that the *results* of the upcoming election would precipitate a revolution. But if it smells like the election is tainted again--people dropped from the roles, tampered voter registration forms, the Diebold machines which could just be the last straw, or even a megalomaniac President who refuses to leave the White House when he's voted out--then, yes, I believe this country could be torn apart.


----------



## Flatlander (Aug 16, 2004)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> or even a megalomaniac President who refuses to leave the White House when he's voted out--then, yes, I believe this country could be torn apart.


The fact that this is even considered possible by anyone, me included, disturbs me greatly.  This is one of those things that only happens "back then" or "over there".  Yikes.


----------



## OULobo (Aug 16, 2004)

I don't think the country is ripe for a civil war. We are too bound in patriotism ala 9/11. I think if it is going to be an issue, I would agree with some of the views already posted, that it will be one of tyrannical control and loss of rights, something that will even further polarize the pop., this time to an extreme. The gun issue will be a sparkplug, because of the mentality of the pro-gun crowd (myself included), "cold dead hands". A motivated and moderately armed resistance can have a great impact on a modern fighting force. Look what is happening in Iraq right now. The biggest problem for a resistance in America would be the allocation of weapons that are easily obtained for the middle eastern countries where they are already saturated in small cheap weaponry. I don't see the south ceding because the idea of fundamentalism spans the country, it isn't located only in the south. It would be more of an "us vs them" war, not a north vs south war. I don't think the race card is too valid yet. Mainly because the numbers still aren't there and it isn't localized enough, unless it becomes everyone against WASPS. Scary stuff anyway.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 18, 2004)

This was posted on the 'Altercation' web site today. It is an email sent in to the author. I found it timely.




> *Name: Dave Kantor
> Hometown: Cleveland, OH*
> Protesters on one side and the rest of us on the other -- this country needs another civil war to protect from trash like you and your friends at the nation.. I care about voters in Missouri and not about the human trash across this world (or in San Francisco).  Let the war begin -- purify society with violent repudiation of Liberalism and all other forms of social engineering.  Then America can be the great country it should be.


----------



## Mark Weiser (Aug 18, 2004)

Yikes I live in Kansas!! Maaa!!! get the guns out we're going to have visitors!


----------

