The Coming CIVIL WAR!

[mudwhistle]

These civil war threads bring out the worst in our resident "patriots". They post their sad, masturbatory mass murder fantasies and then wonder why everyone else thinks they are un-American scumbags.

I'd just like some specifics for a change.

We are already in a post Civil War America.

I'd actually agree with that.

So you wouldn't support what they're talking about?
.

I don't support any extremes.
I've always been a moderate, but because the left is going more and more left, I'm accused often of being a rightwinger.
The primary beef people have with me is I don't fall for their idiot ideas.
Course, that's what they intended.
They take a ridiculous position and wait for the predictable reaction.....and then it triggers them into a violent rant against open-minded yet more rational thinkers.

If you're moderate, I'm the Queen of Sheba.

Nice to meet you, your grace.

 

[BS Filter]

The war wouldn't last long. Bust a few leftist noses and they're done.

 

[IM2]

The “not all whites” argument is a common straw man argument on this forum. I make some statement about whites and then be informed that “not all whites” are like that, that they are Individuals. Like there is some special rule of English that “whites” always means “all whites”. Even when I say “some whites” or “most whites” it can still be taken to mean “all whites” – since clearly I only put in those words as a cheap trick to fool people.

In America, according to the government numbers, whites are supposedly better at reading than blacks. I would never know that from this forum: Only rarely do black commenters seriously misunderstand me while it is quite common for whites. And this imagined “all” before “whites” – which is not in any grammar book I know of – is one of the main causes.

Example: When I say, “Whites owned slaves” it hardly means they all owned slaves. As far as I know no more than 2% of White Americans ever did. Yet that does not make the statement untrue or meaningless. Because quantity is not the issue – it was never stated. To make quantity the issue is a derailment. To assume it means “All whites owned slaves” is putting words in my mouth and creating a straw man argument.

Since the “all whites” thing is not in any grammar book I wonder where it comes from. The best reason I have heard so far is that many White Americans use dichotomous thinking, seeing things as either-or. That means it is easy for them to think of whites as either being all the same or all Unique Individuals Unaffected by Race or Culture, leaving little middle ground between the two extremes.

So if I say “whites are racist” it is taken to mean that all whites are racist and racist in the same way. As if I said, “All whites are skinhead racists.” But what is in my head is a range:

• from skinhead racists
• to Jim Crow racists
• to scientific racists
• to “The Bell Curve” sorts
• to black pathologists
• to white Republicans
• to ordinary colour-blind racists
• to white liberal racists
• to white anti-racist racists
• to those souls who are not racist at all
• to those who fought against the slave trade
• to the white Freedom Riders
• to John Brown

– and much more.

I know whites are individuals. I live in a country that is mostly white. I had to deal with whites at work, on sports teams, in community meetings and socially. I watch American film and television where whites are given whole story lines complete with a love life, where they are almost never reduced to stereotypes as whites.

So I expect them to be individuals. Which makes it all the more surprising and interesting to me when they do seem to act from a hive mind.

 

[mudwhistle]

The Declaration of Independence is sexist, racist and prejudiced

And homophobic.

 

[IM2]

Hey, how's THAT for a dramatic thread title, huh?

Anyway, it may be my imagination, but it seems like the frequency of veiled and unveiled threats of a coming Civil War are increasing, so I'd like to see if we can specific. Enough generalities, let's set serious.

What would a post-Civil War America actually LOOK like?

Based on what I've read, I can think of only three goals the Civil Warsters (?) might have:

1. Enough dead Democrats so that Republicans would win all the elections and we'd have one-party rule

2. People are living in such fear of the "patriots" with the guns that they vote Republican to save their fucking lives

3. Giving the "patriots" some land so that they can be patriots there. Give it a name like, uh, TRUMP.

If we go with #3, some decisions would need to be made. Obviously the West Coast would not work, nor the Northeast. Plus, it would be better if we kept the new countries contiguous for logistical reasons. Looking at the map below, maybe the "patriots" would like something like Texas (obviously you'd have to get rid of a shitload of brown people), Oklahoma, Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Tennessee and Kentucky, something like that. I'd personally be willing to throw in Utah, but Arizona and New Mexico would be problematic.

Anyway -- thoughts?

I'll respond before reading all the other posts. What we need right now is to divide this country right down the middle from north to south. One side will be the Republican side and the other the Democrat. It will be decided based on a national vote who gets what side. People in the middle will have to decide which side they wish to live on.

It's the only way for this country to survive because every year, we Americans are drifting further and further apart. There is almost no middle ground now and it's only going to get worse.

So in essence we will have two United States of America's. On the Republican side, we will build a big beautiful Trump wall to keep the Democrats out. We will each have our own government and Constitution for that side to live from. Because most of the businesses would move to the Republican side due to lower taxes and regulation, like immigration, we may consider issuing work permits for Democrats to come over and work. But that's it. Work, and don't bitch.

Things would not happen in the way you claim. You right wingers have been wrong about democrats for years.

 

[IM2]

The war wouldn't last long. Bust a few leftist noses and they're done.

Why is it you right wing pussies think you are so tough?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

We need to think of a new name though, Mac. The civil war has already been done. Why are internal wars called civil. They're not civil.

That's true, but most of the threats I read here do involve violence, and so I'm wondering if the civil war I keep hearing about would be something like the original.
.

Good point. Lets rage on and keep with the theme around here.

 

[Third Party]

Hey, how's THAT for a dramatic thread title, huh?

Anyway, it may be my imagination, but it seems like the frequency of veiled and unveiled threats of a coming Civil War are increasing, so I'd like to see if we can specific. Enough generalities, let's set serious.

What would a post-Civil War America actually LOOK like?

Based on what I've read, I can think of only three goals the Civil Warsters (?) might have:

1. Enough dead Democrats so that Republicans would win all the elections and we'd have one-party rule

2. People are living in such fear of the "patriots" with the guns that they vote Republican to save their fucking lives

3. Giving the "patriots" some land so that they can be patriots there. Give it a name like, uh, TRUMP.

If we go with #3, some decisions would need to be made. Obviously the West Coast would not work, nor the Northeast. Plus, it would be better if we kept the new countries contiguous for logistical reasons. Looking at the map below, maybe the "patriots" would like something like Texas (obviously you'd have to get rid of a shitload of brown people), Oklahoma, Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Tennessee and Kentucky, something like that. I'd personally be willing to throw in Utah, but Arizona and New Mexico would be problematic.

Anyway -- thoughts?

We had two civil wars-the one you know and 1968. Burning cities, college uprisings, civil rights battles, VietNam War, Democrat convention, MLK,RFK assassinations, 3 way presidential election, Tet Offensive, and Black Panthers. But, we are still here.

The black panthers were part of no war. In 1968 the problem was Vietnam and whites not wanting every else to have the same rights as they had.

The Black Panthers hid behind Trump during the draft. Are you white? How could you know what they want? I think you suffer from a persecution complex-we'll help you-keep posting.

You think wrong. I was around in 1968 and you didn't include J. Edgar Hoover, the KKK and other white groups when you mention 1968. Civil rights should not have been part of a war unless you're saying whites opposed it. You ask am I white, that's a stupid question. Blacks don't get to be isolated from whites to the extent of not learning how whites see things. And in usual fashion a group that worked to help the black community is accused of something negative. I'm not the one suffering. You are.

You think wrong that I think wrong. Hoover and the KKK were not a big deal. Civil rights were a process not an automatic. You could be white playing devil's advocate with your whacky views on white thinking. There was some isolation-I saw black students fascinated by blonde hair. And, if I am suffering and you are not, why are you complaining about racism?

 

[JoeB131]

Hey, how's THAT for a dramatic thread title, huh?

Anyway, it may be my imagination, but it seems like the frequency of veiled and unveiled threats of a coming Civil War are increasing, so I'd like to see if we can specific. Enough generalities, let's set serious.

Vichy Mac, you need to take a break from this board.

 

[Third Party]

We had two civil wars-the one you know and 1968. Burning cities, college uprisings, civil rights battles, VietNam War, Democrat convention, MLK,RFK assassinations, 3 way presidential election, Tet Offensive, and Black Panthers. But, we are still here.

The black panthers were part of no war. In 1968 the problem was Vietnam and whites not wanting every else to have the same rights as they had.

You seem to think that all the white people and all the ethnic groups within were all in the same big boat. Not true. Perhaps better then African Americans back then, but not treated the same.

I saw 1968 brother. I think nothing of the sort. The ink on the 1965 civil rights act was barely dry in 1968.

Again not all white people were treated the same all over this nation. I do not compare that to African Americans.

All whites not being treated the same didn't stop most whites from opposing/not abiding by laws passed as result of the civil rights act during that time.

Did you take a census to determine most? If you felt/feel picked on, I am sorry, but I did not meet you then and cannot help you now. You have to help yourself.

 

[mudwhistle]

The “not all whites” argument is a common straw man argument on this forum. I make some statement about whites and then be informed that “not all whites” are like that, that they are Individuals. Like there is some special rule of English that “whites” always means “all whites”. Even when I say “some whites” or “most whites” it can still be taken to mean “all whites” – since clearly I only put in those words as a cheap trick to fool people.

In America, according to the government numbers, whites are supposedly better at reading than blacks. I would never know that from this forum: Only rarely do black commenters seriously misunderstand me while it is quite common for whites. And this imagined “all” before “whites” – which is not in any grammar book I know of – is one of the main causes.

Example: When I say, “Whites owned slaves” it hardly means they all owned slaves. As far as I know no more than 2% of White Americans ever did. Yet that does not make the statement untrue or meaningless. Because quantity is not the issue – it was never stated. To make quantity the issue is a derailment. To assume it means “All whites owned slaves” is putting words in my mouth and creating a straw man argument.

Since the “all whites” thing is not in any grammar book I wonder where it comes from. The best reason I have heard so far is that many White Americans use dichotomous thinking, seeing things as either-or. That means it is easy for them to think of whites as either being all the same or all Unique Individuals Unaffected by Race or Culture, leaving little middle ground between the two extremes.

So if I say “whites are racist” it is taken to mean that all whites are racist and racist in the same way. As if I said, “All whites are skinhead racists.” But what is in my head is a range:

• from skinhead racists
• to Jim Crow racists
• to scientific racists
• to “The Bell Curve” sorts
• to black pathologists
• to white Republicans
• to ordinary colour-blind racists
• to white liberal racists
• to white anti-racist racists
• to those souls who are not racist at all
• to those who fought against the slave trade
• to the white Freedom Riders
• to John Brown

– and much more.

I know whites are individuals. I live in a country that is mostly white. I had to deal with whites at work, on sports reams, in community meetings and socially. I watch American film and television where whites are given whole story lines complete with a love life, where they are almost never reduced to stereotypes as whites.

So I expect them to be individuals. Which makes it all the more surprising and interesting to me when they do seem to act from a hive mind.

It can be said that most white Democrats are racists because it takes a racist to believe the Democrat platform.
Most rich Democrats are racists. Some think that minorities cannot obtain a driver's license. Some think blacks are too poor to afford a car to drive to the polls. Some think blacks are all of the same mind.
Most poor Southern Whites are Democrats. They are pretty open about it. They vote the same way their parents and grandparents voted, Democrat. They don't believe in mixed-marriages. They hate homosexuals. They don't vote Republican because they think Republicans are for the rich.
Most blacks are racists for the same reason Southern Whites are racists. It's also why most of them are Democrats.
To be a Democrat these days you have to be a bigot or a communist. Your sense of right and wrong is overruled by your sense of hatred for people who think different from you. You don't mind being told who to hate, when to hate, and what to hate.

 

[BS Filter]

The war wouldn't last long. Bust a few leftist noses and they're done.

Why is it you right wing pussies think you are so tough?

Piss off, loser.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Hey, how's THAT for a dramatic thread title, huh?

Anyway, it may be my imagination, but it seems like the frequency of veiled and unveiled threats of a coming Civil War are increasing, so I'd like to see if we can specific. Enough generalities, let's set serious.

What would a post-Civil War America actually LOOK like?

Based on what I've read, I can think of only three goals the Civil Warsters (?) might have:

1. Enough dead Democrats so that Republicans would win all the elections and we'd have one-party rule

2. People are living in such fear of the "patriots" with the guns that they vote Republican to save their fucking lives

3. Giving the "patriots" some land so that they can be patriots there. Give it a name like, uh, TRUMP.

If we go with #3, some decisions would need to be made. Obviously the West Coast would not work, nor the Northeast. Plus, it would be better if we kept the new countries contiguous for logistical reasons. Looking at the map below, maybe the "patriots" would like something like Texas (obviously you'd have to get rid of a shitload of brown people), Oklahoma, Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Tennessee and Kentucky, something like that. I'd personally be willing to throw in Utah, but Arizona and New Mexico would be problematic.

Anyway -- thoughts?

I'll respond before reading all the other posts. What we need right now is to divide this country right down the middle from north to south. One side will be the Republican side and the other the Democrat. It will be decided based on a national vote who gets what side. People in the middle will have to decide which side they wish to live on.

It's the only way for this country to survive because every year, we Americans are drifting further and further apart. There is almost no middle ground now and it's only going to get worse.

So in essence we will have two United States of America's. On the Republican side, we will build a big beautiful Trump wall to keep the Democrats out. We will each have our own government and Constitution for that side to live from. Because most of the businesses would move to the Republican side due to lower taxes and regulation, like immigration, we may consider issuing work permits for Democrats to come over and work. But that's it. Work, and don't bitch.

Things would not happen in the way you claim. You right wingers have been wrong about democrats for years.

Oh, I'd be willing to take that chance. We Republicans are usually right on predictions. Plus no matter what the results, it would be worth it to never have to deal with liberal idiocy again because our side would be normal. The liberal side would be a freak show.

 

[progressive hunter]

The war wouldn't last long. Bust a few leftist noses and they're done.

Why is it you right wing pussies think you are so tough?

I think hes saying that leftist are pussies, and not that they are tough,,,,just willing to punch a pussy in the nose,,,

 

[anynameyouwish]

Hey, how's THAT for a dramatic thread title, huh?

Anyway, it may be my imagination, but it seems like the frequency of veiled and unveiled threats of a coming Civil War are increasing, so I'd like to see if we can specific. Enough generalities, let's set serious.

What would a post-Civil War America actually LOOK like?

Based on what I've read, I can think of only three goals the Civil Warsters (?) might have:

1. Enough dead Democrats so that Republicans would win all the elections and we'd have one-party rule

2. People are living in such fear of the "patriots" with the guns that they vote Republican to save their fucking lives

3. Giving the "patriots" some land so that they can be patriots there. Give it a name like, uh, TRUMP.

If we go with #3, some decisions would need to be made. Obviously the West Coast would not work, nor the Northeast. Plus, it would be better if we kept the new countries contiguous for logistical reasons. Looking at the map below, maybe the "patriots" would like something like Texas (obviously you'd have to get rid of a shitload of brown people), Oklahoma, Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Tennessee and Kentucky, something like that. I'd personally be willing to throw in Utah, but Arizona and New Mexico would be problematic.

Anyway -- thoughts?

1. there are libs/dems living in red states

and con/repubs living in blue states

many/most own property and have jobs in those states.

What happens to liberals and their property in a red state?

what happens to conservatives and their property in blue states?

what if all cons leave all blue states and IMMIGRATE to the confederacy. How would they be processed? could they just enter illegally? would the confederacy build a big wall all around their country? If they enter illegally would you separate them from their children and put them in cages?

same with liberals in red states...
would they be denied rights?
rounded up?
silenced?
eliminated?
deported?
have all their property seized?

2. cons hate liberals

cons REALLY hate liberals

cons REALLY REALLY FKN HATE liberals

How would it be possible for a conservative confederacy to live in peace next to a country they hate? Wouldn't we be at a constant state of hostility?

3. In the confederacy would flag burning be a crime?

and if so, would it be legal to burn the American flag since it represents a country and people they hate so much?


4. Once the confederacy was established how quickly would they invite putin to place troops and bases on their borders?

 

[Mac1958]

Not much in the way of actual answers yet.

 

[eagle1462010]

The nation will destroy ourselves...........and other nations will take advantage of the situation that hate us........

WWIII.............And Backwards ass third world countries will be the strongest on the planet,.

Another What if thread for the purpose of Mockery Mac?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We need to think of a new name though, Mac. The civil war has already been done. Why are internal wars called civil. They're not civil.

That's true, but most of the threats I read here do involve violence, and so I'm wondering if the civil war I keep hearing about would be something like the original.
.

If a war did happen, it wouldn't be planned. It would start with one side being totally fed up with the other. Maybe a group of antifa losers attacking somebody on the right, and the victim using is firearm to kill all of them. That wouldn't start a war, but the victim not being arrested or charged would.

Let's face it, when it comes to political violence, the left is mostly responsible. They are almost always the attackers or promoters, even right down to their congressional leadership.

 

[anynameyouwish]

We need to think of a new name though, Mac. The civil war has already been done. Why are internal wars called civil. They're not civil.

That's true, but most of the threats I read here do involve violence, and so I'm wondering if the civil war I keep hearing about would be something like the original.
.

If a war did happen, it wouldn't be planned. It would start with one side being totally fed up with the other. Maybe a group of antifa losers attacking somebody on the right, and the victim using is firearm to kill all of them. That wouldn't start a war, but the victim not being arrested or charged would.

Let's face it, when it comes to political violence, the left is mostly responsible. They are almost always the attackers or promoters, even right down to their congressional leadership.

"Maybe a group of antifa losers attacking somebody on the right, and the victim using is firearm to kill all of them."

do cons actually day dream about just one of them, in rambo style, killing ALL of his enemies?

 

[eagle1462010]

Wars happen with isolated incidents and escalates............

The ongoing confrontations from protests haven't gone bloody yet..........but if allowed to continue they will get out of hand........

One thing leads to another.........and the whole thing explodes..............

It happens in steps........even Wars between Nations............