IRS: I feel Obama is trying to start a real shooting civil war

[Oddball]

He must be trying to start a Civil War.

What an absolute moronic statement. There will be no civil war, Frank, because if an uprising does occur the neighbors will summarily execute the idiots.

You see his allegedly moronic statement and raise with a completely retarded rejoinder.

 

[PMZ]

Faith is necessary where knowledge can't go. There are fewer and fewer of those places.

Does anybody really believe that moral behavior comes from fear of the unknown?

 

[JakeStarkey]

He must be trying to start a Civil War.

What an absolute moronic statement. There will be no civil war, Frank, because if an uprising does occur the neighbors will summarily execute the idiots.

You see his allegedly moronic statement and raise with a completely retarded rejoinder.

I have no doubt that the neighbors will put down any type of civil uprising. Nothing more will be required. There will be no civil war.

 

[JakeStarkey]

JimBowie continues to lie. Congress passed a law that prevented the admin from supporting with cash folks like the Contras in central America. Ollie lied along with North about all of it to Congress, that the munitions were sold to our enemies in Iran who sent the cash to the contras.

So RR was willing to sacrifice us in the service at the time to break the law of the land.

Anybody can look it up in any freshman History 101 textbook in the USA. Just search the Index for Iran Contra/

You fucking moron. You cant even cite a law, just make a whiney appeal to some slanted schoolbook you cant even name. lol, what a loser.

And I am not lying one bit. There was no laws against Secord giving as much money as he wanted to the Contras. Prove it, bitch.

And you keep on lying.

 

[Oddball]

What an absolute moronic statement. There will be no civil war, Frank, because if an uprising does occur the neighbors will summarily execute the idiots.

You see his allegedly moronic statement and raise with a completely retarded rejoinder.

I have no doubt that the neighbors will put down any type of civil uprising. Nothing more will be required. There will be no civil war.

I'm reminded of what happened to collaborators in the western European countries, as the Nazis were beaten back during WWII.

The women were lucky, enduring the indignity of a public head shaving....Y'know what happened to the men?

 

[Circe]

\

I have no doubt that the neighbors will put down any type of civil uprising. Nothing more will be required. There will be no civil war.

That isn't what happens historically --- what usually happens is that the neighbors join in.

So the city rioters (Los Angeles in the 1990s or Paris 1789) all rush out and riot together, and the neighbors in the suburbs and country band together to fight against the left's violence. Leftists in the cities, rightists in the country, Red Russians fighting White Russians, like that.

One of the big loser ideas in life is that "It Can't Happen Here."

Of course it can happen here, and it frequently does. The Revolutionary War, the Civil War, the uprisings in the '30s, the near-breakdowns of society in the '60s and '70s. We'll be going again in the next few years, presumably: can't you feel it? No nation as disunited as we are can hold together; at least, they never have.

 

[editec]

How will the battle line be drawn in this civil uprising, citizens?

That is the question that I think many of us have.

Harkening back to the last US civil war will not, I think, give us much help because that was a war between the states, whereas the civil war that some of you see coming is not so CLEARLY divided.

EVery state, even city, every villiage has people who would line up in opposition to their fellow citizens in the event of a civil war, today.

That would be a mess that makes our last civil war seem like a picnic by comparison.

Ummmmmmmmmm.............I think it will be a land-based civil war. Has to be, really. I know what you are saying, but big population moves happen all the time in such events.

What will motivate most Americans to abandon their homes? Nothing short of another BLOODY KANSAS type civil war could do that and even then I suspect people are more likely o fight it out at home than leave.

You could say the German Reunification was ABOUT population moves: When the Soviet guards suddenly stood down, East Germans ran for the bridges by the thousands. And just like that, it was all gone and the Berlin Wall came tumbling down.

I don't think we can compare the two situations, mate.

When the French lost to the Germans (one of those several times.....) in 1871, Alsatians got to decide for one year if they would be French or German; if they decided French, they had to move west into France.

Again, the situations are entirely different as there would be no overaching oppossing government controlled lands to flee to.

That's what I see happening here. Blue people will move out of Red states and Red people move out of Blue states.

What makes you think this will break down regionally into states? If anything tthe GREAT divide politically isn't between states, its between URBAN and RURAL.

I think the Northeast should get all the welfare types.

Of course you do.

New laws would be made, quickly, and a lot of bluies would line up with reddies so they don't have to move. And shut up. If there is a big realignment of the welfare do-nothing-take-drugs types, the Red State part of the country will look more and more attractive to better-off Bluies.

New LAWS?! Who is going to pass and then enforce those new laws?

I think you are terribly confused about the nature of a civil war that breaks down based on VALUES, lad.

If you want to know what much of this nation would look like in a VALUES DRIVEN civil uprising you cannot look at the CVIL WAR, you might want to look at BLOODY KANSAS for some examples of the messs this war would be.



In October 1855, John Brown came to Kansas Territory to fight slavery. On November 21, 1855 the (relatively bloodless) "Wakarusa War" began when a Free-Stater named Charles Dow was shot by a pro-slavery settler. The only fatal casualty occurring during the siege was one Free-State man named Thomas Barber. He was shot and killed on December 6, 1855 where the main body of the invaders were encamped, some 6 miles (10 km) from Lawrence. A few months later, on May 21, 1856, a group of Border Ruffians entered the Free-State stronghold of Lawrence, where they burned the Free State Hotel, destroyed two newspaper offices and their printing presses, and ransacked homes and stores.
The following day, on the afternoon of May 22, 1856, South Carolina Democrat Preston Brooks physically attacked Massachusetts Free Soil Senator Charles Sumner in the Senate chambers, hitting him on the head with his thick cane. Sumner was blinded by his own blood, and staggered away until he collapsed, lapsing into unconsciousness. Brooks continued to beat Sumner until his cane broke. Several other senators attempted to help Sumner, but were blocked by Rep. Laurence Keitt, holding a pistol and shouting "Let them be!", as retaliation for insulting language Sumner had used against a relative of Brooks in a speech denouncing Southerners for pro-slavery violence in Kansas. Sumner did not return to his Senate desk for three years as a result of his injuries to the head and neck area.

Preston Brooks attacking Charles Sumner in the U.S. Senate in 1856.
These acts in turn inspired Brown to lead a group of men in Kansas Territory on an attack at a proslavery settlement at Pottawatomie Creek. During the night of May 24, the group, which included four of Brown's sons, led five pro-slavery men from their homes and hacked them to death with broadswords. Brown's men let Jerome Glanville and James Harris return home to Harris' cabin.[why?][clarification needed]

On June 2, 1856, Brown took future Confederate Colonel Henry Clay Pate and almost two dozen other pro-slavery soldiers prisoner at the Battle of Black Jack. In 1856, the official territorial capital was moved to Lecompton, a town only 12 miles (19.3 km) from Lawrence. In April 1856, a three-man congressional investigating committee arrived in Lecompton to look into the troubles. The majority report of the committee found the elections to be improperly influenced by Border Ruffians. President Pierce failed to follow its recommendations and continued to recognize the pro-slavery legislature as the legitimate government of Kansas. In fact, on July 4, 1856, the president sent federal troops to break up an attempted meeting of the shadow government in Topeka.[citation needed]
In August 1856, thousands of proslavery men formed into armies and marched into Kansas. That same month, Brown and several of his followers engaged 400 proslavery soldiers in the "Battle of Osawatomie". The hostilities raged for another two months until Brown departed the Kansas Territory, and a new territorial governor, John W. Geary, took office and managed to prevail upon both sides for peace. This was followed by a fragile peace broken by intermittent violent outbreaks for two more years. The last major outbreak of violence was touched off by the Marais des Cygnes massacre in 1858, in which Border Ruffians killed five Free State men. In all, approximately 56 people died in Bleeding Kansas by the time the violence ended in 1859.[4] Following the commencement of the American Civil War in 1861, additional guerrilla violence erupted on the border between Kansas and Missouri.

 

[Circe]

...mate

...lad

Thank you for your interesting reply, but why are you calling me by male put-down terms?

I am not male, and you will have to be at least superficially polite if you want to talk with me, as I require it. Otherwise I just throw the Great Unwashed on the Ignore list and forget about them. There are millions of people on the Internet, and most of them are not bright enough to be civil. The trick is to sort through, quickly, and find the few worth talking to.

If you look at my avatar, you will see that I am Circe, who turns men into swine, and boy, is that easy to do.

What will motivate most Americans to abandon their homes? Nothing short of another BLOODY KANSAS type civil war could do that and even then I suspect people are more likely o fight it out at home than leave.

"Kansas, bleeding Kansas" was similar to the Mexican attack on Brownsville, so sure, such incidents can cause a lot of trouble, be a catalyst for dissolution. "The Brownsville Raid of 1906 involved black troops stationed at Fort Brown. The soldiers went on a rampage in the city and killed or wounded a number of townspeople. Relations between persons of Mexican descent and the Anglo populace also began to deteriorate; many of the new Anglo immigrants saw their Mexican neighbors as "racial inferiors" ignorant of the American way of life, while Mexican Americans, the majority of whom worked as common laborers, became increasingly resentful of their situation. The animosities grew even worse during the Mexican Revolution, when border raids by Mexican bandits wrecked havoc among the Valley's populace." (Brownsville Historical Society) Like this: that unrest led to the Mexican-American War with Blackjack Pershing and his troops going into Mexico to settle their hash. And the Mexican-American war got us into World War I because of the Zimmerman Telegram.

Rioting in the cities spreading out to the suburbs would motivate people to bug out. Not getting entitlement payments would work: if they are offered in New England but not in the South, for instance. I often wonder if people realize that if we have a revolution, Social Security will stop.

Again, the situations are entirely different as there would be no overaching oppossing government controlled lands to flee to.

I expect you are trying to say that there would be no overarching opposing government-controlled lands to flee to. Our current public education system has a LOT to answer for, plainly: however --- of course there would be lands to flee to!! That's the whole point, secession, and new governments! If there isn't that at least, then there is no breakdown of the U.S. and nothing to talk about.

What makes you think this will break down regionally into states? If anything tthe GREAT divide politically isn't between states, its between URBAN and RURAL.

You are assuming the rise of City States again? Pisa and Milan and Florence and Genoa and Venice city states having the only armies and the only power? I don't see it. City States were extremely prosperous islands of wealth and powerful people. Our cities now are morasses of poverty and crime, the people caught there would die without huge government support, like Paris struggled with starvation during the Revolution. No, the whole thrust since about 1800 has been land-based. American power is in the land: Scarlet O'Hara was right about that. A breakdown of America would be defined by secessions and various separate governments --- probably several. Not just two this time, it's way too big now. I think that Russian was right who predicted six sections; his borders didn't quite work, though.

New LAWS?! Who is going to pass and then enforce those new laws?

I think you are terribly confused about the nature of a civil war that breaks down based on VALUES, lad.

I'm not confused, cutie-pie, the laws would be passed by the new dictatorships: they always are, honeybuns.

How do you think a breakup based on values would proceed? They are usually based on values: migod, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution!! Talk about values-based!! They talked and talked and TALKED about values!! Didn't matter: they still had guillotine murders of some 40,000 in France, not to mention all the drownings; hundreds of thousands killed in Russia, lots of troops firing on people, and dictators taking over quickly both places. So much for values. Values are just words in a revolution, it's always blood that matters. People forget that little detail..........

In October 1855, John Brown came to Kansas Territory to fight slavery. On November 21, 1855 the (relatively bloodless) "Wakarusa War" began when a Free-Stater named Charles Dow was shot by a pro-slavery settler. The only fatal casualty occurring during the siege was one Free-State man named Thomas Barber. He was shot and killed on December 6, 1855 where the main body of the invaders were encamped, some 6 miles (10 km) from Lawrence. A few months later, on May 21, 1856, a group of Border Ruffians entered the Free-State stronghold of Lawrence, where they burned the Free State Hotel, destroyed two newspaper offices and their printing presses, and ransacked homes and stores.
The following day, on the afternoon of May 22, 1856, South Carolina Democrat Preston Brooks physically attacked Massachusetts Free Soil Senator Charles Sumner in the Senate chambers, hitting him on the head with his thick cane. Sumner was blinded by his own blood, and staggered away until he collapsed, lapsing into unconsciousness. Brooks continued to beat Sumner until his cane broke. Several other senators attempted to help Sumner, but were blocked by Rep. Laurence Keitt, holding a pistol and shouting "Let them be!", as retaliation for insulting language Sumner had used against a relative of Brooks in a speech denouncing Southerners for pro-slavery violence in Kansas. Sumner did not return to his Senate desk for three years as a result of his injuries to the head and neck area.

Preston Brooks attacking Charles Sumner in the U.S. Senate in 1856.
These acts in turn inspired Brown to lead a group of men in Kansas Territory on an attack at a proslavery settlement at Pottawatomie Creek. During the night of May 24, the group, which included four of Brown's sons, led five pro-slavery men from their homes and hacked them to death with broadswords. Brown's men let Jerome Glanville and James Harris return home to Harris' cabin.[why?][clarification needed]

On June 2, 1856, Brown took future Confederate Colonel Henry Clay Pate and almost two dozen other pro-slavery soldiers prisoner at the Battle of Black Jack. In 1856, the official territorial capital was moved to Lecompton, a town only 12 miles (19.3 km) from Lawrence. In April 1856, a three-man congressional investigating committee arrived in Lecompton to look into the troubles. The majority report of the committee found the elections to be improperly influenced by Border Ruffians. President Pierce failed to follow its recommendations and continued to recognize the pro-slavery legislature as the legitimate government of Kansas. In fact, on July 4, 1856, the president sent federal troops to break up an attempted meeting of the shadow government in Topeka.[citation needed]
In August 1856, thousands of proslavery men formed into armies and marched into Kansas. That same month, Brown and several of his followers engaged 400 proslavery soldiers in the "Battle of Osawatomie". The hostilities raged for another two months until Brown departed the Kansas Territory, and a new territorial governor, John W. Geary, took office and managed to prevail upon both sides for peace. This was followed by a fragile peace broken by intermittent violent outbreaks for two more years. The last major outbreak of violence was touched off by the Marais des Cygnes massacre in 1858, in which Border Ruffians killed five Free State men. In all, approximately 56 people died in Bleeding Kansas by the time the violence ended in 1859.[4] Following the commencement of the American Civil War in 1861, additional guerrilla violence erupted on the border between Kansas and Missouri.

Nice Wikipedia story!

John Brown's body lies a-mouldering in the ground
But his soul goes marching on.

Yes, indeed. I've read a couple books on it and visited Harper's Ferry where they finally captured Brown. Creepy place. They dress up locals in period costume in the area it all happened and I was having tea in a little restaurant and saw a Union soldier talking to a costumed waitress quite seriously about their own real concerns in the local accent and of course they are all the same people, only......sort of bounced up by a century and a half. Time collapsed around me; it was disorienting. I had that happen in Vienna once, too, same thing: the people and the costumes and the buildings were from the past and I was out of place and time, not them.

Yes, I agree, that's one of the ways it starts, such incidents that seem small, but they blow up. That's why I thought the Occupy anarchists might start it: they meant to, of course: they said so explicitly. It doesn't take a big incident or a lot of people at first. It just takes a trigger incident.

 

[Intense]

Moved To Conspiracy Theories.

 

[Grandma]

There will be no war.

If it were going to happen it would have done so already. The ones that speak loudest in favor of "revolution" are too cowardly to take part in it.

And as for the country losing its morals and values, the morals and values most often cited are those traditionally held by an ever-shrinking group of far-right fundies. Those "values" have been proven to be irrelevant. The world won't stop turning because people are gay, or because women want the same rights as men, or because singles can be parents, or because not everyone wants to live with christianity rammed down their throats.

The old way is not dying, it's dead. Bury it and get out of the 21st Century's way.

 

[editec]

I see what's happening here.

Some of us are thinking about a repeat of the Civil war between the states.

I was assuming we were talking about an armed uprising of citizens nationwide.

Obviously those are wildly different events.

 

[paulitician]

People should stop thinking Revolution. It's gonna be a Collapse. This Welfare/Warfare State is on its last legs. When they grant 50 Million Illegals Amnesty, it will break the back of the Middle Class once and for all. And that's when things begin to turn ugly. Revolution may be the end-result of the Collapse. But who really knows?

 

[Circe]

I see what's happening here.

Some of us are thinking about a repeat of the Civil war between the states.

I was assuming we were talking about an armed uprising of citizens nationwide.

Obviously those are wildly different events.

I think there will be an armed uprising of citizens nationwide, after some trigger, like a big city riot, or whatever it turns out to be. Usually something small.

But a revolution has to have a place to BE, so it would quickly become land-based, I think, with secessions and dictators of the various territories with clear value-systems that attract or repel various populations. Like the break-up of the Soviet Union, that's what happened there. It fractured quickly into territories.

Were you thinking of the country keeping the same borders but the power changing from one set of people to another? From the left now to the right? I guess that could happen, but not without civil war, right? France, the Charles I revolution in England, Germany after 1923 -- they all changed power blocs but kept their boundaries. There were thousands of deaths from civil war and uprisings in all cases.

I don't know, you could be right, but the land mass seems to me too large for such an upheaval without splitting up. And already too varied in values: the red states versus the blue, New England versus the South, like that.

This country is a split-up waiting to happen. Nobody says they are patriotic Americans anymore. Well, nobody is. Everyone hates the other Americans. This happened since 9/11/2001.

 

[Circe]

People should stop thinking Revolution. It's gonna be a Collapse. This Welfare/Warfare State is on its last legs. When they grant 50 Million Illegals Amnesty, it will break the back of the Middle Class once and for all. And that's when things begin to turn ugly. Revolution may be the end-result of the Collapse. But who really knows?

It's the norm, certainly. Revolution typically follows economic collapse of a country. It's not the only thing that can start a revolution, but it's very common.

And there are a lot of failed revolutions after collapses. We had at least two failed revolutions in the depths of the Great Depression: the Hoovervilles and the march on Washington, and separately the coup d'etat engineered by big businessmen that Marine General Stanley Butler was supposed to lead, but he backed out.

In England Henry VIII's criminal devaluation of all the money led to the 1537 revolt, the Pilgrimage of Grace, but it failed.

But sometimes they succeed and there is Big Change.

 

[paulitician]

First the Collapse, then possibly Revolution. That's the likely scenario. Makes me sad to say that, but it is what it is.

 

[editec]

The kind of anarchic breakdown in civil authority cannot happen unless the governments go bankrupt.

We are not about to have another war between the states, either.

Do you guys NOT remember the late sixties when cities all over the nation went up in flames?

Now that was the sort spontaneous civil uprising I think many of you believe will lead to national revolution. ONly this time I think some of you believe ANGRY WHITE PEOPLE will lead the charge.

Frankly I doubt that.

 

[paulitician]

The kind of anarchic breakdown in civil authority cannot happen unless the governments go bankrupt.

We are not about to have another war between the states, either.

Do you guys NOT remember the late sixties when cities all over the nation went up in flames?

Now that was the sort spontaneous civil uprising I think many of you believe will lead to national revolution. ONly this time I think some of you believe ANGRY WHITE PEOPLE will lead the charge.

Frankly I doubt that.

When the Collapse happens, there will be massive Civil Unrest. And it will come from different factions of Society. It will be the combination that leads to the Breakdown. When the Entitlements can no longer be paid for, all Hell will break loose. So many Americans have lived off Entitlements their entire lives. What's gonna happen when they're told their Entitlements have ended?

But that's only part of it. By then, the Middle Class will have had enough. Their anger & frustration will boil over. Once you lose the Middle Class, all bets are off. And they scare Big Brother more than any other faction. Unfortunately, dark days are ahead for this Nation.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The kind of anarchic breakdown in civil authority cannot happen unless the governments go bankrupt.

We are not about to have another war between the states, either.

Do you guys NOT remember the late sixties when cities all over the nation went up in flames?

Now that was the sort spontaneous civil uprising I think many of you believe will lead to national revolution. ONly this time I think some of you believe ANGRY WHITE PEOPLE will lead the charge.

Frankly I doubt that.

When the Collapse happens, there will be massive Civil Unrest. And it will come from different factions of Society. It will be the combination that leads to the Breakdown. When the Entitlements can no longer be paid for, all Hell will break loose. So many Americans have lived off Entitlements their entire lives. What's gonna happen when they're told their Entitlements have ended?

But that's only part of it. By then, the Middle Class will have had enough. Their anger & frustration will boil over. Once you lose the Middle Class, all bets are off. And they scare Big Brother more than any other faction. Unfortunately, dark days are ahead for this Nation.

Agreed, but I hope we are wrong.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Good luck!!!

?????????????????

Does your Daddy know you got on his PC again?

 

[Kondor3]

Hang onto yer Confederate money, boys, the South's gonna rise a'gin...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVeSKwM--1M]The Bonnie Blue Flag - with lyrics - popular Civil War song from the movie: Gods and Generals - HQ - YouTube[/ame]