• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Civil War in iraq breaks out

UtahBill said:
I don't know about the elections being fixed, but something sure seems to be broken. After the last 2 elections, one would hope that we Americans get out and vote in higher numbers from now on. The next presidential election should be very interesting, assuming the Dems can put up a viable candidate. They did pretty good in the last 2 considering the idiots presented. All they have to do to win is come up with a moderate, not a far left swinging whacko who lives off his wife's or his mommies money.

And that would be whom?
 
oldreliable67 said:
Canuck,



Care to provide some documentation for that assertion? Sounds suspiciously like something from one of those lunatic fringe web sites that you seem to cut and paste from all too frequently. Otherwise, if its just your opinion, just say so.


He doesn't provode documentation. He makes **** up and to hel with facts. Him and the ones that belive the second US revolution is coming are the same ones that believe the US brought down the WTC and aliens are controlling are thoughts. It's a tinfoil hat crew in the great white nothing
 
AK_Conservative said:
lol neo-con-artists? What about Canuck con artist! :rofl
Our elections were NOT FIXED
2000, Bush won the Electoral vote, no question, recount after recount.
2004, There was absolutely no dispute on by those far left liberal lunies that have to conjure somethin to justify why they lost! :rofl Pathentic i say!

When you say "while you sleep they take away your america
Americans will wake and will revolt you just see what is going on around
when they awake"! Your speaking fact! Terrorists did try and take away america as we slept *cough* 9/11*Cough*! When we awoke, we revolted purely and justifiably! Thank you for clarifying that for us all Canuck! :D

How can you justifiably say that "neoconartists" as you so intelligently said, will take away our freedoms, when in fact, a conservative believe in a smaller government, when a liberal ideology tend to promote a larger government with more constricting rules? Explain that one!

A court doesnt decide who is the president anywhere but in a Banana Republic Remember that
AMERICA has become a BANANA REPUBLIC
 

Attachments

  • crosses_bush.jpg
    crosses_bush.jpg
    17.4 KB · Views: 1
2nd Request: You going to reply to this or not?
Canuck,

Quote:
Many people, including myself ,believe we are at a time ,when the second US civil war is at hand

Quote:
even the US military is split down the middle on the issue


Care to provide some documentation for that assertion? Sounds suspiciously like something from one of those lunatic fringe web sites that you seem to cut and paste from all too frequently. Otherwise, if its just your opinion, just say so.
 
oldreliable67 said:
2nd Request: You going to reply to this or not?
Canuck,

Quote:
Many people, including myself ,believe we are at a time ,when the second US civil war is at hand

Quote:
even the US military is split down the middle on the issue


Care to provide some documentation for that assertion? Sounds suspiciously like something from one of those lunatic fringe web sites that you seem to cut and paste from all too frequently. Otherwise, if its just your opinion, just say so.

Everybody knows he won't reply.
 
C2C,

Everybody knows he won't reply.

Yep, he is long on rhetoric and links to lunatic fringe web sites, but short on facts. Makes it danged hard for him to back up his rant. Too bad. Its fun destroying him. Glad I'm not him. :rofl

BTW, great avatar!
 
oldreliable67 said:
C2C,



Yep, he is long on rhetoric and links to lunatic fringe web sites, but short on facts. Makes it danged hard for him to back up his rant. Too bad. Its fun destroying him. Glad I'm not him. :rofl

BTW, great avatar!

Thanks,

Al he has is his desire to go after the country that protects him. Are all candians ike this, or is he a special case?
 
C2C,

Are all candians ike this, or is he a special case?

Thank goodness not all Canadians are like him. I worked in Toronto a good bit not long ago, and found it a really great city with really wonderful people. Before I got too old for such, skied a bit near Montreal and likewise, really great experience, really great folks.
 
DocAR said:
The first shots of the Civil war were shot, by southerners, at FT Sumpter, according to all history books I've ever seen.


I hear this all the time, but you NEVER see any mention of "state's rights" in any of the state's articles of secession. Never once. What they DO mention over and over again, is slavery. More specifically their fears about its future. If they were SO worried about state vs federal powers, why the silence about it in the very documents that were to make their case for secession?

Lincoln himself said that he had no intension of freeing slaves before he was elected. Why would he mention that specifically, if it were NOT what everyone was excited about?
Maybe Thucydides never read a history book, and maybe he should just sit down and read some old newspapers if he really wants to know history. The South shot first, I saw it, and any Southerner like me knows that it is “dressing” and not “stuffing“ that we eat at thanksgiving.

You are right, the war was fought by the South to keep slavery. {period}

State rights only comes into it with regard to the attempts to prevent the spread of slavery to those states where it did not already exist. And the silence is for another reason. For that you have to look at the history of the Kansas/Nebraska Act and understand the drive for a powerful empire to rival the European ones. There is an interesting political cartoon of the time 1857 (I think I saw it in a New York Times microfilm, but I could be mistaken) that refers to the Kansas/Nebraska Act. It shows a filthy black slave being shoved down the throat of a man in a top hat, and it had the words “Railroad” and “Kansas/Nebraska” in the cartoon, but what is interesting are the words “Guam” and “Cuba” in the upper right corner; slavery was preventing the building of the empire as the Spanish were ripe for conquest. So the North was really fighting for imperialism and not to free the slaves. The biggest proof that the civil war was not fought to free the slaves can be found in the fact that Frederick Douglas had to work really hard. As soon as the railroad was built and the buffalo soldiers slaughtered all of the Indians, just kidding, the attacks on Cuba and so forth could begin, and 1898 was a good year for imperialism.

The fact is that most abolitionists in the north were racists, going back to Liberia, and the conquest of Mexico (that we did not want to make a brown America). A Senator from New York of the period said something to the effect that he hated to go to Washington because he hated the smell of negro slaves that would interrupt the enjoyment of his meals. Then there is the riot that killed the kids at the orphanage in New York. And finally the text of the Emancipation Proclamation for the State of Delaware speaks to the war not being fought at first to free the slaves. The slaves and later the free blacks that were aimlessly roaming around were in the way of imperialism. Lincoln did say something to the effect that he believed people should be paid for their work, but Lincoln also said something about his belief that a black should never be in a position of power over a white, look for where he talked about the differences between whites and the oriental race. That really makes the racist South look stupid. And the South was really stupid, considering that they even had their own kind of emancipation proclamation to try and get blacks to fight for them: talk about a lack of moral compass...

PS. Now if we could just wait for a civil war, or try to prevent it, instead of rumor…
 
ask me a question I will respond
 
oldreliable67 said:
2nd Request: You going to reply to this or not?
Canuck,

Quote:
Many people, including myself ,believe we are at a time ,when the second US civil war is at hand

Quote:
even the US military is split down the middle on the issue


Care to provide some documentation for that assertion? Sounds suspiciously like something from one of those lunatic fringe web sites that you seem to cut and paste from all too frequently. Otherwise, if its just your opinion, just say so.

it's my opinion as well as that of some of my American friends who say there is no recourse
the country is split 50/50 both main parties are corrupt beyond repair they rely on Americans being too dumbed down to vote for any other party but the two main parties
more people falling into the poor house and freedoms being lost without so much as a sigh
what more informaton you want about my comments ?
many people are just that many people are disenchanted with both main parties ,It wouldn't surprise me to learn that the evangelists/baptists of the south dont up and form a new party all together.
oklahoma bombings, many people are in private military like training programs and are against the federal govts.
out opinions are based on many issues
 
CanDuck,

Wow! Finally, a reply! And a reply that actually makes some sense, too! You actually stated that it was your opinion instead of resorting to some lunatic fringe web site for some hoped-for authenticity. Thats a huge improvement!

Though you don't say so directly, from the direction your remarks take, I assume that you're saying that a 2nd civil war will result from the following...
the country is split 50/50 both main parties are corrupt beyond repair they rely on Americans being too dumbed down to vote for any other party but the two main parties
more people falling into the poor house and freedoms being lost without so much as a sigh

> If that is indeed your contention: first, it is a huge, impossibly huge stretch (one that economists often say requires 'heroic assumptions') from the condition of the main political parties to a civil war. There is huge gulf in between. There are many who will agree that reform of the political process is needed. Every election cycle, we see and hear discussions of this or that election reform (McCain Feingold, for example, even though it turned out to be less effective than hoped for).

Before a civil war would ever get anywhere even remotely discernible on the horizon, there would be legislative reforms of election processes that would negate the perceived need to move in that direction. If you doubt this, consider your contention: you contend that the political parties are corrupt. Do you believe for a moment that when threatened, these parties would stand by and let their power be dissipated without a fight? You think that the legislative branches of the governement would not respond to pressures serious enough to lead to a civil war and simply stand by doing nothing? Certainly they would respond. And in doing so, any reasons/motivations for a civil war (except those imagined by crazies, of course) would be addressed and negated.

Its all part of the checks and balances built into our constitution. It has worked pretty darned well for a couple of hundred years and counting. It won't suddenly quit working.

> Your second assertion is that:
even the US military is split down the middle on the issue
Here you have let me down. You did not reply to my request for either documentation of this assertion or an admission that it is your opinion. If it is your opinion, thats fine. We are all entitled to 'em. But, if it is, say so.

You alluded to militia-type organizations. They are nothing new. Been around in one form or another for many, many years. A (relatively) new wrinkle is the 'survivalist 'type of mentality, which AFIK first began to gain adherents during the Cold War. But this is a far, far cry and indeed bears no relationship to your statement that the US military is 'split down the middle'.

To sum up, good on you for finally responding. Frankly, I had written you off. But your response is less than complete. I hope you will feel challenged enough to respond.
 
oldreliable67 said:
CanDuck,

Wow! Finally, a reply! And a reply that actually makes some sense, too! You actually stated that it was your opinion instead of resorting to some lunatic fringe web site for some hoped-for authenticity. Thats a huge improvement!
I post alot takes time to make the rounds
Though you don't say so directly, from the direction your remarks take, I assume that you're saying that a 2nd civil war will result from the following...


> If that is indeed your contention: first, it is a huge, impossibly huge stretch (one that economists often say requires 'heroic assumptions') from the condition of the main political parties to a civil war. There is huge gulf in between. There are many who will agree that reform of the political process is needed. Every election cycle, we see and hear discussions of this or that election reform (McCain Feingold, for example, even though it turned out to be less effective than hoped for).
The people I know tell me reform isn't possible when both parties are corrupted
Before a civil war would ever get anywhere even remotely discernible on the horizon, there would be legislative reforms of election processes that would negate the perceived need to move in that direction. If you doubt this, consider your contention: you contend that the political parties are corrupt. Do you believe for a moment that when threatened, these parties would stand by and let their power be dissipated without a fight? You think that the legislative branches of the governement would not respond to pressures serious enough to lead to a civil war and simply stand by doing nothing? Certainly they would respond. And in doing so, any reasons/motivations for a civil war (except those imagined by crazies, of course) would be addressed and negated.
IT would break out during an election process where one side accused the other of fixing it So they say I believe for it to happen there would need to be one of the main parties inciting it
Its all part of the checks and balances built into our constitution. It has worked pretty darned well for a couple of hundred years and counting. It won't suddenly quit working.
it getting mean out there and people are not willing to leave it up to the govt. look at what is happen in cal. and tex. the state is taking fed law into their own hands on the illegals issue
> Your second assertion is that:

Here you have let me down. You did not reply to my request for either documentation of this assertion or an admission that it is your opinion. If it is your opinion, thats fine. We are all entitled to 'em. But, if it is, say so.
it is my opinion and it also the opinion of alot of people i know spanish speaking people of America out number english for instance it can come from them the spark all that is needed is a spark to ignite a forest fire
You alluded to militia-type organizations. They are nothing new. Been around in one form or another for many, many years. A (relatively) new wrinkle is the 'survivalist 'type of mentality, which AFIK first began to gain adherents during the Cold War. But this is a far, far cry and indeed bears no relationship to your statement that the US military is 'split down the middle'.
Yeah I've seen them on TV those extremists and they have power add all the other splinter groups and other groups such as nazi,blackz,spanish speaking, its a hot bed
To sum up, good on you for finally responding. Frankly, I had written you off. But your response is less than complete. I hope you will feel challenged enough to respond.
it is not over yet I have not even looked into it these were just feelings I and others I know have shared keep coming back ill have some better material
 
Ok, much better: where it is opinion, it is so stated. Much, much better.

I post alot
Whew! Thats an understatement! You're up to what, 800 or so by now?

The people I know tell me reform isn't possible when both parties are corrupted

As I said earlier, there are many, including me, who believe that election reform is badly needed, particularly in the areas of campaign finance. Every election cycle, we see some efforts being made to do so. The last serious effort was McCain-Feingold, which turned out to be less than effective. But 'corrupted' is a very strong word, one with which I would not agree. In need of reform, but 'corrupted', no.

In the future, one of the principal driving forces for reform will, I believe, be the Internet. It will do so thru the power of blogs, and forums (yep, even forums like this one), and the transition of mainstream media (MSM) to a much greater presence on the 'net. This will happen due to the ubiquitous nature of the 'net, combined with the ability of thousands, maybe eventually even millions, of people to check facts, disseminate facts, discuss facts and form opinions in virtually 'real' time. That is, there will little if any delay between events and the spreading of knowledge of those events. The net result will be the coming of an age of totally transparent politcs. Politicians will be accountable thru the ability of thousands to 'fact-check' and disseminate information to millions in astonishing rapidity. Yes, there will additional legislation resulting. Look around you and you can see this process beginning already -- the power of blogs is growing by leaps and bounds.


IT would break out during an election process where one side accused the other of fixing it So they say I believe for it to happen there would need to be one of the main parties inciting it

While I concede the possibility for public unreast exists in such a scenario, for this unrest to approach anything remotely resembling 'civil war' is totally beyond the pale. I am confident of the checks and balances in our system of government and their ability to deal with any such situation.

it getting mean out there and people are not willing to leave it up to the govt. look at what is happen in cal. and tex. the state is taking fed law into their own hands on the illegals issue

Which reminds me, if America is as bad as you have described it in all your many posts, it sure is strange that so many millions of people are trying to get in and become Americans! Over the years, there has always contention, in varying degrees, between states and the Feds. It will get worked out. Thats not to say that it won't get to be a bigger, more contentious problem that already exists. But, it will get worked out.

it is my opinion and it also the opinion of alot of people i know spanish speaking people of America out number english for instance it can come from them the spark all that is needed is a spark to ignite a forest fire

Well, no, hispanics now outnumber African-Americans by about 14% vs 12% of the population, IIRC. Caucasians still are about 60%, again IIRC.

Yeah I've seen them on TV those extremists and they have power add all the other splinter groups and other groups such as nazi,blackz,spanish speaking, its a hot bed

And if you saw the news from Toledo, Ohio about the unreast there, you no doubt noticed that it was largely one the nazi groups and a black group getting into a fracas. None of these groups will ever align themselves with any of the others -- part of their appeal is that of 'racial purity' and exclusivity.

All the foregoing is, of course, just my opinion -- your mileage may vary.
 
Back
Top Bottom