dear lord, you can't even get the basic facts correct.
no, he did not respond to me.. he responded to Code.
do you understand how ****ing arrogant you sound?.... who the **** are you to tell me what I'm thinking?
sorry chum, you don't get to make **** up about me and pass it off as fact....you do not know what my thoughts are, you have no way of knowing... stop pretending you do.
more lies.
Pasch didn't respond to me....and yes, you did pass off your words as mine.... you attributed your words to me... no amount of spinning with allow you to escape the truth.
and again, do not pretend to know my motivation.. you do not.. you are woefully ignorant as to anything i'm thinking.
I happen to know those words were not mine, I am not confused in the least over whose words those are... I have no problem setting hte record straight, despite your attempts to further your lies.
I happen to know what my motivation is....you do not, you have no way of knowing , yet you still try to claim, as fact, that you hold this knowledge..... your are not short on arrogance, that's for goddamn sure.
you are not important... i'll sleep well no matter how dishonest you want to be.
ahh gee, and here you are claiming to know what i'm thinking again.
give it up dude, you are not a good liar, nor are you a good mind reader.
I'm sure you believe you can read minds.
I love watching you trying to tango by yourself. You changed somebody else's words. You've tried to back-pedal by describing this as "paraphrasing," and if you truly love "cognitive science," then you surely hope to serve the integrity that intellectual rigor requires.
So man up. You thought you were being clever, you were called on it, and now it's time to admit what you did. You weren't "paraphrasing" at all; you were inventing a fake quote.
I hear who is talking about it. Sat in a restaurant last week with almost 100 other people who are active members CERT, medical first responders and search and rescue people who were talking about it. What we were discussing was how we keep people safe when those who are living in the cities decide to head out to the mountains to escape the looting and military occupation that will follow a financial crisis. What we mostly train for are natural emergencies, the three biggest concerns here are tornadoes, wild fires and ice storms. But we have to be realistic about other scenarios as well. What do you do when thousands of people flee toward your rural community with a half a tank of gas and a sandwich? Our resources would be wiped out in a big hurry.
BTW, this group started off as the Georgia State Militia back before the "M" word was scary. The state charter actually discusses it and it used to be by county and responsible to the governor's office. But then the state, in the aftermath of a few nutjobs who called themselves militia but did not appear on any state lists anywhere, did some bad things (planned but never executed) discontinued the recognition of the groups thru the state, at least on an official basis. So you know what happened? We contacted FEMA and partnered with them for training. Yup. The group still exists and is growing, except now we get our training fro free thru FEMA and GEMA. The term "militia" still exists in the group's charter, except now we response to FEMA and GEMA but are largely autonomous. Our last alert was for an elderly man (I knew him) who wandered off and died from hypothermia. The call came from the sheriff's office in another county and was passed to us by our sheriff's department. This is a militia group that works for the better interest of the community and hand in hand with local authorities.
Actually, I think since Bush it's been a severe divide. In the last two administrations I've seen us closer to a new fracturing than any time in my lifetime and even through reading the history post the actual Civil War. During the Clinton years there was heated rhetoric but nowhere near the pure hatred I've seen since 2000.Nope. The only people who I've heard seriously hypothesize civil war are those who, in their difficultly accepting that Obama won re-election and frustration with his approach to the 2nd amendment, have abandoned the political process solidified by the Constitution they apparently hold dear, think they need to kill people to get their way. In other words, adults with guns are throwing temper tantrums.
Don't count on this. It's not the military that would be a target, and people are forced to surrender their rights or be criminals they could go to desperate measures, once those people start to be imprisoned or injured you could see an insurgency effect. It's not a guarantee but neither is the guarantee that it won't happen, especially if Americans are pushed too far.All rather unlikely IMO, and anyone who is crazy enough to try and go to war with the government over gun control would not last long, nor have enough numbers, nor support. People's lives will continue, you will still be able to go to the store and buy food, and things would still be normal, so no widespread support would manifest.
I have a lot of buddies who are or were military, they take the uphold part of their service oath very seriously. It wouldn't be hard military targets, politicians would be though in the most likely scenario, sure, they have security but what happens when a decent portion of 314 million people become angry? It soon becomes impossible to identify the citizen from the assassin.The fact is the only way someone could take over the government would be for many high ranking military officials, taking a splinter group of soldiers, and fighting against the loyal armed forces, it would not be a civilian thing, that would get shut down right away.
Dueling, bring back dueling amongst the representatives but only if approved by the congress overall. Slander suit in the past? No way, 50 paces.This is how our government was set up.
Though I do wish we could go back to the days were fistfights were common among the congress, might help things :lol:
Do you think the United States is approaching an upcoming Civil War?
That would be kind of difficult when less than a fraction of 1% think there is a need for a civil war.
Do you think the United States is approaching an upcoming Civil War? Or maybe we will just become more and more divided?
And where did you come up with that figure?
How many does it take?
I know a lot of people who are angry about the way things are being run, but I don't know anybody who is angry enough to pick up a gun and do something about it.Do you think the United States is approaching an upcoming Civil War? Or maybe we will just become more and more divided?
I agree with everything you're saying but changing his quote...nnnno, that was bad. I abhored it when people have done that to me and it undermines the integrity of debate and entire forum if they allow it. Please don't do that again.Yes, that's why I stepped in, and corrected you. You're welcome.
At the same time, it's great you understand that you're dishonest! Getting past denial is the first step :lol:
Now, how about this, you go back, admit Paschendale's post intimidated you, and then you address it.
I'm not holding my breath though. I can already see you complaining that there's nothing to address, or that Paschendale's post doesn't merit a reply. Don't worry though, at this point, we all expect you to ignore a substantive debate.
What's that thing that other guy says all the time? Dodge noted?
Well, your dodge here is noted.
P.S. You could surprise us all, gain some credibility and some respect if you address his post.
Only the very fringe far right think there is a need for a civil war. The far right only make up less than 1% of the electorate, so it only stands to reason that the very fringe far right are just a small fraction of 1%
Certainly more than a tiny fraction of 1%!
No, we don't do that here. Changing the posts of others is not an acceptable debate/discussion technique here. By doing so you have invalidated anything further you have to say on the topic.
I think there is a need and I am not on the far right. But then again, I see any form of socialism the greatest threat to mankind and anything that fights socialism in any form is very much needed, especially right now. Maybe that makes you think I am extreme right, but I am not, they are only allies of convenience in the fight against socialism.
On the traditional scale that you get from those little quizzes, I come out slightly right but close to center and slightly authoritarian but also still close to center. However some of my beliefs don't fit onto the traditional scale with only two dimensions. Create a scale with 4 or 5 Dimensions, I might be able to be defined by such things.
Thats different because you're not changing the words and anyone who wants to see the entire quote can click on to find it. What he did was wrong. I hope he understands that and doesn't do it again.Sometimes I do that by accident when I am trying to cut down a long post or take out a link or something like that because I find it annoying to have really long posts reposted in quotes when someone is just responding to a small portion of it, but I like to have the part I am responding to there for other commentators to see what I am responding to.
I don't argue that the debt isn't a serious problem. I support tax increases, spending cuts, and a complete redesign of our global military role.
still, I'm not picking up a gun to kill hyperpartisans on either side. it's an idiotic solution in a first world country which has free and open elections.
So long as this delusion persists about a substantial class of people who refuse to work, and who mooch off the efforts of others, then we will never have real political progress. There is no fact in this assertion. There are not two kinds of people, hardworking and lazy. There's really only the hardworking kind. The latter kind is a fictional construct created to justify blaming poor people for being poor, so as to allow a person to rationalize not helping them. So long as we allow the one of the main political mantras in this country to be that the poor deserve to be poor because they are of low moral fiber and will not take the same opportunities that we take, we cannot make progress. So long as we make decisions based on fantasy, rather than reality, we will never make significant enough to change to bring people up out of poverty, expand the middle class in this country, and build a strong economic force that can keep the United States on top for the next several centuries.
As to a civil war? I don't know. I can think of three situations where one might happen.
All the bigots, crazies, and Tea Party types running around keep threatening to rise up in a revolt, but they would surely lose. Their war would be with the entire structure of the American government, and basically to secure lots of freedoms for themselves and to destroy them for anyone else. It's not righteous and they would be completely alone in it.
Keep kicking the poor so much and they might rise up, and they would have a legit cause that a lot of others might take up. Nothing like desperate times to make people take desperate measures. I don't know if they would be alone in their actions. A lot of people feel that great injustice is being done to the poor of this country, being kept off the social ladder, with no means to advance. But I don't know if they feel that way enough to take up arms when they are not affected. It could go either way.
The increased militarization and "security" of our country might continue and lead to real fascist policies, which could lead to a revolution against the government. That one would be a lot trickier to win, since it's the scenario where there would be the greatest divide between government and people. The former has far more resources. That's the revolution that the gun folks want to fight, but it's the least likely to happen, and also probably the hardest to win, since we would be that much further from a free society by then. Rather than fight it, I'd rather stop it from coming in the first place. I don't see how any political ideology can include more surveillance on people, searching people and invading their privacy. The government should not be in the business of spying on people, not with cameras, not tapping our phones, not reading our e-mails, not scanning our bodies at the airport, nor stopping and hassling us on the street without cause.
Either way, change will come slowly, and slow change is a pretty solid deterrent against drastic actions. I don't think any kind of revolt or civil war is likely to happen.
Actually, I think since Bush it's been a severe divide. In the last two administrations I've seen us closer to a new fracturing than any time in my lifetime and even through reading the history post the actual Civil War. During the Clinton years there was heated rhetoric but nowhere near the pure hatred I've seen since 2000.
You might need a dictionary. Paraphrasing is changing the words used, while reflecting the idea the words were meant to convey. I can understand you might be confused, you probably didn't follow the "paraphrasing in context of motivation" concept, but that's okay. Not my problem.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?