By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Is there only a threat of Civil War of Obama gets reelected?

the2real4mafol said:
richardhutnik said:
the2real4mafol said:

I really have no idea where people like Glen Beck (istan?) and Bill o' reilly get the stuff from that talk about. They probably got high on all the extra money from bush's tax cuts, LOL What's sader is that people actually believe it!! they are incredibly stupid! It is really is sad, that they get paid to spread libel (hatred and lies), but if i got paid as much as them, i would probably do it to, i think many would. But, what they are doing should really be illegal i think

Glen Beckistan is the land where Glen Beck gets his info from.  I was kicking the term around and heard others also use it, so I went with it.  It is a play on the name of all the nations near Russia that end with -stan.

Oh ok i heard of Glen Beck but i haven't seen the phrase Glen Beckistan before, it's cool though. 

Today we shall learn the glorious teachings of Glen Beckistan!! (in strong Russian accent) ROFL

I believe the normal way of spelling it is making it one word, as you see with Mother Jones:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/03/glennbeckistan-tea-party

Again, I think I probably thought of it on my own, but then found others ended up also having it.  It beckistan part comes to mind, so it is natural.

By the way, for humor effect, think of Borat saying it, instead of a Russian accent.



Around the Network
richardhutnik said:
the2real4mafol said:
richardhutnik said:
the2real4mafol said:
richardhutnik said:
the2real4mafol said:
If they was a civil war if Obama was re-elected then what's saying the Republicans are safe?

I assume your question is: Why is it that only Obama getting elected means the country is threatened by Civil War.  If that is, then that is my question for this thread.  It takes more than one person being in the White House to cause a nation to fracture. 

Yeah it's just crazy republican bullshit that's all. They are all saying the craziest shit nowadays 


Things are not going well here.  The GOP has issues with getting enough support, so they have to pander to what most people consider fringe, and also end up making the Democratic side more and more spawns of evil to get some sort of base to come out and vote, to stand a chance to be elected.  With the Internet, and 24-7 news cycle, end result is some person who believes in fringe stuff, gets into the news cycle and attempts to get votes for the GOP.  The GOP hopes the mainstream ignores it, while their base is galvanized.  I would say to expect more of this as Super PACs rumble on the scene also, and the Internet enables Alex Jones bubbles of a partisan variety to float.  At least where I am locally, news from Glen Beckistan, is what reigns in at least one Tea Party group, for example, I know of.

It's wrong that they do it but it's amusing all the same. They should just start to bring the truth to who they into politics, rather than stir it up, but that probably won't change

I hear "any day now" Obama is going to shut down the Internet, according to one Tea Party person I know... since 2011 or 2010 they have believed this.

Likely 2010... and that one is actually less crazy then you'd think.

In 2010, congress gave the President the authority to shut down the internet whenever he wants.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/17/internet-kill-switch-woul_n_615923.html

Thinking he's going to do it currently is a bit crazy, but it's quite worrying he now has said power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protecting_Cyberspace_as_a_National_Asset_Act



Kasz216 said:
richardhutnik said:
the2real4mafol said:
richardhutnik said:
the2real4mafol said:
richardhutnik said:
the2real4mafol said:
If they was a civil war if Obama was re-elected then what's saying the Republicans are safe?

I assume your question is: Why is it that only Obama getting elected means the country is threatened by Civil War.  If that is, then that is my question for this thread.  It takes more than one person being in the White House to cause a nation to fracture. 

Yeah it's just crazy republican bullshit that's all. They are all saying the craziest shit nowadays 


Things are not going well here.  The GOP has issues with getting enough support, so they have to pander to what most people consider fringe, and also end up making the Democratic side more and more spawns of evil to get some sort of base to come out and vote, to stand a chance to be elected.  With the Internet, and 24-7 news cycle, end result is some person who believes in fringe stuff, gets into the news cycle and attempts to get votes for the GOP.  The GOP hopes the mainstream ignores it, while their base is galvanized.  I would say to expect more of this as Super PACs rumble on the scene also, and the Internet enables Alex Jones bubbles of a partisan variety to float.  At least where I am locally, news from Glen Beckistan, is what reigns in at least one Tea Party group, for example, I know of.

It's wrong that they do it but it's amusing all the same. They should just start to bring the truth to who they into politics, rather than stir it up, but that probably won't change

I hear "any day now" Obama is going to shut down the Internet, according to one Tea Party person I know... since 2011 or 2010 they have believed this.

Likely 2010... and that one is actually less crazy then you'd think.

In 2010, congress gave the President the authority to shut down the internet whenever he wants.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/17/internet-kill-switch-woul_n_615923.html

Thinking he's going to do it currently is a bit crazy, but it's quite worrying he now has said power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protecting_Cyberspace_as_a_National_Asset_Act

It is the "any day now" part that was the nuts.  The thinking combined net neutrality with the kill switch to have people thinking that.  It came out of Glen Beckistan.  It could happen, but there is way too many commercial interests to have it happen.  The reasoning behind the killswitch is really beyond inane.



I don't want to ruffle any feathers but the fact that this question was asked at all really bothers me. I'm fairly conservative politically and have been involved in things like rallies and volunteerism with the Tea Party. The media paints us as these radical quasi-terrorists just itching to do all this harm. I'ld wager that if you put aside your pre-concieved notions and talked to members of the Tea Party in a non-aggressive way about their politics, you would find ernest kind people who want a more fiscally responsible and moral government. Furthermore violence isn't part of the game plan period. And if you still disagree that's fine, but let's make it about the issues and not indulge in paranoid fantasies of a Right Wing insurgency.



HulkWasRight said:
I don't want to ruffle any feathers but the fact that this question was asked at all really bothers me. I'm fairly conservative politically and have been involved in things like rallies and volunteerism with the Tea Party. The media paints us as these radical quasi-terrorists just itching to do all this harm. I'ld wager that if you put aside your pre-concieved notions and talked to members of the Tea Party in a non-aggressive way about their politics, you would find ernest kind people who want a more fiscally responsible and moral government. Furthermore violence isn't part of the game plan period. And if you still disagree that's fine, but let's make it about the issues and not indulge in paranoid fantasies of a Right Wing insurgency.

Are you bothered by the original post, or the discussions that followed?   If it comes to the original post, you can blame the sheriff for taking the discussions that way.  I had to ask, because that is what the sheriff is implying.  What may be a legitimate concern of the collapse of the United State into a civil war was put in the context of Obama getting elected would do it.  The question was then, if only RIght Wing folks would fire back.

Now, if you are concerned about the rest of the thread, particularly the Tea Party side, what I speak to you is from my own first-hand experience.  I know one person I worked with on the Grass Roots campaign for Ron Paul in 2008, who went off, after listening to a bunch of Glenn Beck (he kept preaching Glenn Beck when I ran into him again, and got a ride to a Tea Party meeting for a Tea Party group he ran and organized), and what I speak about is from him.  Maybe not all are like this, but I am particularly troubled when they polled Tea Party folks that Ron Paul only polled like with a 30% approval rating, nationwide.  You may have more extreme folks in it, but just like with Occupy, guess how Tea Party gets labelled.  It is because of the fringe elements associated with it.

By the way, the guy I talked to, who also had connections to Oath Keepers, and others, is discussing the end of America as we know it.  I would say what the sheriff showed is pretty much a strand floating around the GOP, and likely some parts of the Tea Party.  But, understand the question originally asked didn't even have intentions of focusing on any particular groups at all, or individuals, outside of the political climate being driven to being very partisan and maybe a civil war could happen.  Anything beyond this bothers you, I would suggest you look at those under your banner and talk with them, because some extremes out there are making you look bad.



Around the Network
richardhutnik said:
HulkWasRight said:
I don't want to ruffle any feathers but the fact that this question was asked at all really bothers me. I'm fairly conservative politically and have been involved in things like rallies and volunteerism with the Tea Party. The media paints us as these radical quasi-terrorists just itching to do all this harm. I'ld wager that if you put aside your pre-concieved notions and talked to members of the Tea Party in a non-aggressive way about their politics, you would find ernest kind people who want a more fiscally responsible and moral government. Furthermore violence isn't part of the game plan period. And if you still disagree that's fine, but let's make it about the issues and not indulge in paranoid fantasies of a Right Wing insurgency.

Are you bothered by the original post, or the discussions that followed?   If it comes to the original post, you can blame the sheriff for taking the discussions that way.  I had to ask, because that is what the sheriff is implying.  What may be a legitimate concern of the collapse of the United State into a civil war was put in the context of Obama getting elected would do it.  The question was then, if only RIght Wing folks would fire back.

Actually, the Sheriff suggested the exact opposite... and implied the exact opposite case.



Kasz216 said:
richardhutnik said:
HulkWasRight said:
I don't want to ruffle any feathers but the fact that this question was asked at all really bothers me. I'm fairly conservative politically and have been involved in things like rallies and volunteerism with the Tea Party. The media paints us as these radical quasi-terrorists just itching to do all this harm. I'ld wager that if you put aside your pre-concieved notions and talked to members of the Tea Party in a non-aggressive way about their politics, you would find ernest kind people who want a more fiscally responsible and moral government. Furthermore violence isn't part of the game plan period. And if you still disagree that's fine, but let's make it about the issues and not indulge in paranoid fantasies of a Right Wing insurgency.

Are you bothered by the original post, or the discussions that followed?   If it comes to the original post, you can blame the sheriff for taking the discussions that way.  I had to ask, because that is what the sheriff is implying.  What may be a legitimate concern of the collapse of the United State into a civil war was put in the context of Obama getting elected would do it.  The question was then, if only Right Wing folks would fire back.

Actually, the Sheriff suggested the exact opposite... and implied the exact opposite case.

What is the case the Sheriff is implying?  What I saw was that, if Obama gets elected, then bad things will happen, which is going to result in a Civil War.  What is the opposite case of this, or is this the case you are saying the Sheriff is implying?



richardhutnik said:
Kasz216 said:
richardhutnik said:
HulkWasRight said:
I don't want to ruffle any feathers but the fact that this question was asked at all really bothers me. I'm fairly conservative politically and have been involved in things like rallies and volunteerism with the Tea Party. The media paints us as these radical quasi-terrorists just itching to do all this harm. I'ld wager that if you put aside your pre-concieved notions and talked to members of the Tea Party in a non-aggressive way about their politics, you would find ernest kind people who want a more fiscally responsible and moral government. Furthermore violence isn't part of the game plan period. And if you still disagree that's fine, but let's make it about the issues and not indulge in paranoid fantasies of a Right Wing insurgency.

Are you bothered by the original post, or the discussions that followed?   If it comes to the original post, you can blame the sheriff for taking the discussions that way.  I had to ask, because that is what the sheriff is implying.  What may be a legitimate concern of the collapse of the United State into a civil war was put in the context of Obama getting elected would do it.  The question was then, if only Right Wing folks would fire back.

Actually, the Sheriff suggested the exact opposite... and implied the exact opposite case.

What is the case the Sheriff is implying?  What I saw was that, if Obama gets elected, then bad things will happen, which is going to result in a Civil War.  What is the opposite case of this, or is this the case you are saying the Sheriff is implying?

The Sheriff implied that such a situation wouldn't happen if Obama were elected, it's batshit stupid to think such a situation would happen, and that he in fact never agreed to fire on a UN led invasion force nor ever had any conversation about what to do in the case of a UN led invasion force into their small town in texas.

It was his opinion that Judge Tom Head once again made the district look stupid due to a stupid comment from a string of stupid comments he's been known to make.



Kasz216 said:
richardhutnik said:
Kasz216 said:
richardhutnik said:
HulkWasRight said:
I don't want to ruffle any feathers but the fact that this question was asked at all really bothers me. I'm fairly conservative politically and have been involved in things like rallies and volunteerism with the Tea Party. The media paints us as these radical quasi-terrorists just itching to do all this harm. I'ld wager that if you put aside your pre-concieved notions and talked to members of the Tea Party in a non-aggressive way about their politics, you would find ernest kind people who want a more fiscally responsible and moral government. Furthermore violence isn't part of the game plan period. And if you still disagree that's fine, but let's make it about the issues and not indulge in paranoid fantasies of a Right Wing insurgency.

Are you bothered by the original post, or the discussions that followed?   If it comes to the original post, you can blame the sheriff for taking the discussions that way.  I had to ask, because that is what the sheriff is implying.  What may be a legitimate concern of the collapse of the United State into a civil war was put in the context of Obama getting elected would do it.  The question was then, if only Right Wing folks would fire back.

Actually, the Sheriff suggested the exact opposite... and implied the exact opposite case.

What is the case the Sheriff is implying?  What I saw was that, if Obama gets elected, then bad things will happen, which is going to result in a Civil War.  What is the opposite case of this, or is this the case you are saying the Sheriff is implying?

The Sheriff implied that such a situation wouldn't happen if Obama were elected, it's batshit stupid to think such a situation would happen, and that he in fact never agreed to fire on a UN led invasion force nor ever had any conversation about what to do in the case of a UN led invasion force into their small town in texas.

It was his opinion that Judge Tom Head once again made the district look stupid due to a stupid comment from a string of stupid comments he's been known to make.

Pardon me here.  I wasn't even paying attention to who said what, or lost track of it.  My focus was on the quote by the judge, which had me lose track of the fact he is a judge, not the sheriff.  So, pardon my getting confused here.  It happens when I go on, and have a lot of things focused on and forget the details here.



Seems like some stupid reasoning, but as a question-whats wrong with Obama? Most people outside of the US envy him, as he's a politician with charisma, and what seem like genuinely good ideas (something I couldn't say about Romney...).

I thought, up until a few months ago, Obama wouod win by a landslide, but now I'm not so certain...



 

Here lies the dearly departed Nintendomination Thread.