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

Forums - General - Is a Civil War brewing in the US?

Viper1 on 23 April 2009
txrattlesnake said:

     I'm sure that a sizeable proportion of those that go to Tea Parties make over $250,000.00 a year and are doing so because they don't want any of their wealth to be redistributed to the poor through higher taxes on those in their income group.  I'm equally sure that poorer white people who attend such groups generally have a low level of education and are doing so because they don't like having a black president in the US.

     I would be interested to see a demographical breakdown that shows how many African Americans attended Tea Parties versus the number of wealthier (incomes of $250,000.00 a year wage earners) white people attend and / or organize tea parties. 

 

Complete failure.  Are you basing this information on your own resarch or Jeane Garofolo?

 



The rEVOLution is not being televised

Around the Network
Bursche on 23 April 2009
txrattlesnake said:

But couldn't the two part system itself result in a civil war as the strife between them continues to grow?

On one side you have a party that wants to protect the rights of the wealthy over average citizens and that bases most of its decisions on a religion that was proven to be bunk in the mid 19th century.

And on the other hand you have a progressive thinking party that wants to help all people equally and that favors raising the rights and opportunities of the poor and disenfranchised to a point where they are equitable to those of everyone else in the society.

You can tell you are not from the US, and your generalizations are not only appalling, but are on the same level as the ignorant statements that you are trying to condemn.

Having a two party system sucks, but it is inevitable with our kind of elections, in which the third parties and further on have almost no benefit, or support, because of the winner take all electorate.

Your generalizations though need to stop. I am conservative, but that is just a label. I do not approve of every sentence on the Republican platform, and in all actuallity, I am more moderate than anything, like most Americans. It is usually just having that classification of liberal or conservative that pushes you to vote a certain way, or one issue pushing you more toward one side instead of the other. But your generalization is completely BS. Not all Republicans are bible hugging rich white men. Just like not all Democrats are socialist hippies. It works both ways.

So please, if you are going to debate, at least try to recognize the truth behind both sides instead of just accepting your own bias as fact, because its not. Its opinion.

 



Brawl FC: 4382-1668-1880
Name:Brsch

Animal Crossing City Folk

FC: 2492-8227-9090           Town: McAwesom          Name: Gary

Add me and send me a PM with your FC!

TheRealMafoo on 23 April 2009
highwaystar101 said:
TheRealMafoo said:
akuma587 said:
Threatening to secede from the Union is about the dumbest idea I have ever heard.

 

Why?

If the Union is far more of a burden then they are worth, why should a state stay? (Other than the fact that the US would attack them).

The problem is the only states that can afford to leave; the US cannot afford to lose.

Could any state survive to current standards by themselves though. I would almost bet that California would be the only one that would thrive without the USA and that's only because of the amount of industry there.

 

California would fail (the way it is now anyway). The only three states that come to mind, are Texas, Alaska, and Hawaii.

They generate far more taxes for the US then they consume.



txrattlesnake on 23 April 2009
TheRealMafoo said:
highwaystar101 said:
TheRealMafoo said:
akuma587 said:
Threatening to secede from the Union is about the dumbest idea I have ever heard.

 

Why?

If the Union is far more of a burden then they are worth, why should a state stay? (Other than the fact that the US would attack them).

The problem is the only states that can afford to leave; the US cannot afford to lose.

Could any state survive to current standards by themselves though. I would almost bet that California would be the only one that would thrive without the USA and that's only because of the amount of industry there.

 

California would fail (the way it is now anyway). The only three states that come to mind, are Texas, Alaska, and Hawaii.

They generate far more taxes for the US then they consume.

     Kentucky could survive as its own state because the people are tougher and stronger to the earth there probably even more so than either of those three states.  Its almost its own country anyway.

 



SnesTea on 23 April 2009
halogamer1989 said:
Yes I do. Hold on tx you might get banned for this kind of thread I had a similar one and it got flamed to hell and I responded. Oh well. Yeah, this country sports an increasingly widening U-shape political compass. Many are either to the extreme left or right. Usually, this is the political canvass before civil wars and revolutions. Now am I saying it will be violent? I hope not. It may be on a scale of the Reagan Revolution, however.

 

Yeah, you also lost it mentally.

 

Not too mention, man you...nevermind.



Around the Network
MontanaHatchet on 23 April 2009

You'd think that the idea of a Civil War not happening would be common sense, but ehh...



 

 

Kasz216 on 23 April 2009
txrattlesnake said:
TheRealMafoo said:
txrattlesnake said:
TheRealMafoo said:

I said this in another thread, but I will say it again for those that never read it.

  • I live on 14 acres of land, with 1,200 feet of lake shore.
  • My house is 2,300 square feet, with 4 bedrooms, two and a half baths.
  • I drive a 2000 Porsche 911 convertible, and a 2001 fully loaded 4x4 Chevy Pickup
  • I have a boat
  • I have all three gaming systems, 5 computers (2 Mac’s, 30” Dell display, and high end gaming rig), a 50” 1080p HDTV, and a fairly high end sound system (Denon receiver and Polk speakers).
  • I have a fully decked out workout room, with free weights, heavy bag, spin bike, flat panel TV and DVD player, the works.
  • I go on a nice vacation a year (cruise though the Caribbean, or a week in Mexico usually)

I could go on, but that should be enough to put a good reference around my standard of living. I bought everything I own. I am 39 years old and have never made more than 80K a year.

What does 80K a year buy in your country?

I hate what my country is becoming, but do I sound like someone willing to start a civil war over it? No, if I get too pissed, I will just go fishing ;)

 

 Maybe you're not rich enough to worry about pennies and yet rich enough to not be in a circumstance where the health insurance that one buys from the company they work for won't even pay for a simple operation and where paying $10.00 a day for gas to drive to work each day five days a week takes a significant amount out of the $175.00 a week your bosses pay you in a company where the only ones that get any real promotions are family members of the bosses.

 

When I was 21, I was poor enough to not own a car, have health insurance, own a home (I rented a small apartment with a roommate), or feed myself properly (one month I ate nothing but waffles). Gas was not $10.00 a day, I rode a bike 15 miles to work and home.

I was lucky enough to live in a country where I could take the opportunities available, and do more then bitch about what the next guy gets.

There are millions of people in this country who put forth a lot less effort then me, and have a lot more. If I looked at my life, and all that I have, and felt sorry for myself because someone else has more, I would be on pathetic individual.

If you want more out of life, and live in the US, start working towards a better life. No one is responsible for your well being, other then you. If you want people to feel sorry for where you are, or where other people in low income positions are, look elsewhere. I lived it, and I know why people still live it.

Get off your ass and do something for yourself, and stop looking for someone else to do it for you.

(speaking to those that live in the US, not sure if other countries have governments that allow them to excel.)

 

     It's a bit hard to get off your ass and do something when you have a nagging pain in your left side that you can't do anything about and no money or insurance to see a doctor about it.

     Also, I never learned to ride a bicycle.

    And it's a bit hard to look for a job when the only jobs in the town where you live are controlled by a local political system and local bigwigs that control the situation where you live so much that you can't even get food stamps although you haven't made a dollar in over a year.  Also if said area is fifty miles in any direction from cities that might have jobs but where for various reasons you still can't get one of them.  Ie.  You worked harder than anybody else at your last job, but your former bosses get their jollies by telling others that you were a poor worker even though you put in more effort than anybody else at what you did and they knew before they gave you your last job that you weren't really qualified for it.

 

Medicaid should cover that.  If your that poor.

 



akuma587 on 23 April 2009
TheRealMafoo said:
highwaystar101 said:
TheRealMafoo said:
akuma587 said:
Threatening to secede from the Union is about the dumbest idea I have ever heard.

 

Why?

If the Union is far more of a burden then they are worth, why should a state stay? (Other than the fact that the US would attack them).

The problem is the only states that can afford to leave; the US cannot afford to lose.

Could any state survive to current standards by themselves though. I would almost bet that California would be the only one that would thrive without the USA and that's only because of the amount of industry there.

 

California would fail (the way it is now anyway). The only three states that come to mind, are Texas, Alaska, and Hawaii.

They generate far more taxes for the US then they consume.

You are right about Texas, but wrong about Alaska.  For every $1.00 it sends out in taxes it takes back $1.86 in federal dollars.  I don't know about Hawaii.  And it is a myth that Texas can leave the Union if it wants.  There is no legal vehicle for it to do so.

Well, for one, no state can legally leave the Union.  For two, the economic disadvantages of seceding from the Union would be extreme.  Anything entering or exiting the state would be taxed, you would need a passport to enter or exit the state, etc.  The state would also have to maintain its own military, its own intelligence, and all kinds of other things.  The benefits heavily outweight the cost.  And a recent survey in Texas said 70% of the people would never even remotely consider secession.

Not to mention the state would be taken back by force.  You can't just join the Union when you want and leave later if you want.  That's not how it works.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

TheRealMafoo on 23 April 2009
akuma587 said:

Not to mention the state would be taken back by force.  You can't just join the Union when you want and leave later if you want.  That's not how it works.

yea, we proved that.

The civil war was like joining a club that had a set of rules, and an annual fee. Then after being in the club for decades, they change the rules, and charge more fees. You say "hey, this isn't what I signed up for. Good luck guys, and quit the club. All the members of the club come beat the shit out of you, and say "you can't leave, now pay your dues and deal with the rules."

That sums up the first civil war, and pretty much any additional ones we might have.

 



im_sneaky on 23 April 2009
TheRealMafoo said:
akuma587 said:

Not to mention the state would be taken back by force.  You can't just join the Union when you want and leave later if you want.  That's not how it works.

yea, we proved that.

The civil war was like joining a club that had a set of rules, and an annual fee. Then after being in the club for decades, they change the rules, and charge more fees. You say "hey, this isn't what I signed up for. Good luck guys, and quit the club. All the members of the club come beat the shit out of you, and say "you can't leave, now pay your dues and deal with the rules."

That sums up the first civil war, and pretty much any additional ones we might have.

 

 

Somehow, not completely.