New CH.com Forum
http://www.clusterheadaches.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl
Daily Chat >> General Posts >> Civil war?
http://www.clusterheadaches.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1234392298

Message started by fubar on Feb 11th, 2009 at 5:44pm

Title: Civil war?
Post by fubar on Feb 11th, 2009 at 5:44pm
START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to Login or RegisterEND PRINTPAGE

This is what I'm talking about folks... the federal government is over-reaching and people are FINALLY starting to think about fighting back.

The time has come for a revolution.

From the article:

The Betrayal:

The New Hampshire state legislature took an unbelievably bold step Monday by introducing a resolution to declare certain actions by the federal government to completely totally void and warning that certain future acts will be viewed as a “breach of peace” with the states themselves that risks “nullifying the Constitution.”

This act by New Hampshire is a clear warning to the federal government that they could face being stripped of their power by the States (presumably through civil war!

The remarkable document outlines with perfect clarity, some basics long forgotten. For instance, it reminds Congress “That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations, slavery, and no other crimes whatsoever;. . . . . therefore all acts of Congress which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution are altogether void, and of no force;”

Federal gun crime laws? Void. Federal drug crime laws? Void. The gazzillion other federal criminal laws that deal with anything other than the specific enumerated crimes? ALL VOID.

One would think that if any lawyer anywhere in the entire country was worth his salt, all federal criminal trials would have ended years ago. This seems to prove that most lawyers are dullards.

New Hampshire deals a complete death blow to the pending federal hate crimes legislation by pointing out “That, therefore, all acts of Congress of the United States which do abridge the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, are not law, but are altogether void, and of no force; . . . . .”

Later in the Resolution, New Hampshire makes clear what the feds are now risking if they proceed further: The removal of all powers from the federal government by the States!

Quoting directly from the Resolution: “That any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America. Acts which would cause such a nullification include, but are not limited to:
I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.

II. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

III. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.

V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.

VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition; and

That should any such act of Congress become law or Executive Order or Judicial Order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually.”

I have reported on this blog for quite some time that we here in the United States are heading toward Civil War. Many of you told me I was a nut for thinking that.

The simple fact is that we are long overdue for another Rebellion in this nation and I heartily endorse the idea of having one again very soon; preferably starting THIS year!

We must stop our federal government dead in its tracks because it is out of control and very dangerous. If stopping them means attacking them and destroying them by force, then so be it.

...START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to Login or RegisterEND PRINTPAGE

Title: Re: Civil war?
Post by monty on Feb 11th, 2009 at 6:58pm
OK, so some people here are moving from talk about politics to trying to stir up an armed insurrection against the US Government?  Count me out.

And with such a poorly written piece, with statements like this:

"The New Hampshire state legislature took an unbelievably bold step Monday by introducing a resolution..."


That writer displays a fundamental ignorance of how government works (or is attempting to mislead) - the legislature does not introduce resolutions - individuals in the legislature do. The fact that someone writes a bill and has it 'introduced' doesn't mean that the State of New Hampshire has taken any particular stand what so ever. It hasn't been brought up for discussion, and I doubt it ever will.  But simple facts won't stop those who wish for insurrection and a repeat of the civil war. Hence quotes like:

"This act by New Hampshire is a clear warning to the federal government..." when New Hampshire has not given any warning to the Federal Government, they haven't done anything other than register what the representatives submit.  

From another 'article' on the bill:

"Leading by example the people of New Hampshire have boldly put the federal government on notice with HCR 6 : A Resolution affirming States' rights based on Jeffersonian principles"  

Of course, a comma after the word example would be nice, thank goodness that New Hampshire hasn't mandated English as the official language.  And the People of New Hampshire haven't done any such thing (liar liar pants on fire).  



Title: Re: Civil war?
Post by Mosaicwench on Feb 11th, 2009 at 7:01pm
We have a wh0re named Jim Doyle as governor of Wisconsin.  He's been in Washington with his hand out for weeks.  There will be no such secession from Wisconsin, unfortunately.

Title: Re: Civil war?
Post by Kevin_M on Feb 11th, 2009 at 7:10pm
Indivisible.  A very strong agreement.

Title: Re: Civil war?
Post by KJ on Feb 11th, 2009 at 7:17pm
OOOH, watch it monty.....New Hampshire is the 'Granite State'.....they are tough as stone.  :)

Fubar....Do you really believe the idiotic vitriol you are spewing? A revolution? A Civil War? Really? :o

Title: Re: Civil war?
Post by Redd on Feb 11th, 2009 at 7:45pm
Welcome to the blogsphere where any idiot can write something and the followers will read it as gospel.

I'll trust blogs written by professional retired/bought out/laid off journalists...thanks.

Title: Re: Civil war?
Post by Linda_Howell on Feb 11th, 2009 at 7:52pm


   
Quote:
Fubar....Do you really believe the idiotic vitriol you are spewing?



                          [smiley=referee.gif]

Title: Re: Civil war?
Post by KJ on Feb 11th, 2009 at 8:07pm
Blow all you want, Linda. :)


Title: Re: Civil war?
Post by Linda_Howell on Feb 11th, 2009 at 9:24pm
right back attcha  ;D

Title: Re: Civil war?
Post by jimmers on Feb 11th, 2009 at 10:11pm
"The sky is falling, the sky is falling!"

Title: Re: Civil war?
Post by Charlie on Feb 12th, 2009 at 12:16am

Quote:
Fubar....Do you really believe the idiotic vitriol you are spewing? A revolution? A Civil War? Really?


Fubar......better known as Lou Dobbs.   :o 8-)

Charlie

Title: Re: Civil war?
Post by fubar on Feb 12th, 2009 at 1:55am
This place, even moderated, is not civil anymore.

I'm going guest for now. Those of you who I'll lose contact with, it was nice knowing you.

PFDAN, forever

Title: Re: Civil war?
Post by fubar on Feb 12th, 2009 at 2:02am
One last read for you people in denial about what is happening and what is at stake.

See you all and God Bless America.

-Shwn





When Destruction Is the Cost of Denial
It is far from a novel observation to note that most people live in varying degrees of denial. We rarely encounter the person who is rigorously honest about his own virtues and defects, who acknowledges the full truth concerning those individuals most important to him, and who actively questions the validity of his deepest convictions. In part, this is due to social convention; it often is an understandable (if not desirable or healthy) part of a survival strategy.

If we recognize that denial represents valuing delusion more than reality, the seriousness of the danger carried by denial depends on the respective proportions of denial and truth in our lives. Our particular delusions may appear to provide us comfort and safety. As long as our lives continue to be sustained in significant part by what is true and healthy, denial will not seriously threaten our survival. But when what is true in our lives is overwhelmed by the lies we insist upon, our days grow shorter.

What is true for the individual is also true, in much more complex ways, of a nation and a culture. Many of us may know the individual story from our own experiences. We tragically may have encountered the person who destroys himself, his family, and perhaps a business and many other people, because he demands one more drink, or one more affair, or because he has to place one last bet. We hear that he has finally died alone in pitiful circumstances. Maybe he succumbs at last in an especially awful and desolate manner. He dies in a filthy hovel, or on the street. The destruction he causes may be terrible, but it remains limited. We may not be aware he has ceased to exist for months or even years after the fact.

The United States today is determined to act out the final stages of denial and destruction. Our ruling class refuses to pause and take stock, or to ask themselves if the edifice they have erected on a huge body of lies must be painfully reconstructed on a foundation closer to the truth. A pattern that is pitiful in the individual case is terrifying when it occurs on this much vaster scale. In the case of the United States, the terror is greatly increased. The accumulated reservoir of power, including an arsenal of weapons more powerful than the world has ever known, means that a last drink, or a last affair, or a final orgy of financial bets and war may result in the ultimate destruction of not only the United States itself, but of large parts of the rest of the world.

We may now have entered the final phase of this hideous drama. Because of the multiplicity of factors involved, this phase may last for years, or even decades. But it could reach its devastating end much more quickly. This is a time of immense historic peril, when any vestiges of a concern with truth would demand that the ruling class finally begin to loosen its death grip on delusion. Yet the ruling class continues in its absolute refusal to surrender even one of the endless lies it tells itself. Destruction rushes ever closer, and the ruling class persists in its delusions, repeating them with greater frequency and in a louder and louder voice. Nothing will stop them as they hurtle themselves toward devastation. We have no choice but to be concerned with these matters; as the ruling class destroys itself, it may destroy many of us as well.

We can observe this pattern in the two areas of greatest moment: the economic collapse of the United States, and the United States' conduct of foreign affairs. Let us now consider each of these subjects.

As a starting point for a discussion of the continuing economic collapse, try to make real to yourselves the overwhelming magnitude of these figures:
The stimulus package the U.S. Congress is completing would raise the government’s commitment to solving the financial crisis to $9.7 trillion, enough to pay off more than 90 percent of the nation’s home mortgages.

The Federal Reserve, Treasury Department and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation have lent or spent almost $3 trillion over the past two years and pledged up to $5.7 trillion more. The Senate is to vote this week on an economic-stimulus measure of at least $780 billion. It would need to be reconciled with an $819 billion plan the House approved last month.

Only the stimulus bill to be approved this week, the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program passed four months ago and $168 billion in tax cuts and rebates enacted in 2008 have been voted on by lawmakers. The remaining $8 trillion is in lending programs and guarantees, almost all under the Fed and FDIC. Recipients’ names have not been disclosed.

...

The pledges, amounting to almost two-thirds of the value of everything produced in the U.S. last year, are intended to rescue the financial system after the credit markets seized up about 18 months ago. The promises are composed of about $1 trillion in stimulus packages, around $3 trillion in lending and spending and $5.7 trillion in agreements to provide aid. The total already tapped has decreased about 1 percent since November, mostly because foreign central banks are using fewer dollars in currency-exchange agreements called swaps.

Federal Reserve lending to banks peaked at a record $2.3 trillion in December, dropping to $1.83 trillion by last week. The Fed balance sheet is still more than double the $880 billion it was in the week before Sept. 17 when it agreed to accept lower-quality collateral.

The worst financial crisis in two generations has erased $14.5 trillion, or 33 percent, of the value of the world’s companies since Sept. 15; brought down Bear Stearns Cos. and Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.; and led to the takeover of Merrill Lynch & Co. by Bank of America Corp.
With this incomprehensible amount of present and future debt fixed firmly in your mind, focus on this statement from President Obama yesterday, a statement which serves as the primary justification for yet another increase in this staggering amount of debt based on what is now hugely less than nothing:
It is absolutely true that we can't depend on government alone to create jobs or economic growth. That is and must be the role of the private sector. But at this particular moment, with the private sector so weakened by this recession, the federal government is the only entity left with the resources to jolt our economy back into life. It is only government that can break the vicious cycle where lost jobs lead to people spending less money, which leads to even more layoffs. And breaking that cycle is exactly what the plan that's moving through Congress is designed to do.
Try to set aside the endless lies told to you by almost every voice of alleged "authority." Try to grasp the truth: the United States government has no resources left. The full truth is far, far worse: the United States government is bankrupt and in debt for trillions of dollars. Almost all our leaders and major Establishment voices tell us there is only way to solve this frightening problem: increase the debt still more.

This is the final bet our delusional ruling class insists it "has" to place, even as their world shatters and flies apart. The ruling class still hopes, with the intensity of the deranged maniac who hopes that one more high will finally take him into the realm of unimaginable ecstasy, that the bet can be made good. What if it can't?

This comes perilously close to clinical madness. But it is not quite fully mad. To appreciate what I mean, you need to remember two of the points I made in one of my first posts about the economic unraveling. In "The Vampire, Struck by Sunlight," I explained these points as follows:
Two: You, the "ordinary" American, are the one who finally pays for all of this. You are the ultimate sucker.
On this point, remember Mike Whitney's observation, as well:
Keep in mind, the biggest source of American power is its access to cheap capital via the US taxpayer.
The other point is this one:
Three: As with every other crisis, the ruling class, which created the crisis in the first place, will tell us how to "solve" it.
In that article, I also identified the ultimate purpose of this near-madness:
The crisis may be ameliorated to a degree, and the worst of the consequences may be postponed for a while. But whatever "solutions" are implemented, whatever reorganization and reregulation is imposed, it will all be done in accordance with the ruling class's desires and goals. It will all be to protect their own wealth and power to whatever extent is possible, and to expand their wealth and power still more, if that remains at all feasible.
For this, the ruling class will destroy the world.

In the last few months, I have seen two articles that describe what is now happening with special accuracy and power. Both writers express what is essentially the same idea, and come to the identical conclusion: at some point, perhaps very soon, this final bet will not be redeemed. This bet is very likely to be just that: the final one.

From the beginning of January, a Paul Craig Roberts article, "Will There be a Recovery?":
Economists will scoff at the question in the title. But that’s because they are trying to fit the present into the past.

In the past recoveries were routine, because recessions were temporary restraints resulting from the Federal Reserve putting the brakes on an overheating economy. ...

In those days when workers borrowed to spend, they were borrowing against rising real wages from rising productivity. In economic downturns, few workers actually lost their jobs. They were laid off from their jobs for temporary periods. Workers seldom lost their homes or cars, thanks to union funds and unemployment benefits.

Today the situation is different. In the 21st century real wages have not risen. Workers have spent more by accepting deteriorating household balance sheets. They have maxed out their credit cards and spent the equity in their homes. Imitators of the US government, American consumers borrow to pay their bills.

The expansion of household debt relative to income created the illusion that the economy was sound. But the consumer economy was as much of a credit-based bubble as the real estate bubble and the financial sector bubble. The economy has lost its real basis.

Today it is difficult to stimulate consumer demand by lowering interest rates. Consumers are too heavily in debt to borrow any more. Financial institutions are too impaired to want to lend to anyone except those who don’t need to borrow. ...

And there’s another problem. Much of what American consumers purchase today is made offshore. Stimulating consumer demand in America puts factories back to work, but those factories are located elsewhere in the world.

How does an economy consume more than it produces? Previously, this question applied only to poor third world countries. These countries would consume by the grace of World Bank loans. From time to time they would pay for their consumption by being put through an IMF restructuring program that would curtail their consumption to make them repay their loans by forced saving.

The United States has so far avoided such humiliation, because its currency is the world money. The US has been able to borrow endlessly, because it can pay its debts in its own currency.

This ability might be coming to an end. The US has been using up the bulk of the world’s supply of saving for years in order to finance its consumption. Considering the outlook for the US economy and dollar, the productive nations of the world and those with oil have more dollars and dollar-denominated assets than they want. The US, with its collapsing economy, its bailouts of financial institutions, and its wars, is facing the largest government budget deficit in its history, both in absolute amount and as a percentage of national income. The easy monetary policy, which the Fed hopes will arrest deflation, threatens inflation and further deterioration in the dollar. Foreigners simply do not want to lend more large sums to a country that, from all appearances, has no way to close its trade and budget deficits. They certainly do not want to lend when the interest rate offered is close to zero and the reserve currency status of the dollar is in doubt.

Economists and the policy-makers they advise are thinking in the past, a time when low interest rates stimulated consumer and investment demand, thus lifting the economy. Today the low interest rates threaten the dollar, discourage foreigners from lending more to the US, and deprive Americans of interest income necessary to their ability to pay their bills.

...

The United States is walking on quicksand. It is dependent on foreigners for the funding to conduct the day-to-day operations of its government. Its economy is a hollow shell reduced to dependence on a financial sector that is discredited worldwide. America’s government believes that its foreign wars of aggression are more important than any domestic needs, including the health care of its population.

...

What we are witnessing is a once great power engaging in fantasy to disguise from itself that it is a failed state.
The second article (via) is from the beginning of this month, and is by Willem Buiter:
On a number of occasions I have cautioned against deficit-financed fiscal stimuli in countries whose governments have weak fiscal credibility, that is, countries where current tax cuts or public spending increases cannot be credibly matched by commitments to future public spending cuts and tax increases of equal present discounted value. I believe that both the US and the UK fall into this category.

...

For a fiscal stimulus (current tax cut or public spending increase) to boost demand, it is necessary that the markets and the public at large believe that sooner or later, measures will be taken to reverse the tax cut or spending increase in present value terms. If markets and the public at large no longer believe that the authorities will assure fiscal sustainability by raising future taxes or cutting future public expenditure by the necessary amounts, they will conclude that the government plans either to permanently monetise the increased amounts of public debt resulting from the fiscal stimulus, or that it will default on its debt obligations. Permanent monetisation of the kind of government deficits anticipated for the next few years in the US and the UK would, sooner or later be highly inflationary. This would raise long-term nominal interest rates and probably give risk to inflation risk premia on public and private debt instruments as well. Default would build default risk premia into sovereign interest rates, and act as a break on demand.

Because I believe that neither the US nor the UK authorities have the political credibility to commit themselves to future tax increases and public spending cuts commensurate with the up-front tax cuts and spending increases they are contemplating, I believe that neither the US nor the UK should engage in any significant discretionary cyclical fiscal stimulus, whether through higher public spending (consumption or investment) or through tax cuts or increased transfer payments.

...

The US is helped by the absence of ‘original sin’ – its ability to borrow abroad in securities denominated in its own currency – and the closely related status of the US dollar as the world’s leading reserve currency. But this elastic cannot be stretched indefinitely. While it is hard to be scientifically precise about this, I believe that the anticipated future US Federal deficits and the growing contingent exposure of the US sovereign to its financial system (and to a growing list of other more or less deserving domestic industries and other good causes) will cause the dollar in a couple of years to look more like an emerging market currency than like the US dollar of old. The UK is already closer to that position than the US, because of the minor-league legacy reserve currency status of sterling.

...

The only element of a classical emerging market crisis that is missing from the US and UK experiences since August 2007 is the ’sudden stop’ - the cessation of capital inflows to both the private and public sectors. There has been a partial sudden stop of financial flows, both domestic and external, to the banking sector and the rest of the private sector, but the external capital accounts are still functioning for the sovereigns and for the remaining creditworthy borrowers. But that should not be taken for granted, even for the US with its extra protection layer from the status of the US dollar as the world’s leading reserve currency. A large fiscal stimulus from a government without fiscal credibility could be the trigger for a ’sudden stop’.

So just don’t do it. Focus fiscal resources on getting the credit mechanism and other key parts of the financial intermediation process going again. Effective Keynesian fiscal policy requires a virtuous policy maker, capable of credible commitment - that is, commitment capable of resisting the future the siren calls of opportunistic reneging on past commitments. The Obama administration is new and has had but limited opportunity to abuse the trust placed in its promises and commitments. That puts it in a better position that the UK government, which has been in office since May 1997. But many of the top players in Obama’s economic team are strongly identified with the failed policies, regulations and laws that brought us the disaster we are facing. So the amount of credibility capital is severely limited even for Obama. Use it to get credit flowing again. Tax cuts for friends and favoured constituencies, replacing clapped-out infrastructure and even the fight against global warming will have to wait until trust - public credit - is restored.
By their resolute insistence on maintaining their web of lies, our ruling class makes a "sudden stop" virtually inevitable. Much of the rest of the world now sees through those lies; only the United States ruling class refuses to give them up. To surrender them would threaten their own lives of power, wealth and comfort. We may find out very soon, much sooner than we might hope, whether their commitment to what is now a hollowed-out shell of power and wealth, to, that is, a fantasy of immense destructive force, is greater than their fear of the diminishment of their own belief that they can continue to make the rest of the world conform to their own delusions.

On top of these continuing economic delusions, we have the ruling class's delusions in the realm of foreign policy. We will look at those next. From the evidence already available, it appears that the ruling class is determined to place one last bet there as well. The destruction that may result is more frightening that any of us would dare to imagine. But such concerns don't matter to the ruling class. They have lived in their delusions for so long that they can no longer tell the difference between their imaginings and what is real. For them, their delusions are life; they have rendered themselves incapable of seeing that the delusions mean only destruction, and death.

So the madness and the destruction come still closer.



"All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Title: Re: Civil war?
Post by Guiseppi on Feb 12th, 2009 at 2:35am
For heavens sake son, you started a thread about a revolution to divide the United States of America....and you were shocked that there were some impassioned responses? Short of claiming to have found a cure for CH, I'd be hard pressed to post a more "Flame Attracting thread."

That being said I was impressed with this and several other threads, where there is vigorous debate going on, both sides presenting impassioned arguments for their view points, and it's not getting ugly! I like that. ;)

Joe

Title: Re: Civil war?
Post by Charlie on Feb 12th, 2009 at 7:43am


I've been around too long. I'm unlikely to find entertainment, in a Rex Humbard-style approach to life.

The only choice we have is to dig out of this thing, which is looking more and more like the 1930s. We did it then with fewer tools and poorer understanding of what has to be done.

It still applies that fear itself that is our worst enemy.

Charlie

Title: Re: Civil war?
Post by Paul98 on Feb 12th, 2009 at 8:02am
Just a word to the wise:

Calling for  or promoting people of this nation to take up arms against the government of the USA is not a good idea and I would be carefull about promoting it on this board.  You may find someone looking over your shoulder.

The constitution is very clear in how the people change the way they are being governed and it is through legal pettition of congress.  The constitution did give the people the second amendment as an "all else fails" way to take their government back.

I see another area aside from name calling that the mods need to be aware of.  

Just saying.

-P.

Title: Re: Civil war?
Post by catlind on Feb 12th, 2009 at 8:25am
Having suffered through the very real scenario of Homeland Security and charges of uttering terroristic threats, it's an area that is already noted Paul.

Freedom of speech, as long as you agree with the administration...

Cat

Title: Re: Civil war?
Post by Bob P on Feb 12th, 2009 at 8:31am
DJ's code of conduct:

Quote:
Debate is welcome (and encouraged), but attack ideas and opinions; not personalities.  Note that putting an "in my opinion" type of qualifier on a violating statement does not change the fact that the statement violates these standards.


I believe referring to Shawn as Lou Dobbs crosses this line.

Title: Re: Civil war?
Post by Bob P on Feb 12th, 2009 at 8:37am
Don't see the modify button so new post:

Similar legislation in 6 other States
Washington State Declares Sovereignty HJM 4009
Arizona HCR 2024
Michigan HCR 4
Missouri HR 212
Montana HB 0246
Oklahoma HJR 1089

Title: Re: Civil war?
Post by Charlie on Feb 12th, 2009 at 8:47am

Quote:
Calling for  or promoting people of this nation to take up arms against the government of the USA is not a good idea and I would be carefull about promoting it on this board.  You may find someone looking over your shoulder


I hope not! Then it really would be over.

Charlie

Title: Re: Civil war?
Post by PollyPocket on Feb 12th, 2009 at 9:28am

Bob P wrote on Feb 12th, 2009 at 8:31am:
DJ's code of conduct:

Quote:
Debate is welcome (and encouraged), but attack ideas and opinions; not personalities.  Note that putting an "in my opinion" type of qualifier on a violating statement does not change the fact that the statement violates these standards.



Guiseppi wrote on Feb 12th, 2009 at 2:35am:

That being said I was impressed with this and several other threads, where there is vigorous debate going on, both sides presenting impassioned arguments for their view points, and it's not getting ugly! I like that. ;)Joe


You're right Joe.

Title: Re: Civil war?
Post by Jimi on Feb 12th, 2009 at 9:51am

Quote:
This place, even moderated, is not civil anymore.

I'm going guest for now. Those of you who I'll lose contact with, it was nice knowing you.


Oh Good Lord ! Look if you are going to get involved in a discussion on politics, you better have a thick skin because some on here are gonna come after your take on certain issues that they disagree with.

Bye

Title: Re: Civil war?
Post by Bob P on Feb 12th, 2009 at 9:57am

Quote:
For heavens sake son, you started a thread about a revolution to divide the United States of America


I don't see Shawn speaking of this.  The articles he posted speak of the Federal Government overstepping the authority given it by the Constitution and the States putting them back in thier place.  I don't see anything about dividing the USA.

Title: Re: Civil war?
Post by BMoneeTheMoneeMan on Feb 12th, 2009 at 10:07am

Bob P wrote on Feb 12th, 2009 at 9:57am:

Quote:
For heavens sake son, you started a thread about a revolution to divide the United States of America


I don't see anything about dividing the USA.


Check out the name of the thread if you get a chance.



Title: Re: Civil war?
Post by JDH on Feb 12th, 2009 at 10:17am
Other than the drama of letting everyone know you're leaving why do people have to become 'ex-members' when they leave?
I see it over and over and all I can figure is they're afraid no one will miss them unless they make this dramatic exit complete with a 'this is my final post' thread.   ::)
sheesh people get over yourselves

Title: Re: Civil war?
Post by Bob P on Feb 12th, 2009 at 10:30am

BMoneeTheMoneeMan wrote on Feb 12th, 2009 at 10:07am:

Bob P wrote on Feb 12th, 2009 at 9:57am:

Quote:
For heavens sake son, you started a thread about a revolution to divide the United States of America


I don't see anything about dividing the USA.


Check out the name of the thread if you get a chance.


You mean the Civil War with the question mark?  From Wiki:

Quote:
A civil war is a war between organized groups to take control of a nation or region, or to change government policies.

Still don't see anything about dividing the USA.  Shawn speaks of changing government policies.

Title: Re: Civil war?
Post by Brew on Feb 12th, 2009 at 10:48am

JDH wrote on Feb 12th, 2009 at 10:17am:
Other than the drama of letting everyone know you're leaving why do people have to become 'ex-members' when they leave?
I see it over and over and all I can figure is they're afraid no one will miss them unless they make this dramatic exit complete with a 'this is my final post' thread.   ::)
sheesh people get over yourselves

With all due respect, Jim, I did this recently. I needed to take away my ability to hit the "Reply" button. It was an acknowledgement of my own character flaw, but I don't think it had anything to do with getting over myself.

Title: Re: Civil war?
Post by JDH on Feb 12th, 2009 at 10:55am

Brew wrote on Feb 12th, 2009 at 10:48am:

JDH wrote on Feb 12th, 2009 at 10:17am:
Other than the drama of letting everyone know you're leaving why do people have to become 'ex-members' when they leave?
I see it over and over and all I can figure is they're afraid no one will miss them unless they make this dramatic exit complete with a 'this is my final post' thread.   ::)
sheesh people get over yourselves

With all due respect, Jim, I did this recently. I needed to take away my ability to hit the "Reply" button. It was an acknowledgement of my own character flaw, but I don't think it had anything to do with getting over myself.


So why not just stop coming here instead of deleting your profile and doing the 'final post' thing?

Title: Re: Civil war?
Post by Charlotte on Feb 12th, 2009 at 11:00am
we need this place, and I respect what Brew just said and I understand it now.

Charlotte

Title: Re: Civil war?
Post by Bob P on Feb 12th, 2009 at 11:01am

wrote on Feb 12th, 2009 at 1:55am:
This place, even moderated, is not civil anymore.

I'm going guest for now. Those of you who I'll lose contact with, it was nice knowing you.

PFDAN, forever

Sounds like he's just taking a break.

Title: Re: Civil war?
Post by Brew on Feb 12th, 2009 at 11:04am

JDH wrote on Feb 12th, 2009 at 10:55am:

Brew wrote on Feb 12th, 2009 at 10:48am:

JDH wrote on Feb 12th, 2009 at 10:17am:
Other than the drama of letting everyone know you're leaving why do people have to become 'ex-members' when they leave?
I see it over and over and all I can figure is they're afraid no one will miss them unless they make this dramatic exit complete with a 'this is my final post' thread.   ::)
sheesh people get over yourselves

With all due respect, Jim, I did this recently. I needed to take away my ability to hit the "Reply" button. It was an acknowledgement of my own character flaw, but I don't think it had anything to do with getting over myself.


So why not just stop coming here instead of deleting your profile and doing the 'final post' thing?

As long as I still had a profile, I still had the ability to respond. By deleting my profile, I could no longer do that.

As to the "just stop coming here" thing, maybe you and many others have the willpower to do that.

If you have that ability, I'm not asking you to understand my situation - just acknowledge it for what it is.

Title: Re: Civil war?
Post by CH-HELL on Feb 12th, 2009 at 11:25am
   I have to agree with Brew on this,  in a situation  where I am upset it would be very hard for me to just not respond or not come here.   I have mentioned it before we need our own personal lock buttons so we can ban ourselves,   then we wouldn't need to delete our profile.
    Phil

Title: Re: Civil war?
Post by BMoneeTheMoneeMan on Feb 12th, 2009 at 11:28am
Same here Brew.  For some of us, it can be difficult to bite one's tongue......yet we still believe in if you don't have anything nice to say than keep your mouth shut.  
I had to log out for a while so that I would not respond.  If I had responded, some people may have gotten upset and I may have even lost my ability to come here.  I didnt want for that to happen, so I logged out.

Title: Re: Civil war?
Post by Brew on Feb 12th, 2009 at 11:44am

BMoneeTheMoneeMan wrote on Feb 12th, 2009 at 11:28am:
Same here Brew.  For some of us, it can be difficult to bite one's tongue......yet we still believe in if you don't have anything nice to say than keep your mouth shut.  
I had to log out for a while so that I would not respond.  If I had responded, some people may have gotten upset and I may have even lost my ability to come here.  I didnt want for that to happen, so I logged out.

And if I find myself in similar circumstances in the future, I'll probably try that first. I used these last few months to learn how to hold back a little.

Title: Re: Civil war?
Post by Artonio on Feb 12th, 2009 at 12:09pm

Brew wrote on Feb 12th, 2009 at 11:44am:

BMoneeTheMoneeMan wrote on Feb 12th, 2009 at 11:28am:
Same here Brew.  For some of us, it can be difficult to bite one's tongue......yet we still believe in if you don't have anything nice to say than keep your mouth shut.  
I had to log out for a while so that I would not respond.  If I had responded, some people may have gotten upset and I may have even lost my ability to come here.  I didnt want for that to happen, so I logged out.

And if I find myself in similar circumstances in the future, I'll probably try that first. I used these last few months to learn how to hold back a little.



I understand how you feel Bill... but what we love most about you is when you don't hold back.  :)

with warm regards,
Tony

Title: Re: Civil war?
Post by PbZep on Feb 12th, 2009 at 1:36pm
I know this is off-topic but awww.  I'm a bit of a civil war buff and I was hoping... well, nevermind.

Title: Re: Civil war?
Post by Brew on Feb 12th, 2009 at 1:52pm

PbZep wrote on Feb 12th, 2009 at 1:36pm:
I know this is off-topic but awww.  I'm a bit of a civil war buff and I was hoping... well, nevermind.

Nevermind? Bullshit.

Start a thread. There's a reason this board is called "General."

Title: Re: Civil war?
Post by seasonalboomer on Feb 12th, 2009 at 2:27pm

wrote on Feb 12th, 2009 at 1:55am:
This place, even moderated, is not civil anymore.

I'm going guest for now. Those of you who I'll lose contact with, it was nice knowing you.

PFDAN, forever


oh...ferfuksake.....
find a long path in the woods, take a long walk and enjoy the day -- it is all we're promised.

Title: Re: Civil war?
Post by JDH on Feb 12th, 2009 at 2:51pm

seasonalboomer wrote on Feb 12th, 2009 at 2:27pm:

wrote on Feb 12th, 2009 at 1:55am:
This place, even moderated, is not civil anymore.

I'm going guest for now. Those of you who I'll lose contact with, it was nice knowing you.

PFDAN, forever


oh...ferfuksake.....
find a long path in the woods, take a long walk and enjoy the day -- it is all we're promised.


perfect  8-)

Title: Re: Civil war?
Post by Kevin_M on Feb 12th, 2009 at 3:01pm

Paul98 wrote on Feb 12th, 2009 at 8:02am:
I see another area aside from name calling that the mods need to be aware of.


Paul, you are fair minded and have expressed views always civil toward others, insight and observation shared is always fine from you.  


But if this is what you meant,


catlind wrote on Feb 12th, 2009 at 8:25am:
Freedom of speech, as long as you agree with the administration...


Speech flows freely in disagreement more times than not here, if that be the issue.  

I've never viewed any aspect of conversation as agree or dis but may have views that are simply different.  That is why words like left, right, Rep, Dem, conservative, and liberal are never used in the political conversations where I've minimally commented.



Bob P wrote on Feb 12th, 2009 at 8:31am:
I believe referring to Shawn as Lou Dobbs crosses this line.


I'd be hesitant to put any finger here, Charlie takes a far bit yet with consistant replies very pleasantly toned.  

Being rather fearless of confrontation and at home in any rough and tumble fult tilt boogie, I am not one to mind offensive anything, except when I see it directed at others.  I know rules are rules but I would hope no one be barred for any offense to me because it's not, just less pleasant for others to see and I agree it's a motivating factor.  
 I will never understand how arguments are put forth introduced with others having a lack of history knowledge.  We are very, very lucky to have Charlie on the board here.  Anyone stating an argument in opposition to him with that included I consider highly disrespectful, and will respond.  As Paul has stated, "I see another area aside from name calling."  For simplicity, I've not further exampled Monty also above others.  Disregarding the talent here can only lead to undesired repercussions.  
 To get back to your comment Bob after what I've attempted to outline,


Quote:
Those who buy in to this kind of social engineering through redistribution of wealth, whether it's because they are true socialists or just simple foks who blindly follow the hand that feeds them, don't want to admit they have been duped.


True socialists, simple folks, blindly follow, and duped.  In trying to maintain a framing of the conversation as one may wish to see it with this and then comment the place is not civil, I'd take a break, too.  While not a bother to me, I think of others that posed opposition to thought that this just does not fit.  

Despite otherwise, much respect to Shawn for an overabundance of well-intentioned thought done with a recognized capacity.

Needless to say, all just opinion.


 

 


Title: Re: Civil war?
Post by Paul98 on Feb 12th, 2009 at 3:53pm

Kevin_M wrote on Feb 12th, 2009 at 3:01pm:

Paul98 wrote on Feb 12th, 2009 at 8:02am:
I see another area aside from name calling that the mods need to be aware of.


Paul, you are fair minded and have expressed views always civil toward others, insight and observation shared is always fine from you.  


But if this is what you meant,


catlind wrote on Feb 12th, 2009 at 8:25am:
Freedom of speech, as long as you agree with the administration...


Nothing wrong with disagreeing with the administration and our constitution allows for it through legal redress of grievances through petition of congress.  I think Cat was referring to the attitude of the social left in that their view is; you are wrong if you do not think like they do.  But this is my interpretation of what Cat wrote.  Perhaps I misread it.

-P.

Title: Re: Civil war?
Post by Kevin_M on Feb 12th, 2009 at 4:11pm
Within reach, fairly understood Cat's comment.  Of a curious nature, while your "area" has interest, it exercised privacy of the boundaries of thought.  However, it inspired me to realize there are other areas that touch but register only perhaps individually.  

Thanks for the initiative.     :)

Title: Re: Civil war?
Post by ANNSIE on Feb 12th, 2009 at 5:07pm

JDH wrote on Feb 12th, 2009 at 10:17am:
Other than the drama of letting everyone know you're leaving why do people have to become 'ex-members' when they leave?
I see it over and over and all I can figure is they're afraid no one will miss them unless they make this dramatic exit complete with a 'this is my final post' thread.   ::)
sheesh people get over yourselves



Sorry this is off topic but I wish to share my view here.

Sometimes when people leave and delete their profile it may be because they feel hurt. Whether the reason they feel hurt is justified or not to the rest of the Board, it is real to the person.

Natural human reaction to any kind to pain is to get rid of it. Deleting the profile may work symbolically as a way of getting rid of that pain.

If we are to be supportive to our fellow sufferers, not just CHers but supporters too, then we should try to understand more and judge less.


Fu, I miss you and I hope you come back soon. I have left the light on for you.



Title: Re: Civil war?
Post by catlind on Feb 12th, 2009 at 6:19pm
Let me clear up my comment.  

I was in no way referencing the threads or discussions that have taken place on the boards.  

What I was referencing was the inference to the bigger issue that can come up when you start talking about civil unrest etc. and specifically in regards to comments you make in any online forum that the police will not hesitate to charge you with uttering terroristic threats.

I unfortunately have personal experience with that very issue.  And if you make comments that don't fit well with the administration (any administration - not a specific one) or make anything that is deemed a threat by Homeland Security, they can and will charge you with the above charge.

It is in no way a reflection to anything on the boards here or any specific train of thought or debate.

Hope that clears up any misconceptions with my post.

Cat

Title: Re: Civil war?
Post by Charlie on Feb 12th, 2009 at 8:39pm
You're right I think. I shouldn't compare directly like that.

Lou Dobbs: This guy seemed to be pretty rational awhile ago. Now, every time I look for something on the radio.....there he is. He's right on a lot of stuff but for me, I have to dig a little deeper each time.

I'll try to stick around. This place needs a socialistic liberal elite supporter and all around PITA on the left.  8-)

Charlie

Title: Re: Civil war?
Post by Opus on Feb 12th, 2009 at 11:31pm
Fu,

  Sorry to see you go. I for one don't care what anyone thinks of me so no one will be running me off.

  I can see that the America we once had is now gone. We have an empty economy that just sells things made by other countries to our citizens, while our government helps companies move jobs out of the country.

  There has been loss of civil liberties. Our current government are trying to spend us out of a recession that was caused by people borrowing money who couldn't afford it. Our current president appears to be the most corrupt one to date, excluding president Cheney.

  I doubt that a state will be able to succeed without a overwhelming response from the Federal government. They have the nukes and I am sure they will use them.

  There can't be a revolution because there are not enough people to rebel. The majority of the people in this country are sheep who will vote for whatever idiot the two parties put on the ballot. That is why Ron Paul's revoluton will fail, He will never get on one of the two parties ballots, that would be their worst fear.

Paul

Title: Re: Civil war?
Post by BMoneeTheMoneeMan on Feb 13th, 2009 at 12:57am

Bob P wrote on Feb 12th, 2009 at 10:30am:

BMoneeTheMoneeMan wrote on Feb 12th, 2009 at 10:07am:

Bob P wrote on Feb 12th, 2009 at 9:57am:

Quote:
For heavens sake son, you started a thread about a revolution to divide the United States of America


I don't see anything about dividing the USA.


Check out the name of the thread if you get a chance.


You mean the Civil War with the question mark?  From Wiki:
[quote]A civil war is a war between organized groups to take control of a nation or region, or to change government policies.

Still don't see anything about dividing the USA.  Shawn speaks of changing government policies.
[/quote]

So, lemme get this straight.  You are talking about a civil war between 2 unified sides?  If they are unified (rather than divided), what would a civil war be about?  

 

Title: Re: Civil war?
Post by Jonny on Feb 13th, 2009 at 4:30pm
Rep. John Culberson, TX claims the "stimulus" bill must be urgently voted on today -- because Speaker Nancy Pelosi is leaving at 6:00 PM for an 8 day trip to Europe!

Title: Re: Civil war?
Post by Charlie on Feb 13th, 2009 at 4:46pm
Cool!

Then Bill O'Reilly and Glen Beck's blood pressure should drop a bit.   8-)

Charlie

Title: Re: Civil war?
Post by vietvet2tours on Feb 13th, 2009 at 4:57pm

Brew wrote on Feb 12th, 2009 at 1:52pm:

PbZep wrote on Feb 12th, 2009 at 1:36pm:
I know this is off-topic but awww.  I'm a bit of a civil war buff and I was hoping... well, nevermind.

Nevermind? Bullshit.

Start a thread. There's a reason this board is called "General."

Way to hold back my friend.

     Kinder gentler Potter

Title: Re: Civil war?
Post by zwibbs/Scott on Feb 13th, 2009 at 5:02pm
If the simple fact that Nancy Pelosi is in a strong position doesn't scare you---You must have Ice Water running in your veins--This woman is a total idiot--After less than four weeks this NEW administration is suffering badly. You get what you pay for. Looks like the Honeymoon is over---Yes we con!!! My response to this is----yes YOU can---but not with me baby.

Title: Re: Civil war?
Post by Jonny on Feb 13th, 2009 at 5:13pm
START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to Login or RegisterEND PRINTPAGE

Title: Re: Civil war?
Post by zwibbs/Scott on Feb 13th, 2009 at 7:25pm

wrote on Feb 13th, 2009 at 5:13pm:
START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to Login or RegisterEND PRINTPAGE

100% CORRECT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Title: Re: Civil war?
Post by vietvet2tours on Feb 14th, 2009 at 4:29pm

wrote on Feb 13th, 2009 at 5:13pm:
START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to Login or RegisterEND PRINTPAGE



Boy howdy.

    Potter

New CH.com Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.4!
YaBB © 2000-2009. All Rights Reserved.