Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 91 to 107 of 107

Thread: Is a Second Civil War Coming?

  1. #91
    Quote Originally Posted by UWDude View Post
    Wrong. Unless you are with me. For it is I who is always right, and the rest of you who are always wrong.
    Now we know what Rush Limbaugh has been doing since he went deaf.
    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    There's not a liberty lover on the planet who isn't called a liberal by the right, and a con by the left.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    I don't really care if I happen to be wrong about your positions, you are wrong about mine.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #92
    Quote Originally Posted by UWDude View Post
    For it is I who is always right, and the rest of you who are always wrong.
    Quote Originally Posted by UWDude View Post
    Something I always knew when I sympathized left.
    Yes, we remember.

    Is it hard to change such a perfectly perfect mind?
    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    There's not a liberty lover on the planet who isn't called a liberal by the right, and a con by the left.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    I don't really care if I happen to be wrong about your positions, you are wrong about mine.

  4. #93
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    Yes, we remember.

    Is it hard to change such a perfectly perfect mind?
    No.
    And I don't end every post with a question either.

  5. #94
    Quote Originally Posted by UWDude View Post
    No.
    And I don't end every post with a question either.
    You don't ask any questions at all. You are a font of imperial pronouncements.
    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    There's not a liberty lover on the planet who isn't called a liberal by the right, and a con by the left.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    I don't really care if I happen to be wrong about your positions, you are wrong about mine.

  6. #95
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    You don't ask any questions at all. You are a font of imperial pronouncements.
    Is it because you are a bad person that thinks bad things I disagree with?

  7. #96
    Quote Originally Posted by UWDude View Post
    Is it because you are a bad person that thinks bad things I disagree with?
    I don't know why you are a font of imperial pronouncements. But I'm quite certain nobody can blame me for it and make it stick.

    But, you know, keep working on this trick. Every liberal wishes they could do it, not just you.

    Last edited by acptulsa; 03-03-2019 at 04:45 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    There's not a liberty lover on the planet who isn't called a liberal by the right, and a con by the left.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    I don't really care if I happen to be wrong about your positions, you are wrong about mine.



  8. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  9. #97
    Quote Originally Posted by A Son of Liberty View Post
    Interested in your response because, though we disagree at a fundamental level, I've generally found you to be a sound thinker:





    Yes, particularly they control the narrative and flow of information.
    This is key



    Yes, but how exactly is this an advantage?



    Yes and this could be an issue particularly with regard to foreign intervention.



    Probably the leadership, yes. The rank-and-file? I think they do not, and that - ultimately - is wherein the power of the military resides.

    I'd agree if you mean that the so-called conservatives who broadly populate the military rank-and-file are no more than leftist-light. That's fair.

    I think we stand a better chance making our case with those folks, myself. But I'm certainly open to the argument.



    Not without the military, they don't.



    "'red' America".
    Let's look at this another way. What are the advantages that Red Amerca supposedly has that would suggest they would win a civil war?

    I can think of the three:
    1. Red America has guns
    2. The cities that Blue America controls can have their supplies disrupted through the destruction of infrastructure; they can be starved slowly
    3. Huge swaths of the military would refuse to side with a government that orders the deaths of American citizens

    If there are more, please tell me.

    I think all of these are flawed.

    1. Guns can be mass produced and delivered to Blue American hubs since they control the ports. The fact that they don't have guns currently doesn't mean they can't get them.

    2 and 3 are related. Destroying infrastructure and starving out the cities would be a major propaganda loss for conservatives, to say the least. I can't overstate just how useful such a tactic would be when it comes to the Blue cause. Think about just how easy it would be to pain the conservative forces as pure evil when their actions cause the starvation and slow, horrific death of millions upon millions of women, children, and elderly people. That's why control of the cities is such an advantage; it turns the only short-term winning tactic for the right into a long-term losing tactic that could destroy the entire war effort.

    Remember, the left controls the media narrative and most Western countries. Outrage would sweep the world; after all, evil right-wing bigots are starving children just because they don't want to live in a country with blacks, Hispanics, and gays. Would large swaths of the military really kill their superiors in order to defend such people? Somehow I just don't think so.
    NeoReactionary. American High Tory.

    The counter-revolution will not be televised.

  10. #98
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePaleoLibertarian View Post
    This is key




    Let's look at this another way. What are the advantages that Red Amerca supposedly has that would suggest they would win a civil war?

    I can think of the three:
    1. Red America has guns
    2. The cities that Blue America controls can have their supplies disrupted through the destruction of infrastructure; they can be starved slowly
    3. Huge swaths of the military would refuse to side with a government that orders the deaths of American citizens

    If there are more, please tell me.

    I think all of these are flawed.

    1. Guns can be mass produced and delivered to Blue American hubs since they control the ports. The fact that they don't have guns currently doesn't mean they can't get them.

    2 and 3 are related. Destroying infrastructure and starving out the cities would be a major propaganda loss for conservatives, to say the least. I can't overstate just how useful such a tactic would be when it comes to the Blue cause. Think about just how easy it would be to pain the conservative forces as pure evil when their actions cause the starvation and slow, horrific death of millions upon millions of women, children, and elderly people. That's why control of the cities is such an advantage; it turns the only short-term winning tactic for the right into a long-term losing tactic that could destroy the entire war effort.

    Remember, the left controls the media narrative and most Western countries. Outrage would sweep the world; after all, evil right-wing bigots are starving children just because they don't want to live in a country with blacks, Hispanics, and gays. Would large swaths of the military really kill their superiors in order to defend such people? Somehow I just don't think so.
    We won't have to actively cut off their supplies, they will simply be unable to import enough in the middle of a civil war.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  11. #99
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePaleoLibertarian View Post
    I think all of these are flawed.

    1. Guns can be mass produced and delivered to Blue American hubs since they control the ports. The fact that they don't have guns currently doesn't mean they can't get them.
    It's not strictly the number of firearms owned by the Reds that matters, but the implications of such. The Reds possess the overwhelming majority of firearm and military training/experience. In addition, the majority of Blues are females who overwhelmingly won't be willing to engage in warfare.

    2 and 3 are related. Destroying infrastructure and starving out the cities would be a major propaganda loss for conservatives, to say the least. I can't overstate just how useful such a tactic would be when it comes to the Blue cause. Think about just how easy it would be to pain the conservative forces as pure evil when their actions cause the starvation and slow, horrific death of millions upon millions of women, children, and elderly people. That's why control of the cities is such an advantage; it turns the only short-term winning tactic for the right into a long-term losing tactic that could destroy the entire war effort.

    Remember, the left controls the media narrative and most Western countries. Outrage would sweep the world; after all, evil right-wing bigots are starving children just because they don't want to live in a country with blacks, Hispanics, and gays. Would large swaths of the military really kill their superiors in order to defend such people? Somehow I just don't think so.
    It's not like there would be a literal siege in which people are trapped within the cities. What would happen, once the food supply dwindled within the major cities due to production/distribution disruption, is that the city dwellers would start preying upon the suburban and rural areas (many of whom will be Reds with firearms to defend their homes).
    "I shall bring justice to Westeros. Every man shall reap what he has sown, from the highest lord to the lowest gutter rat. They have made my kingdom bleed, and I do not forget that."
    -Stannis Baratheon

  12. #100
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePaleoLibertarian View Post
    Let's look at this another way. What are the advantages that Red Amerca supposedly has that would suggest they would win a civil war?

    I can think of the three:
    1. Red America has guns
    2. The cities that Blue America controls can have their supplies disrupted through the destruction of infrastructure; they can be starved slowly
    3. Huge swaths of the military would refuse to side with a government that orders the deaths of American citizens

    If there are more, please tell me.
    And speaking of supplies, the majority of people driving the trucks, the trains, cargo planes, delivering the essentials and supplies, typically stand with red America. Even if there is no one trying to cut the supplies off, who would be delivering them and how many workers do you need to replenish all the major leftist cities to keep them running, especially the cities farther inland.

    I think this is why automated technology (self driving vehicles) and AI are something of great interest right now to the elites and their minions. They know they are going to have issues with the current state of lower-mid wage workers who generally vote or side with the rural area gun loving citizens, being one of the key cogs keeping everything oiled and running smoothly for city life.

    They still need people to do the peasant/grunt work. Cities don't exist or function without this occurring.

    The problems that would exist go far beyond weaponry and ammunition.

  13. #101
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    You don't ask any questions at all. You are a font of imperial pronouncements.

    When you already know everything what need have you to ask questions?
    Chris

    "Government ... does not exist of necessity, but rather by virtue of a tragic, almost comical combination of klutzy, opportunistic terrorism against sitting ducks whom it pretends to shelter, plus our childish phobia of responsibility, praying to be exempted from the hard reality of life on life's terms." Wolf DeVoon

    "...Make America Great Again. I'm interested in making American FREE again. Then the greatness will come automatically."Ron Paul

  14. #102
    Quote Originally Posted by Champuckett View Post
    And speaking of supplies, the majority of people driving the trucks, the trains, cargo planes, delivering the essentials and supplies, typically stand with red America. Even if there is no one trying to cut the supplies off, who would be delivering them and how many workers do you need to replenish all the major leftist cities to keep them running, especially the cities farther inland.

    I think this is why automated technology (self driving vehicles) and AI are something of great interest right now to the elites and their minions. They know they are going to have issues with the current state of lower-mid wage workers who generally vote or side with the rural area gun loving citizens, being one of the key cogs keeping everything oiled and running smoothly for city life.

    They still need people to do the peasant/grunt work. Cities don't exist or function without this occurring.

    The problems that would exist go far beyond weaponry and ammunition.

    Don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows

  15. #103
    This political system is a cold civil war, with factions fighting for goodies through rule-based processes like elections.

    Should the free stuff spring run dry, expect the war to turn hot.

    But, as per @acptulsa's comment, the struggle isn't/won't be between pro- and anti-liberty factions.

    All of the politically important groups are and will be anti-liberty.

    In reality, politics is almost always a gang fight, not a battle between good and evil.
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 03-04-2019 at 09:12 PM.
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken

  16. #104
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Go read up on Vortigern.

    Vortigern (/ˈvɔːrtɪdʒɜːrn/;[1] Old Welsh: Guorthigirn, Guorthegern; Welsh: Gwrtheyrn; Old English: Wyrtgeorn; Old Breton: Gurdiern, Gurthiern; Irish: Foirtchern; Latin: Vortigernus, Vertigernus, Uuertigernus, etc.), also spelled Vortiger, Vortigan, Voertigern and Vortigen, was possibly a 5th-century warlord in Britain, known perhaps as a king of the Britons, at least connoted as such in the writings of Bede. His existence is nonetheless contested by scholars, and information about him is obscure.
    He may have been the "superbus tyrannus" said to have invited Hengist and Horsa to aid him in fighting the Picts and the Scots. However, they revolted, killing his son in the process and forming the Kingdom of Kent. It is said that he took refuge in North Wales, and that his grave was in Dyfed or the Llŷn Peninsula. Gildas later denigrated Vortigern for his misjudgement and also blamed him for the loss of Britain. He is cited at the beginning of the genealogy of the early Kings of Powys.


    Gildas

    The 6th-century cleric and historian Gildas wrote De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae (English: On the Ruin and Conquest of Britain) in the first decades of the 6th century. In Chapter 23, he tells how "all the councillors, together with that proud usurper" [omnes consiliarii una cum superbo tyranno] made the mistake of inviting "the fierce and impious Saxons" to settle in Britain.[2] According to Gildas, apparently, a small group came at first and was settled "on the eastern side of the island, by the invitation of the unlucky [infaustus] usurper". This small group invited more of their countrymen to join them, and the colony grew. Eventually the Saxons demanded that "their monthly allotments" be increased and, when their demands were eventually refused, broke their treaty and plundered the lands of the Romano-British.


    More at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortigern


    There are many other examples, tyrants have a long history of importing foreigners to fight their own people.
    the Nika Revolt of 532AD where the local police and troops refused to defend the emperor Justinian. He almost fled Constantinople until his wife directed him to call in an army which was not Greeks. They came into the city and slaughtered some 30,000 protesters.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment



  17. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  18. #105
    Quote Originally Posted by Philhelm View Post
    I would imagine that it would start off with assassinations, group clashes (as already seen with Antifa vs. Proud Boys, but with more violence), attacks against government facilities, attacks against law enforcement, attacks against the media, etc. Just because there are no battle lines doesn't mean that people won't adapt to the new nature of warfare.

    Any group or individual can come up with their own personal "missions."
    Political headquarters or institutions of a political bent or backing.

    There was the guy that send bombs through the mail to politicians and of course PP always has a target on its back.
    Quote Originally Posted by UWDude View Post
    It is a deconstructionist society. In an age of overload of information, truth of words has become irrelevant. Truth of meaning is all that is left.

    2 + 2 = 5.

  19. #106
    If civil war were to break out, who would control the supply of beer?

    That's where I'll be going.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Rand Paul (Vice Pres) 2016!!!!

  20. #107
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    So those in the suburbs are going to attack the cities? Who is going to be fighting whom in this "civil war" and where will the battle lines be? Is either group interested in occupying the other group's space?
    One big giant octagon death match!
    Quote Originally Posted by UWDude View Post
    It is a deconstructionist society. In an age of overload of information, truth of words has become irrelevant. Truth of meaning is all that is left.

    2 + 2 = 5.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234


Similar Threads

  1. Is Civil War Coming To Saudi Arabia?
    By Brian4Liberty in forum Ron Paul Forum
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 07-03-2017, 08:11 AM
  2. Syrian Civil War May Evaporate With Trump coming in
    By AuH20 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-12-2016, 04:59 AM
  3. You knew it was coming - Krauthammer: Ebola vs. civil liberties
    By Anti Federalist in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 10-24-2014, 11:22 PM
  4. We're now one step closer to America's coming civil war
    By tangent4ronpaul in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-07-2013, 10:27 AM
  5. A CIVIL WAR IS COMING.!!!
    By tangent4ronpaul in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: 11-19-2012, 04:07 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •