It's a Civil War: What We Do Now

[DDWW]

But.... if it did come down to a 1860's style shooting civil war, just remember;

The conservatives have the guns. The liberals have the ACLU.

Scissors beats paper.

So it goes.


DDWW

 

[joobz]

But.... if it did come down to a 1860's style shooting civil war, just remember;

The conservatives have the guns. The liberals have the ACLU.

Scissors beats paper.

So it goes.

DDWW

well, it would actually be
crazy right wing nutbags vs. USA

 

[headscratcher4]

See, now that's a straight up lie. You said, 'poll after poll and still passed it'. You can't cite one poll from after passage as evidence of that.

It is the hypocracy of politics...but now Polls matter. Remember when it was pointed out to Dick Cheney that the vast majority of American opposed the War and the way the Administration was handling it, and his response? "So what?"

Bottom line, BAC, is you can't govern by polls. Recall that was the claim all along from the GOP back when they were in power, they were going to govern on priniple, not hold their finger to the wind a'la Clinton. Now, we're supposed to let temporary polls matter?

Polling, does matter, btw. Politicians should listen and look at polls. They should be influenced by polls. But there is only elections that matter. That poll, next November, may prove you right. That is the hope and the failure of a democracy. But right now, it seems to me, like it or not the Obama administration is persuing an agenda that is pretty much along the lines that he said he would in his campaign...and he was elected with 52+ percent of the vote. He, by the way, is still more popular than any GOP leaders and more popular than the HCR, judging by polls, people should say: he's more popular than the GOP, let him do what he's doing.

Not suggesting that...but that makes as much sense as saying abide by the polls. You can't have ignoring the polls be a sign of political courage one week and a sign of absolute corruption the next. It doesn't make sense. It is both and neither. It is the messy face of democracy.

 

[Thunder]

this is my email, to Mr. Dennis Prager:

Dennis,

you are a $$$$ing idiot, and a disgrace to the Jewish people. A "non-violent" Civil War? Did you know that the Jewish State has national health insurance? what the hell is wrong with you? why does Israel deserve universal health-care..but the USA does not?

get a clue, you $$$$ing prick.

-xxx xxxxx

 

[headscratcher4]

But.... if it did come down to a 1860's style shooting civil war, just remember;

The conservatives have the guns. The liberals have the ACLU.

Scissors beats paper.

So it goes.


DDWW

Yeah, it seems kinda stupid for the socialist proto-facist Obama to proceed with his radical takeover of the healthcare economy without first ramming through legislation to take the guns away...bad move for a revolutionary.

 

[joobz]

this is my email, to Mr. Dennis Prager:

Dennis,

you are a $$$$ing idiot, and a disgrace to the Jewish people. A "non-violent" Civil War? Did you know that the Jewish State has national health insurance? what the hell is wrong with you? why does Israel deserve universal health-care..but the USA does not?

get a clue, you $$$$ing prick.

-xxx xxxxx

Why would he care how Israel handles things? Is he Israeli?

 

[Chris Hegarty]

Can we lose Texas first? Then we can move through the other states and decide one by one. I suggest Utah be second.

 

[A'isha]

But.... if it did come down to a 1860's style shooting civil war, just remember;

The conservatives have the guns. The liberals have the ACLU.

Scissors beats paper.

So it goes.


DDWW

There are a number of "liberals" who also own guns, you know. Such as myself.

 

[Thunder]

I own a few switchblades, samurai swords, and a pellet gun.

 

[geni]

But.... if it did come down to a 1860's style shooting civil war, just remember;

The conservatives have the guns. The liberals have the ACLU.

Scissors beats paper.

So it goes.


DDWW

Pretty serious gun owenership amough some liberal groups these days. Liberals with their city based stongholds are in a much better defensive position and their strength in many costal states gives them a logistics edge. In adition the left are in a better position to call in support from abroad. All the small arms in the world won't do much good against Leopard 2s.

 

[dudalb]

Civil disobedience is a strike; a boycott; a sit-in; a smoke-in; a march or rally conducted despite a lack of required permits. Trashing stores and torching cars (throwing bricks, taking pot-shots) was terrorism during the sixties, and it's terrorism now. I doubt if very many people in this country are all that fuzzy on the distinction.

Agreed, but you have a few radicals who defend it.

 

[dudalb]

Pretty serious gun owenership amough some liberal groups these days. Liberals with their city based stongholds are in a much better defensive position and their strength in many costal states gives them a logistics edge. In adition the left are in a better position to call in support from abroad. All the small arms in the world won't do much good against Leopard 2s.

Gun Control is an issue where a lot of people who are generally Liberal break with "the party line".
Fact is, outside a few zealots in congress,and some on CIty councils most Demorcrats will not touch Gun Control with a Ten Foot Pole. It's an issue that is Political Kryptonite for them at the polls.

 

[Drudgewire]

Toga party?

Works for me. I'm against any civil war that doesn't involve me getting very drunk.

 

[Thunder]

its when right-wing nuts talk about "civil war" and "revolution", that I am glad we still have the right purchase and own firearms.

 

[headscratcher4]

Gun Control is an issue where a lot of people who are generally Liberal break with "the party line".
Fact is, outside a few zealots in congress,and some on CIty councils most Demorcrats will not touch Gun Control with a Ten Foot Pole. It's an issue that is Political Kryptonite for them at the polls.

Exactly....and I gaurantee you that except for fiddling around the edges with laws like the Brady Bill...Obama won't do much on guns either. There is no votes for it. There is no constiuency for it.

There is just the wing-nuts screaming that their guns are going to be taken away any minute now by someone who has proposed no such thing.

 

[GreyArea]

The conservatives have the guns. The liberals have the ACLU.

Oh, but the Obama Administration has all the branches of the military. The government also has laws against sedition at its disposal to keep things from even reaching that point.

Can we lose Texas first?

Only if they pay us back for everything we've given them. In which case, who wants to start a new country that's bankrupt from birth?

Then we can move through the other states and decide one by one. I suggest Utah be second.

NO. We're keeping Arches and Canyonlands, at least, and I hear that Salt Lake City is actually a rather nice place.

 

[Juniversal]

"The South shall rise again"?

A little more seriously, I'm perplexed that the wing-nuts are invoking "Civil War" imagery, complete with capitalization, in opposition to a black President. Are they trying to reinforce the stereotype?

Somewhere, there is a conservative marketing VP tearing his hair out over that one. Assuming, that is, he had any after that whole "Tea Bag" mess.

I love how conservatives love to cite the founding fathers as if they ran "a perfect union" when in reality they were part of the biggest stripping of liberties imaginable. Sure their core principles are admirable but it would've been nice if they were truly including all human beings under the American umbrella when they wrote the constitution. I mean segregation was legal until the 1950's and 60's!! If that's not an encroachment of Liberties then I don't know what is. For that matter women were unable to vote until fairly recently (within the context of American history).

It seems the more inclusive America becomes, the more numerous the cries of "losing rights!!" become. According to many conservatives Americans are losing rights left and right and transforming into a Dictatorship. I beg to differ. They say America "used to be" a great country. I ask. When??

 

[Taarkin]

They say America "used to be" a great country. I ask. When??

I ask this whenever someone laments our decaying morals and waxes nostalgic for the good ol days. Never got an actual response though.

 

[Praktik]

I ask this whenever someone laments our decaying morals and waxes nostalgic for the good ol days. Never got an actual response though.

Ah yes, the pernicious effects of Golden Age Syndrome. On the right it manifests in kind of a yearning for the days of Leave it to Beaver, when everything made sense (with variants nostalgic for the agrarian world of 1776 and the Saints of the Revolution).

In the left, it manifests with an anchor much further back in history, back before "technology" ruined the utopian pastoral lives of peaceful hunter gatherers.

 

[BeAChooser]

"Only 197 amendments [to the Senate health care bill] were passed in the end—36 from Democrats and 161 from Republicans."

Such dishonesty …

http://www.slate.com/id/2223023/

When the Senate health, education, labor, and pensions committee passed its health care bill Wednesday, the Obama administration hailed it as a "bipartisan" effort. No matter that it passed the panel on a strictly party-line vote, with all 13 Democrats voting for and all 10 Republicans voting against. It was bipartisan, administration officials explained, because it contained 160 Republican amendments. Republican senators said that characterization was absurd. After all, they said, most of the 160 amendments were technical, rather than substantive, changes. Lisa Murkowsi of Alaska told the New York Times that, while it was "pretty impressive" that 20 of her amendments were accepted, "they were all technical."

… snip …

Of the 788 amendments filed, 67 came from Democrats and 721 from Republicans. … snip … Only 197 amendments were passed in the end—36 from Democrats and 161 from Republicans. And of those 161 GOP amendments, Senate Republicans classify 29 as substantive and 132 as technical.

http://spectator.org/blog/2009/07/23/fact-checking-obamas-news-conf

Obama Statement #3:

I am very appreciative that people like Chuck Grassley on the Finance Committee, in the Senate, people like Mike Enzi, people like Olympia Snowe have been serious in engaging Democrats in trying to figure out, how do we actually get a system that works? And even in those committees where you didn't see Republican votes, we've seen Republican ideas.

So, for example, in the HELP committee in the Senate, 160 Republican amendments were adopted into that bill, because they've got good ideas to contribute. So the politics may dictate that they don't vote for health-care reform because they think, you know, it'll make Obama more vulnerable. But if they've got a good idea, we'll still take it.

But Enzi, who Obama favorably cites, said last week: "In 12 days of mark-up, we had 45 roll call votes on Republican-sponsored amendments, and only 2 prevailed."

Why is there such a discrepancy? I posed that question to Enzi spokesman Craig Orfield, who explained in an email:

The 160 refers to what we call technicals - these are amendments drafted to either correct technical errors in the bill language - and that can be anything from an amendment which cites the wrong section and paragraph of existing law (ex: Section 302 when we meant section 304) to errors in punctuation or transposed words.

Moreover, the vast majority of these were so non-controversial that the majority didn't even demand a vote - they were simply adopted by unanimous consent.

As you note from Sen. Enzi's remarks only 45 GOP amendments, which we consider to have made substantive changes or improvements, were allowed a vote. 2 of those were agreed to.

POTUS is echoing the same nonsensical line on this as Axelrod and Emanuel last week.

Agreement on technical amendments is no pedigree of bipartisanship.

Looks like the dishonesty from the democrat side only continues ...