Umm, wow. Seriously? Really?

[Aramike]

Anyone here that knows me probably knows that I like to play devil's advocate, so here goes...

While I think this judge is off his rocker a wee bit, I'm curious as to why everyone is so dismissive of the idea?

I'll admit that my initial reaction to this story was the same as everyone else's, but then I recalled thousands of years of the history of human civilization. Like it or not, the odds are probably more against us NOT having another civil war than otherwise. We have always been a divided nation; this is nothing new. However, we are still a young nation, and historically ideological conflicts tend to boil over.

Indeed, I don't believe that President Obama being reelected will cause a civil war. But, I do believe that such a conflict is possible, if not probably. We'd love to believe that our union is everlasting, but history suggests otherwise.

Can we beat the odds? I hope so. Still, I can't ignore history. So maybe this judge is a moonbat. But still, history seems to suggest that SOMETHING will set us off. Why not this?

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Anyone here that knows me probably knows that I like to play devil's advocate, so here goes...

While I think this judge is off his rocker a wee bit, I'm curious as to why everyone is so dismissive of the idea?

I'll admit that my initial reaction to this story was the same as everyone else's, but then I recalled thousands of years of the history of human civilization. Like it or not, the odds are probably more against us NOT having another civil war than otherwise. We have always been a divided nation; this is nothing new. However, we are still a young nation, and historically ideological conflicts tend to boil over.

Indeed, I don't believe that President Obama being reelected will cause a civil war. But, I do believe that such a conflict is possible, if not probably. We'd love to believe that our union is everlasting, but history suggests otherwise.

Can we beat the odds? I hope so. Still, I can't ignore history. So maybe this judge is a moonbat. But still, history seems to suggest that SOMETHING will set us off. Why not this?

I agree with that. We have this quaint, as the word was thrown around, notion that our modern nation states are somehow things of permanence. People point to the nations like the 1000 year old Britian and the 3000 year old China as examples. The truth is that each of those nations existed in a multitude of different governances and styles of government and were wroght with various civil wars and wars of succession. They blew themselves apart and reformed themselves into something different; much like nature's cycle of death and new life. Sometimes they didn't reform themselves at all, or were absorbed into another state. The likelyhood that something of that sort will occur again in the United States is so high as to almost be a certainty.

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

I agree with that. We have this quaint, as the word was thrown around, notion that our modern nation states are somehow things of permanence. People point to the nations like the 1000 year old Britian and the 3000 year old China as examples. The truth is that each of those nations existed in a multitude of different governances and styles of government and were wroght with various civil wars and wars of succession. They blew themselves apart and reformed themselves into something different; much like nature's cycle of death and new life. Sometimes they didn't reform themselves at all, or were absorbed into another state. The likelyhood that something of that sort will occur again in the United States is so high as to almost be a certainty.

Yep, and in some sense the US is blessed to be as stable as it has been. There is very little living memory of uncertainty and social collapse in the US, and while most people know it can happen, it's not an immediate reality for most people living there. So that does give many a somewhat naive perspective, and I don't mean that as an insult - just as a suggestion that for most, something like a revolution is so surreal that they can't even picture it as anything other than a bad movie plot. Then compare this to, for example, people from Eastern Europe. There's some massive changes in their recent memory. For me, having lived through the collapse of the communist system is really a bit of an eye-opener. Things can and do change violently, for better or/and worse. The good news is that even massive changes aren't all people cut them out to be. In these cycles of social and political change, people who have little personal experience of them tend to see something apocalyptic. In reality, stuff happens, life goes on. Instead of panicking and stocking guns, I think people need to be more open-minded and proactive about changes they see happening around them, especially if they live in a society where it's their right (and even obligation) to do something about their own civic circumstances.

[August]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Anyone here that knows me probably knows that I like to play devil's advocate, so here goes...

While I think this judge is off his rocker a wee bit, I'm curious as to why everyone is so dismissive of the idea?

I think the main reason is because the good judge isn't preparing for some potential long term danger but rather his plans are against a specific person in the very near future. To say that if he's reelected the President, is going to use UN troops against the residents of North Central Texas just begs for dismissal as the wishful thinking of a disturbed individual.

[Blacklight]

The funny thing is that you never hear this kind of crazy from the Left side. It's 99.99% of the time from the Right. The Republican's have gone so far to the Right that crazy seems to be the new norm. And I'm not even going to get started on the Tea Party.

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by Blacklight

The funny thing is that you never hear this kind of crazy from the Left side. It's 99.99% of the time from the Right. The Republican's have gone so far to the Right that crazy seems to be the new norm. And I'm not even going to get started on the Tea Party.

Nah, I wouldn't go that far. I think there's a very loud, obnoxious media tradition in the US that gives a particularly prominent voice to that sort of right-wing crazy, but there's lots of the same from the other side. It tends not to make the news as much, but there's some places where it's blatantly apparent. There are some legitimately extreme Marxists, anarchists, radical feminists etc. out there who are no less vocal. I've bumped into them no less than the right. And I say that even as someone who's well on the left side of things myself.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by CCIP

There are some legitimately extreme Marxists, anarchists, radical feminists etc.

I would add Greenpeace and the 'free Mumia' crowd to that list.

[Ducimus]

It's one thing to read it, it's another to hear it.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/pol...ar-outrage.cnn

I really didn't hear an elected official say these things did i?

[Oberon]

On the upside, the Civil War did bring out some fantastic songs, like "When Johnny Comes Marching Home Again."



It's a good marching song, I have it on my MP3 player along with The British Grenadiers, both are good for getting into a nice stride.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by August

I think the main reason is because the good judge isn't preparing for some potential long term danger but rather his plans are against a specific person in the very near future. To say that if he's reelected the President, is going to use UN troops against the residents of North Central Texas just begs for dismissal as the wishful thinking of a disturbed individual.

While I'm inclined to agree, I have to repeat - odds are that SOMETHING will set SOMETHING off at SOME point. So why not this?

Now I'm not saying, or even implying, that this judge is speaking of anything that is even remotely likely. What I AM saying is that, after we all high-five, dance, and pronounce the judge a moonbat we consider the possibilities of what could set such disastrous events in motion.

It's more fun that way.

Oh yeah, you and Tribesman got it right - we should all just sit around typing agreement with one another.

Makes for wonderful, intellectually stimulating conversation.

There is no intellectual stimulation from what you put down
If you wanted to stimulate the intellect as a devils advocate then you should at least approach the topic in question not go off on some vague irrelevance.

loony talks rubbish.....errrrr.....on his side though civil wars do happen.

loony is still talking rubbish and you havn't gone near it

lets try some stimulation in your flavour.

loony talks rubbish......errrrr......on his side though there is a thing called the UN and errrrr......America does have a President and errrr....there do be election thingies
Not saying he is right like, but you see he does have a point and you people are too easily dismissing it as elections do happen and it would be shocking for people to think otherwise.

While I'm inclined to agree, I have to repeat - odds are that SOMETHING will set SOMETHING off at SOME point. So why not this?

Why not this??????
Because it makes no sense, that is why not this.

[Oberon]

Right, that does it!






DICKON WAS INNOCENT!!!

[mapuc]

"Offtopic"

Neal's new punishment, when you break a rule several times

You don't get brigged, you get a brownie as your personal avartar

Markus

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by mapuc

"Offtopic"

Neal's new punishment, when you break a rule several times

You don't get brigged, you get a brownie as your personal avartar

Markus

Delicious punishment: