Here's why the soft civil war will go hot...

Practical said:
An association fallacy is an informal inductive fallacy of the hasty-generalization or red-herring type and which asserts, by irrelevant association and often by appeal to emotion, that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another.

It hit me in the shower, I mention that on the video. And I am sure that the most surprising part of this entire thing is the fact that I shower! This was a part II, we break em up so ease of watching. Please give it a look, deep down you know we are correct! Won't be long until they find their 'Lee Harvey Oswald', metaphorically. Then it's open season!

Click to expand...
Thanks to Obamacare, I am pretty sure your health insurance company is now required to pay for mental health counseling.
 
Crocodile said:
Well, it's simple history that conquest of land and resources is an act of war. The federal government owns the land rights making it not within state rights to seize it. Just like how Federal gave lands to the Natives and the states they reside in have no jurisdiction there.
Click to expand...
Agreed....and these guys know it too;

2dpb23.jpg

Manifest Destiny, eh? Thanks, Lincoln!
 
WitoldPilecki said:
Is there even such a thing as an Individualist? It looks like the entire World is basically Collectivist... Basically what like 2% of the population is Libertarian?
Click to expand...

Yeah, most Conservatives think they're Individualist, but they go Fascist the second there's a movement for that.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Space aliens may very well live among us, but I doubt it in our case. I'm not going to refight the Civil War results with you. It is what it is now but not necessarily then. What you and I are disagreeing upon is exactly the same as then: Whether or not the States have a right to their own autonomy.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with secession. Unfortunately, starting a war, and losing it, pretty much ended the notion for all time in terms of serious consideration.
 
Chaz said:
I have no problem with secession. Unfortunately, starting a war, and losing it, pretty much ended the notion for all time in terms of serious consideration.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Regardless if the Southern states had a right to secede or not, it's a moot point now and would definitely be illegal now. Soooo, no secession of Alaska or any other state and it's unlikely California would be split into two states or the Dakotas forged into one.
 
AssHatZombie said:
fascism is corporatism. both parties are sold out.
Click to expand...

The parties themselves are both totally corporatist, but Corporatism isn't always Fascism. And Conservatives, as an ideological community, are much more susceptible to Fascism than Liberals. That's why candidates like Ron Paul do terrible in elections while candidates like Trump are bigly embraced.
 
StoneByStone said:
The parties themselves are both totally corporatist, but Corporatism isn't always Fascism. And Conservatives, as an ideological community, are much more susceptible to Fascism than Liberals. That's why candidates like Ron Paul do terrible in elections while candidates like Trump are bigly embraced.
Click to expand...

yes. corporatism is always fascism. sometimes it's internationalist fascism, which is very bad.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Agreed. Regardless if the Southern states had a right to secede or not, it's a moot point now and would definitely be illegal now. Soooo, no secession of Alaska or any other state and it's unlikely California would be split into two states or the Dakotas forged into one.
Click to expand...

I think it's easier to break-up a state than to merge two. The Constitution protects states from being deprived their equal representation in the Senate, and even declares that protection to be non-amendable.
 
Chaz said:
I think it's easier to break-up a state than to merge two. The Constitution protects states from being deprived their equal representation in the Senate, and even declares that protection to be non-amendable.
Click to expand...

Even in 1861? ;)
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Even in 1861? ;)
Click to expand...

I've seen people argue that the reason why secession is unlawful is that it infringes upon the rights of the people residing within the seceding state. I never really agreed with that, since believe that the conventions which voted for secession legitimately spoke for their states. It does indeed deprive those people of their equal representation in the Senate, though.
 
On the brink of the Civil War, the question for officers like Lee was whether they would serve the Union or resign their commissions to serve their States.

This is different. For an armed insurrection to last more than a day or two, the military – in particular the officer corps – would have to remain neutral between a duly elected President and a rabble of Trumpsters, thereby violating their oath to defend the Constitution.

Does anyone think they would do that? And for what? TRUMP?
 
Chaz said:
I've seen people argue that the reason why secession is unlawful is that it infringes upon the rights of the people residing within the seceding state. I never really agreed with that, since believe that the conventions which voted for secession legitimately spoke for their states. It does indeed deprive those people of their equal representation in the Senate, though.
Click to expand...

With that kind of logic then all laws are illegal since banning gambling, prostitution and drugs infringes upon the rights of those who want to do it.

Agreed on democracy within the State. As a state, each one voted whether or not to secede and whether or not to join the CSA. Not all states withdrew at once. IIRC, Texas withdrew after Lincoln invaded Virginia.
 
Tranquillus in Exile said:
On the brink of the Civil War, the question for officers like Lee was whether they would serve the Union or resign their commissions to serve their States.

This is different. For an armed insurrection to last more than a day or two, the military – in particular the officer corps – would have to remain neutral between a duly elected President and a rabble of Trumpsters, thereby violating their oath to defend the Constitution.

Does anyone think they would do that? And for what? TRUMP?
Click to expand...

Agreed on both the Civil War issue and that US officers are bound by the Constitution. Under that oath they are required to follow legal orders. They are required, under penalty of law, to disobey an unlawful order. At least after the Nuremberg Trials. So the question becomes, "Is it legal for the President to order Federal troops to attack a US city? To murder US citizens?"
 
Chaz said:
There aren't actually very many people who want a civil war. The vast majority will bend-over backward to avoid it.

Even in 1860, Congress was actually in the process of passing an amendment to protect slavery where it already existed. Americans did not want secession or war. The problem is, secession still happened, and the CSA wanted war.
Click to expand...

The CSA did not want war. They simply wanted to leave the United States.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top