civil war is inevitable

[Into the Night]

The article is a mishmash of paranoid anti-government delusions and truth. Gotta have a little truth to sell it to the idiots, right?

Yes, the US has been reinventing itself after the Cold War. It also reinvented itself both after Pearl Harbor and after WWII ended and the threat of Totalitarian Socialism emerged as a nuclear/biological/chemical threat.

The US reinvented itself, as you mentioned, after the Revolution and also after the Barbary Pirates, the Mexican-American War and, most notably, after the Civil War. It also reinvented itself post 60s/Vietnam.

It's one of the great things about America: our ability to evolve. To Adapt, Improvise and Overcome obstacles facing our nation. The main problem our nation is facing today isn't competition between choosing two paths to go forward, but competition between those who want to move forward and those who want to go backwards...apparently to a 1950s fantasy with Ward, June and Beaver Cleaver.

Since it's physically impossible to run back time, the conflict is doomed to failure for the Nostalgics. There will be violence, but no civil war. The terrorists will attack and Americans will die...then, like 9/11, the terrorists will die and peace will return to a wiser America.

What terrorists?!?

Are you referring to Antifa and BLM?

 

[Into the Night]

A civil war this time would be a real civil war.
Not a war of separation but a war of BOTH sides trying to keep the whole thing.

All we really need is a partition, and that doesn't require a war.

The Soviet Union is now 15 different nations.
Yugoslavia is now six different nations.
Czechoslovakia is now two different nations. So are Ireland and Korea.


We fucking hate each other because we can't agree on laws and tax codes.
All we have to do is separate.
But to avoid civil war, we'll have to do it soon.

We're fucked as one united nation, and we screwed up very badly not letting the South secede in the 1860s.
We'd be in much better shape in the Blue States and they'd be taken over by Mexico by now.

There was never unity in the United States. They are all separate sovereign States, giving some of their authority to a federal layer. They all have different laws, different opinions among the people that make them up, different religions, etc.

 

[martin]

The initial freedom was to be treated like a full British citizen, not a second class citizen. When the King refused, then more people thought about breaking from England. That's well known.

We're talking about the nation. Why not just 13 colonies? Each, IIRC, already had their own charters, constitutions, etc. So why the need for the Articles of Confederation? Why a Constitution?....which wasn't ratified until 11 years after the Declaration of Independence.

Because they knew that the best way to preserve their freedom was by standing together.

I submit that the reason is in the Preamble itself. The collective defense and to resolve. The moral of Aesop's Fables about the bulls and the quarreling brothers wrapped up in legalese.

Three Bullocks & a lion http://read.gov/aesop/101.html

The Bundle of Sticks http://read.gov/aesop/040.html

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

So we agree. The reason for the nation and the Constitution "was to preserve their freedom". It was also to enlarge and enhance their freedom. Colonists did not have a legal right to say or print anything they pleased or to assemble. Six of those eleven years, by the way, were taken up by the war which didn't formally end until 1783. The Constitution was ratified almost immediately after it was written.

 

[Into the Night]

Here's an experiment, the country agrees on paper to divide into red land and blue land.
Everyone is given 2 years to get their affairs in order and make a selection.
Everything west of the Mississippi river will be blue, east- Red. Citizenship would apply
the second the 2 years expires and you had to stay on your side of a giant Trumpy type wall.
Red can build and create whatever govt they want and blue theirs.

What would people do?

They're already doing it.

People are fleeing places like the SOTC for free States.

 

[Into the Night]

Well, we don't know what will happen. But I think we do know our "reason to exist" as the constitutional nation state we are. It isn't and never was to stave off a foreign "existential enemy", rather to prevent one from arising from within, just what faces us now as nearly half the country is under the spell of a would be dictator.

Biden isn't much of a spell. He's just a puppet dictator.

 

[Into the Night]

Not exactly, but we can make educated predictions.

Example; if one child drops out of HS to work at a gas station and other continues to and graduates from college; all data suggests that the college-bound person will be more successful in the long run.

Manufactured 'prediction'. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

Disagreed on your statement about our "reason to exist"(as a nation) since it's clearly spelled out in the Preamble to the Constitution:

False authority fallacy.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

"Common defense", as in Federal oaths of office, means "against all enemies, foreign and domestic".

Such as Democrats, who discard the Constitution, overthrow governments and implement oligarchies so they can implement their fascism and communism.

 

[Into the Night]

The Mississippi obviously wouldn't be the dividing line, Except for the Southeast, both coasts would be blue.
The Great Lakes States would be split.
There would be no walls. We don't have one with Canada and only trumpanzees wanted one with Mexico.
The partition would be nothing like the premise.

Even within a State, there are no walls or dividing line.

 

[Into the Night]

No. Every nation will provide for defending itself. What was unique in The Constitution is "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" (emphasized with capital letters). SmarterthanNoOne had it exactly backward. The United States exists in the democratic form it does not to guard against an existential threat from without - it would have done that as an autocratic nation too, but to guard against the loss of the "Blessings of Liberty".

The United States was not a democracy and never was. Democracies have no constitution. The United States was a republic.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

So we agree. The reason for the nation and the Constitution "was to preserve their freedom". It was also to enlarge and enhance their freedom. Colonists did not have a legal right to say or print anything they pleased or to assemble. Six of those eleven years, by the way, were taken up by the war which didn't formally end until 1783. The Constitution was ratified almost immediately after it was written.

Isn't that what I said?

Cypress was correct hours ago.

 

[martin]

Isn't that what I said?

Cypress was correct hours ago.

Not my understanding of what you said initially. Cypress was correct that individual liberty and collective defense are both purposes of the Constitution. The question, I thought, was did the Colonists go to war in order to form a government for securing collective defense or to secure freedoms they did not have, or both. No one I know of in 1775 or earlier was agitating for collective defense. They already had it under the British headed colonial governments. Revolutionary fervor was entirely about freedom.

 

[Micawber]

Democracies have no constitution.

This is an example of categorical thinking at its worst. The strange parrot makes this sort of error
constantly. To this dumb parrot, the lexical universe must be a world of word bubbles that bump into one another and never overlap.
What a strange and insane world he must live in.

 

[Into the Night]

Then what was it for? I think the Preamble is clear on the subject.

Not sure what you mean about Henry or Paine.

Still don't know what a constitution is or what it's for, eh?
It is not a preamble.

 

[Into the Night]

Agreed but the fantasy side of this "debate" refuses to believe they won't eventually live out their fantasy an an all-white America just like on "Leave it to Beaver".

Racism. Bigotry.

 

[Into the Night]

Isn't that what I said?

Cypress was correct hours ago.

The purpose of a constitution isn't to 'preserve the freedom'.

 

[Into the Night]

This is an example of categorical thinking at its worst. The strange parrot makes this sort of error
constantly. To this dumb parrot, the lexical universe must be a world of word bubbles that bump into one another and never overlap.
What a strange and insane world he must live in.

Semantics fallacy. Insult fallacies.

 

[Micawber]

Thinks words and sentences are bumper cars, not symbolic logic. ^^^

 

[Into the Night]

Thinks words are bumper cars, not symbolic logic. ^^^

Inversion fallacy.

 

[Nordberg]

Still don't know what a constitution is or what it's for, eh?
It is not a preamble.

The preamble is part of the Constitution. You really just make it up as needed, don't you? The preamble has been used by the Supremes many times. It is real and the constitution.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Not my understanding of what you said initially. Cypress was correct that individual liberty and collective defense are both purposes of the Constitution. The question, I thought, was did the Colonists go to war in order to form a government for securing collective defense or to secure freedoms they did not have, or both. No one I know of in 1775 or earlier was agitating for collective defense. They already had it under the British headed colonial governments. Revolutionary fervor was entirely about freedom.

They went to war because the Brits refused to grant them the freedoms afforded other Brits. When they won, they had to set up a government to secure those rights. You may have read that in the Declaration of Independence.

-That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

This is an example of categorical thinking at its worst. The strange parrot makes this sort of error
constantly. To this dumb parrot, the lexical universe must be a world of word bubbles that bump into one another and never overlap.
What a strange and insane world he must live in.

Sybil has some "issues". No doubt he's old enough to have seen a doctor, but like all the other residents of Mount Stupid, he refuses to take his meds.