The next Civil War


PDA






MikeK
October 29, 2004, 01:07 AM
Background:

I'm pro Bush. He's not the greatest person to occupy the oval office, but there is no other choice given the two. No disrespect to the third party supporters here. I have voted for some in the past and in MD I might do it this year, since the state will go for Kerry unless PG, Montgomery and Baltimore counties are eliminated before 11/2. I live in one of them so I really don't want to see that happen.

My main issue, but not the sole issue is RKBA.

I have sent numerous E-Mails supporting Bush or disparaging Kerry to many people. Some of my friends are liberal and strongly support Kerry. There have been several friendships diminished as a result of this election that I know of. There are also accounts of the same in some threads on THR.

Regardless of who wins and how and when, will this election be the beginning of a new Civil War between the red and blue states?

If you enjoyed reading about "The next Civil War" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
JPL
October 29, 2004, 01:38 AM
In a lot of ways this election is far from the most polarizing that this country has gone through.

No, no civil war.

io333
October 29, 2004, 01:39 AM
Not while there is TV and football season!



And BEER!



:D



But seriously.


Why in the world should there be a revolution? It's rediculous. Life is *fantastic* here, for everyone. What, not everyone has two or three brand new cars? Oh dear, they have to drive an old car that can only cruise comfortably at 100mph instead of 150mph? Well then, it's time to revolt against those evil corporations who keep us down by giving us faster cars and bigger televisions.


Not enough? Then let's revolt against all the evil fast food companies who gives us TOO MUCH FOOD for our money.


Revolt against Wal-mart because they price stuff so cheap that we're filling our houses with piles of stuff we don't even want. It's making us by ever bigger houses to keep all our stuff in and making us employ *evil union workers* to build them.

:rolleyes:


Heck, if it's gun rights you are concerned about, just move to a better state.

Vermont if you like cold weather, Texas if you like it hot.

Daemon688
October 29, 2004, 01:48 AM
Civil war?

Are you kidding?

To fight a war over who is president? There will be another presidential election in 4 years......

Michigander
October 29, 2004, 03:04 AM
Civil War? Between the Dems and Reps?

Hmmm. .. . .. . ... let me see . . ... . . . .who would have the most firepower?

Zrex
October 29, 2004, 11:23 AM
Civil War? Between the Dems and Reps?

Hmmm. .. . .. . ... let me see . . ... . . . .who would have the most firepower?

Yeah, but who is actually willing to get off their butts and be civil disobedient rock throwing car burning rioters?


It is easier for a man with the will to riot to locate a gun than it is for a man with a gun to locate the will to riot.

Brick
October 29, 2004, 12:06 PM
When guns are banned, only real men will have guns.

:uhoh:

R.H. Lee
October 29, 2004, 12:17 PM
Americans aren't the only factions who might be involved in any possible 'civil war'. How many millions of illegal aliens do we have in this country? Look at Israel. They have what, 3 million 'Palestinian' squatters on their land, because they failed to protect their borders. Now the only solution is to give the 'Palestinians' their own state. That means Israel gives up some of their land to a foreign power. There is no other solution.

What if all the illegal aliens in this country congregated in one area, say Southern California and demanded their own state? You'd have a Mexican style intifada. That's when the 'civil war' will start. We're making the same mistake Israel has made over the past 60 years, failing to protect our borders, and some future generation, maybe not too far off, will pay the price.

Atticus
October 29, 2004, 01:11 PM
I don't see any civil war in the near future....but if the election process does not improve, and the cheating goes unabated, and if the party in power was to pass sweeping legislation (such as eliminating the electoral college)...anything is possible. It truly worries me that swarms of people are roaming around Ohio (and other hotly contested states) are attempting to bugger up the system as best they can. These folks would be spending their time burning animal research labs, slashing the tires of SUV's and spiking trees in lumber zones.. IF... it wasn't an election year.
The dirty trick squads also seem to be targeting the absentee ballots in this election. People on both sides will be far more likely to take up arms if the legitimate political process becomes so tainted that people feel the system is worthless. If something radical isn't done ...it could happen.

The Rabbi
October 29, 2004, 01:18 PM
if the party in power was to pass sweeping legislation (such as eliminating the electoral college)...anything is possible.

Umm, the Electoral College is a constitutional requirement so it would take a constitutional amendment to eliminate it. Not that it couldnt be done but it would take a lot, as was done with direct election of Senators in about 1913.

What worries me is the army, over 10,000, of lawyers that the Dems have lined up both on site and in "SWAT" teams, ready to drop in on any contested area. 10,000 lawyers does not make me confident in even a legal outcome.

Jax
October 29, 2004, 02:03 PM
Look at Israel. They have what, 3 million 'Palestinian' squatters on their land, because they failed to protect their borders. Now the only solution is to give the 'Palestinians' their own state. That means Israel gives up some of their land to a foreign power.

Unfortunately, this is not the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth...

Israel has aggressively protected its borders - to the point of annexing adjacent land for use as buffer zones and "lebensraum". Wherever they have been able to get away with it, they have done so.

The land that makes up Israel was taken from the 'Palestinians' and 'given' to them in 1947. Why was that right and this is not?

Israel is not the innocent party you make it out to be. (Not that the Palestinians are any better - both sides are to blame.)

Jax

RobW
October 29, 2004, 02:10 PM
In essence, it is the big cities against the rest of the country. Shuysters, corrupt politicos, and "Liberals" were quiet successful in destroying what once was the great United States Of America.

We'll see if we are in line with the mediocre, insignificant nations, or still the leader of the "free" world.

What turned me away totally from the "Democratic" party is their dirty tricks and the accompliceship of nearly the whole "Media".

Cosmoline
October 29, 2004, 02:10 PM
It's not about "R" vs "D" In fact all indications are that most people are FAR less loyal to party politics than they were fifty or 100 years ago. The current red vs. blue drift goes much deeper than that, and the R vs D is simply the proxy battlefield on which this dispute is being fought. I hate to say it but it is something of a culture war. One part of the nation sees us embracing a world community, the other would rather die first. One part of the nation wants us to be more like Europe, the other would like to see us bomb Europe. Though unlikely, it's possible the current proxy war might turn into a shooting match. Before you get to an actual civil war, you'd likely see a new "bleeding Kansas" crisis, with Americans killing each other over political issues. Unfortunately once the blood starts flowing it tends to be followed by more and more blood.

45crittergitter
October 29, 2004, 02:23 PM
There hasn't been a "first" civil war in the U.S. yet.

RavenVT100
October 29, 2004, 02:23 PM
Some of my friends are liberal and strongly support Kerry. There have been several friendships diminished as a result of this election that I know of. There are also accounts of the same in some threads on THR.

Regardless of political affiliation, I've had long time friends "dismiss" me because they found out that I have firearms in my house. Their dogmatic, ideological attachment to these ill-educated beliefs of theirs apparently outweighs, to them, the value of our relationship.

But then again, if they're the type who would cut you loose because of something as dumb as "omg, you own a gun!" then they really weren't good friends.

R.H. Lee
October 29, 2004, 02:31 PM
Jax- Here is an historical account of the Jewish-Palestinian relationship, complete with maps. http://www.masada2000.org/historical.html

The Arabs have long been the aggressors in the region, despite many olive branches extended to the Palestinians by Israel. "Push the Jews into the sea", remember?

longeyes
October 29, 2004, 04:23 PM
No, it can't happen here.

The rule of law is under serious attack.

Suffrage is turning into a joke.

The '04 Election may not be decided until '08.

And Kerry is going to be able to govern, much less be Commander-in-Chief?

No, it can't happen here.

telewinz
October 29, 2004, 04:35 PM
far from the most polarizing that this country has gone through. I would not say "far" but close. The 60's and 70's certainly were hectic. This time it's the have nots against the have's which strikes a little closer to home (than a "just" war) for many people. Proverty and doing without seldom results in calm debate, it's an emotional issue not a logical one.

The Rabbi
October 29, 2004, 04:58 PM
Israel has aggressively protected its borders - to the point of annexing adjacent land for use as buffer zones and "lebensraum". Wherever they have been able to get away with it, they have done so.

Despite (maybe because of) the screen name I have no automatic passes for the Israeli government, past or present. Yet to see a well-known Nazi term used in conjunction with Israeli policies tells me this is not someone worth talking to, not on Israel, not on any subject.

Standing Wolf
October 29, 2004, 05:15 PM
...will this election be the beginning of a new Civil War between the red and blue states?

Nope. The national leftist extremist self-styled "news" media want us to believe the nation is tottering on the brink of civil war, but a.) it's a lie, and b.) it's a lie designed to encourage the witless to "unite" behind that Kerry creature.

Waitone
October 29, 2004, 05:18 PM
Civil War? Naah!

Local outbreaks of spirited enthusiasm for long festering greviences against the federales? Yep.

The most likely scenario is the great unwashed finally picks up on the clues of the ruling class and begins to simply ignore the law of their choice. The impending election fiasco is just one more example government at all levels simply ignoring laws its finds inconvenient to obey. Don't know what I'm talking about? Try noodling through illegal immigration and count the laws government and corporations and state government is ignorng.

Sooner or later the unwashed herds will ape what our government is doing and then the real fun will start.

Jax
October 29, 2004, 05:43 PM
RileyMc - My apologies, I am not communicating well. IMHO, the palestinians are not innocents either. Both sides have behaved atrociously.

However, there is a significant difference between the Arabs (internal and external to the Israeli borders) who have fought against Israel from the beginning and the Arabs who were living in their ancestral homes when Israel was created. Israel had no right to expel the Arabs living in the newly created nation in 1948.

Hopefully you will agree that the link you provided, while interesting reading, presents a partisan viewpoint of the region's history.

The Rabbi - if you can think of a synonym for the offensive term which conveys a substantially similar meaning as clearly and succinctly, I would be pleased to add it to my lexicon. Barring that, please don't try to read between the lines.

I am emphatically *not* a Nazi sympathizer. However, I am also not willing to give the Israeli nation a free pass an moral issues because of something that happened 50+ years ago.

I apologize to all for the thread hijack. In keeping with the orginal thread, however, I read a decent book called "Cadillac Desert" which makes a good point that the next civil war in the US will likely be caused over water rights.

Jax

FilJos
October 29, 2004, 05:59 PM
Just a thought that popped into my head while reading this thread.

What better way for the lefties to get our troops to stop "murdering those poor brown-skinned poeple", get out of Iraq and back in country than to start a Civil War?


Just a thought, and not really based on any facts or rational thought.

charby
October 29, 2004, 06:13 PM
Naw too many apatheic people living in America. If our fore fathers were alive today, other than frantically scratching at the lids of their coffins I beleive that would be a little upset how their country has grown up.

Since the New Deal we have slowly become a society of entitlement, some in a thread said if NASCAR was banned then maybe people would get off their asses and do something.

There won't be a civil war, but there might be a few more WACO type ordeals when liberitarian type folks build there own city/estate to live a life without big brother.

Charby

Andrew Rothman
October 29, 2004, 06:37 PM
Jax -

Your "lebensraum" term is not only offensive, it is inaccurate.

Israel has not started any wars of conquest. When attacked, Israel has defended herself valiantly, and gained and kept land in the process.

That's the way war works. If you attack your neighbor and lose, he is going to, if he can, keep a chunk of YOUR land as a buffer zone to keep you out of his house.

Now go look at a map. As Larry Miller put it:Chew this around and spit it out: Five hundred million Arabs; five million Jews. Think of all the Arab countries as a football field, and Israel as a pack of matches sitting in the middle of it. And now these same folks swear that if Israel gives them half of that pack of matches, everyone will be pals. Really? Wow, what neat news.

Hey, but what about the string of wars to obliterate the tiny country and the constant din of rabid blood oaths to drive every Jew into the sea?

Oh, that? We were just kidding.

Here's the whole article: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/161yaihr.asp?pg=2

Gifted
October 29, 2004, 09:47 PM
There won't be a civil war, but there might be a few more WACO type ordeals when liberitarian type folks build there own city/estate to live a life without big brother. I was seeing, for a book, this happening on a slightly larger scale. What would happen if these communities were located in a single general area? Say, Texas? Eventually you could get a resolution to succede passed by the populace. I wasn't seeing this itself as the cause of a civil war, I'd think that for a little while the government would try to downplay it, until the confederacy or whatever starts enforcing its own laws in its territory and ignoring Washington. When Washington tries to subdue them, it realizes that they've been preparing for a good while, and not being politically correct with it.

Yooper
October 29, 2004, 10:26 PM
It's hard enough to get people to the polls, let alone a Civil War!

Art Eatman
October 29, 2004, 11:19 PM
No more Israel stuff in this thread, okay?

Start a thread in the Roundtable forum if you want...

Art

FilJos
October 29, 2004, 11:55 PM
I was seeing, for a book, this happening on a slightly larger scale. What would happen if these communities were located in a single general area? Say, Texas? Eventually you could get a resolution to succede passed by the populace. I wasn't seeing this itself as the cause of a civil war, I'd think that for a little while the government would try to downplay it, until the confederacy or whatever starts enforcing its own laws in its territory and ignoring Washington. When Washington tries to subdue them, it realizes that they've been preparing for a good while, and not being politically correct with it.

I'm pretty sure that some people already tried this. It was called the Republic of Texas. Look up information on the "Sovereign Citizen" movement.

I like the quote that someone used about the guy who said that all gun nuts should go start their own country and leave everyone else alone. The response was, "We did, who the hell let you in?"

I think that response is closer to the line of thinking we should use. This is OUR nation. We should work to change the system, not just pick up our marbles and run away. If it comes to bloody revolution, then so be it. But let's not tuck tail and run while we can still change things peacefully. I'm not saying that we should avoid conflict at all cost, just that the doomsday scenarios don't have to come true if we keep working.

4v50 Gary
October 30, 2004, 01:54 AM
While I believe that many feel strongly about Kerry or Bush, I do not think that our nation will engulf itself in a self-destructive civil war over it. We'd be doing Bin Laden and everyone who hates us a favor if we feud among ourselves. Besides, wasn't the first one (excluding the Civil War that involved freeing this land from the British) bad enough?:uhoh:

Travis McGee
October 30, 2004, 02:11 AM
There are many other forms of warfare between dirty politics and the 1865 brand.

I don't see any chance of "a civil war between the red and blue states."

Actually, even the 'rat "blue states" are really red states, except for the urban welfare cess pits. Take away Baltimore or St. Louis, and those states are on our side. Ditto NYC and NY, and so on.

So any civil war is more likely to take the form of a "Dirty War," as experienced in Argentina, for example. The bomb and the sniper will be the weapons of choice, not the infantry platoon.

Strings
October 30, 2004, 03:41 AM
> So any civil war is more likely to take the form of a "Dirty War," as experienced in Argentina, for example. The bomb and the sniper will be the weapons of choice, not the infantry platoon.<

I think you could add the "machete weilding mob" to that, on occassion. Remember the "mob" taking over the Repub campaign HQ in Milwaukee... wouldn't be THAT much of a stretch to add some machetes or bats to that mix...

longeyes
October 30, 2004, 02:48 PM
Probably there will be no civil war per se but, as others have suggested, rather, pockets of serious social unrest. Potential "Intifada" in the Southwest remains a wild card--all bets are off there.

I look for more pressure for state and regional semi-autonomy. The "red state" folks are going to want to build moats and walls, the more secure the better. We will go back to THESE United States, not THE United States.

The only way to preserve the Union and be united is to make sure we are not all submerged into one ever more socialistic mobocracy. That is not going to be an easy task.

In the end you come down to who's going to do the productive work and pay the freight and whether those people are going to be able to retain the fruit of their labors or see it confiscated (redistributed).

GOT
October 31, 2004, 01:29 PM
There's a civil war going on NOW! It just hasn't come to blows yet. Good -VS- evil... its all going on now and its getting more blatant and pronounced. It used to be that all one had to do was make a wide clearing in the forest around one's existence and things would be fine... jump to the walls and knock out a few infiltrators... but now you have to stand guard on the top of the wall 24/7 (metaphorically speaking)!!!

There are continual attacks on the fabrics of society, family, individual integrity, and morality... its relentless non-stop spiritual warfare big time. Think I'm crazy or that its no big deal? You won't for long. Soon people will look back on what we had as a people and wish they had done this, that and the other thing, to have preserved what our forefathers spilt their blood to provide what we have/had.

Kind of a scary thing to hear people talking about impending doom on the horizon when its going on right now, under our noses.

Having said all that, if it ever come to blows, and a "civil war breaks out, people are so unorganized and untrained in how to cooperate and "file in" that there would be mass casualties just from trying to form ranks. Leader fighting for positions, etc etc... It would be more like an all out jungle-mobistic-war. Everybody fighting for whatever they wanted, neighbor against neighbor, no unity. I think that sort of scenario would continue until there were enough dead people for those left alive to wake up and realize what happened and THEN, maybe some ranks and organization will be formed and some sort of civility will result. Its going to be very messy, I think...

obiwan1
October 31, 2004, 01:48 PM
Civil War............ are you kidding:what: The sheeple don't have the gumption to fight for the country, let alone some political/economic ideals. Most won't get up off of the couch long enough to vote. They think that rather/jennings/brokaw (note the non capital letters- an obvious sign of non respect) are objective journalists. They think that the new york times (ditto the non caps) doesn't have a political agenda. They think that the sponsor of the draft legislation (charlie rangle) is a Republican. They have forgotten the 9-11 attacks. They don't understand that the Madrid bombings were political in nature and don't understand the DHS is anticipating an attack before the inaguration....... probably before the elections.:banghead:

It has probably always been that way, however seeing it first hand is REALLY annoying.:(

GOT
October 31, 2004, 02:03 PM
Yep, ignorant, blind, complacency. People without the moral courage to preserve what other gave them, but wait, others didn't give it to them, they got it all by their very own little selves. :rolleyes: People without morals, common sense and courage... they might as well wear IAMS bags (good for nothing but to feed lesser life forms).

rangerbill
October 31, 2004, 02:58 PM
I sat here a little stunned reading these posts. i wondered if Ya'all had heard of John Titor. I did a search and appearantly you have.

But this thread Mentions about everything he predicted. civil war The haves against the have not's/ dem's against the rep's/ city against rual.

some one even mentioned waco type events.

Interesting to say the least!

Travis McGee
November 1, 2004, 01:34 AM
Hunter Rose:
I think that the "machete wielding mob" will only win once or twice.
Then it's going to be "machete wielding mob cut down by fire from Mini-14s, AR-15s, pump shotguns etc.

But you're right, there will be crazed mobs of morons rampaging.

Strings
November 1, 2004, 02:01 AM
Travis: you're assuming that they're stupid. Always assume your enemy is smarter than you think... ;)

My guess would be small cells of fanatics, targeting "easy" marks for brutal attack. As I said above: imagine if, instead of just shouting through bullhorns, the group that hit the Repub campaign HQ in Milwaukee had just come in with bats or machetes. They could've done their deed and been gone damn near before anyone knew what was happening. And, given the high emotions these last two elections have generated, such wouldn't supprise me. And this would be in addition to the "normal" bombing and/or shooting attacks...

Thailand keeps looking better and better. If only I could bring my guns with me...

Norton
November 1, 2004, 07:29 AM
>>>Actually, even the 'rat "blue states" are really red states, except for the urban welfare cess pits. Take away Baltimore or St. Louis, and those states are on our side. Ditto NYC and NY, and so on.<<<


As a resident of Maryland I can tell you that Travis is 100% correct when it comes to our state. Baltimore, Montgomery County and Prince George's County are anchors around the neck of the rest of the state.

Anne Arundel (Annapolis area) County is expected to go Republican this year, breaking stride with the other counties surrounding us.

We are starting to wake up to the fact that 3 jurisdictions are basically making policy for the entire state. There was no more transparent example of this than at the MD AWB hearings back in March. The legislators from those three areas were the driving force behind the bill (oh, and Delegate (I used to work for Feinstein) Neil Quinter of Howard County).

I can see the lines being drawn clearly in this state and I suspect that others are the same.

Remington788
November 1, 2004, 08:22 AM
Although I don't think that there will be a civil war over the results of this election (although, stranger things have happened), the chances of one happening in this country in the future is certain. That is of course if you believe in history.

Diggler
November 1, 2004, 08:43 AM
Civil War? Dems vs. Repub's? Red vs. Blue?

Please.

They are lazy.

The libs can't even stomach any military action that takes longer than six months.

<whiney voice>When are we getting out of Iraq? We've been there, like, over a year!</whiney voice>

How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for his welfare check?

Kaylee
November 1, 2004, 09:09 AM
I dunno.. for the past ten years or so, I've had this queasy feeling of living in the 1840's-1850's. It went away for about a year or two after 9/11, and I thought that might have finally unified us again.

Sadly... it didn't. And if being attacked on our home soil didn't bring us together, I sure don't know what would. Each side thinks of the other as traitors to the country and it's ideals -- and our media (again, both sides) push it because high emotion means more eyeballs, which means more cash.

Self-feeding cycle. Between that and just plain history, I can't see it not coming down to violence at some point. Possible widespread sarajevo type violence, God help us.

At some point, someone is going to decide "this far, no further." It might be a gang of protestor kids shooting up an RNC office, it might be a more photogenic PC version of Randy Weaver getting stomped on TV. Either way, things can snowball faster than anyone on any side cares to admit. Who'd have thought that popping some guy in the Balkans would have led to WWI?

I dunno... I don't think either side is literally up in arms, primed and ready to go. But both sides are getting there. I've seen one guy already looking at buying an AR "in case the election goes sour" -- sounds like he's far from alone.

We're not near there yet, but in ten, twenty, thirty years.... could be. :(

R.H. Lee
November 1, 2004, 09:49 AM
Actually, even the 'rat "blue states" are really red states, except for the urban welfare cess pits. Take away Baltimore or St. Louis, and those states are on our side. Ditto NYC and NY, and so on That's right. Here in California, if you take away LA, SF, SB, SC counties, you'd wind up nearly all red. In 2000, out of some 58 counties in the state, only 9 went for algore.

Waitone
November 1, 2004, 10:03 AM
That's right. Here in California, if you take away LA, SF, SB, SC counties, you'd wind up nearly all red. In 2000, out of some 58 counties in the state, only 9 went for algore. . . . . . and that is precisely why elimination of the electoral college is a really bad idea. Simply put, direct election of the president will result in metropolitan areas controlling everything.

FilJos
November 1, 2004, 12:24 PM
Maybe we should go to an electoral system that is more representative. For instance: Divide each states electoral votes by congessional district?

It would eliminate the problem of a major metropolitan area controlling a whole state.

Diggler
November 1, 2004, 12:53 PM
Nope, it's working fine the way it is.

Hands off the founding fathers... and that goes for Austrian immigrant actors who think the Constitution should be changes so they can run for Prez too...

cracked butt
November 1, 2004, 01:54 PM
next civil war in the US will likely be caused over water rights.
Jax, this is the only sensible thing you said on this thread, and I think it bears repeating.

Right now, in my area, there is a big fight between water rights from Lake Michigan, and the use of Sewage facilities.

There is a subcontinental divide about 2o miles west of Lake Michigan, where communities beyond this divide cannot legally draw water from Lake Michigan themselves. The big problem is that because of the topography, water that falls in this area usually runs off and doesn't replenish the water table because the soil is mostly dense clay. Also the underground aquifers have elevated radium concentrations.

The western suburbs of Milwaukee are beholden to Milwaukee to get water. In order to do this, they must be part of the Milwaukee sewerage system which becomes a pipeline to syphon off money from the wealthy suburbs in the forms of extremely high service fees and sewer/water rates that are not equivalant to what city residents must endure.

If there is alot of grumbling about the dirty politics involved with one of the worlds largest sources of fresh water, I can't begin to fathom the problems the desert SW will have as the Colorado river gets used up.

NMshooter
November 1, 2004, 02:27 PM
As a resident of the desert southwest (thats what the "NM" means) I agree wholeheartedly with the water rights issues. Stuff like that fueled many conflicts in this state throughout the 19th and 20th centuries.

Folks, do not assume any conflict will only have two sides. Also, just because there are not large groups of folks running around shooting does not mean everything is peaceful. Plenty of conflicts throughout the nation without obvious armies. The current election is an example of a (mostly) non-shooting conflict.

There are people working very hard to divide this nation, and they seem to be succeeding. Many nations would like to see the US pull back to deal with domestic issues. The US is big enough and powerful enough that most of the world has some interest in the future of this nation.

We do live in interesting times...

longeyes
November 1, 2004, 04:51 PM
Many nations would like to see the US pull back to deal with domestic issues.

Not the worst idea. We have LOTS, not least the fact that we have turned our entire value-creation machinery over to people who lack any serious understanding of the core values of this nation.

Spot77
November 1, 2004, 05:45 PM
There have been several friendships diminished as a result of this election

Hmmm, sounds like my relationship with my bleeding heart, liberal, near Communist In-laws.

My wife and I haven't spoken for two days because she thinks I "wasn't being nice" to her mother when she was spouting off about how great John Kerry is.

R.H. Lee
November 1, 2004, 05:54 PM
My wife and I haven't spoken for two days because she thinks I "wasn't being nice" to her mother when she was spouting off about how great John Kerry is. That's almost biblical-wuzzat about brother against brother, son against father, etc., et yada....maybe Kerry is the antichrist. :p

The Rabbi
November 1, 2004, 07:35 PM
maybe Kerry is the antichrist

There's not maybe about it. I asked someone once if voting for the Democratic candidate this year made someone a "baal keri." It got a good laugh. V'hameivin meivin.

OtG
November 1, 2004, 07:47 PM
Not responding to anyone inparticular, but the one thing I'm really looking forward to after tomorrow is everyone SHUTTING THE HELL UP about all this "Next Civil War" crap.

Christ, to listen to this stuff you'd think that we've never had a close election before. From what I understand (I'm too young to remember), the '84 election was pretty bad, the '72 election sucked, '76 wasn't too great and that's not even mentioning the close calls of the 1880's.

I tire mightily of reading crap like this (comment 13):

"Fran, I raised the same question at Cold Fury: should we kill the leftists in our midst before they get us all killed, left and right alike?" :barf:
http://www.eternityroad.info/index.php/weblog/single/too_plaintive_to_be_borne/

Riots? Could be, I don't know. Judge your area, and prepare accordingly.
This "Civil War" paranoia just makes gun owners look like kooks.

Sheesh. If Y2K was nothing, this won't be that bad.


Can't we have a nice refreshing 9mm vs. .45 discussion? :cool::D

Jmurman
November 1, 2004, 07:49 PM
Civil war? I dont think so. Pissed off people, you bet.

FilJos
November 1, 2004, 08:08 PM
Christ, to listen to this stuff you'd think that we've never had a close election before. From what I understand (I'm too young to remember), the '84 election was pretty bad, the '72 election sucked, '76 wasn't too great and that's not even mentioning the close calls of the 1880's.



Yep... 1984 was pretty bad. It was just SOOOOOO close.


http://www.presidentelect.org/images/e1984_ecmap.GIF



And '72 was so close it sucked...

http://www.presidentelect.org/images/e1972_ecmap.GIF


There was a 57 point spread in '76 but the graphic isn't quite so dramatic.

The spreads from the "close calls" of the 1880's go as follows:

1880: R-214, D-155 =59
1884: D-219, R-182 =37 (You could say this was kind of close)
1888: R-233, D-168 =65

Waitone
November 1, 2004, 09:37 PM
I was alive and politically active during all the elections you mentioned.

I assure you this election is in a class all by itself. I just hope (hope is not a method) this is not the wave of the future. I am seeing stuff this time around that I thought I'd never see in a US election. This country is more polarized now than during Watergate. The only thing keeping it out of the league of Vietnam is the absence of street protests, violence, and riots. The same leadership of the anti-VN movement is in place and functioning now. So perhaps we will match VN.

What is happening now is an assault on the institutions by which we govern ourselves. And for that reason I think the possibility of violence is significantly higher than in previous presidential elections.

Mr. Kook
November 1, 2004, 10:46 PM
Prediction: Bush wins. Liberals go nuts.

Some liberals get violent. Some liberals get dead. Other liberals go home drink a lot and spend a few days sleeping off the hangover.

Mizzoutiger
November 1, 2004, 11:09 PM
Not responding to anyone inparticular, but the one thing I'm really looking forward to after tomorrow is everyone SHUTTING THE HELL UP about all this "Next Civil War" crap.

I can't say that if Kerry wins, I won't want to be the one taking the first shot of the future civil war.

longeyes
November 1, 2004, 11:49 PM
Not responding to anyone in particular, but the one thing I'm really looking forward to after tomorrow is everyone SHUTTING THE HELL UP about all this "Next Civil War" crap.

Yeah, it's all crap. Suffrage is being debased. The rule of law is under attack. The family, marriage, religion, and the military are mocked. Yeah, it's all crap.

You may change your mind when Internet sites are censored, the talk radio rightwing spearcarriers are yanked off the air under the guise of "fairness," and we are presented with a U.K.-style gun ban for private citizens to conform our nation to the ideals of the United Nations.

Thumper
November 1, 2004, 11:54 PM
Not responding to anyone inparticular, but the one thing I'm really looking forward to after tomorrow is everyone SHUTTING THE HELL UP about all this "Next Civil War" crap.

OtG, if you can get to a phone, call me: I will come over and make whoever's forcing you to read this thread stop.

Strings
November 2, 2004, 06:52 PM
>And for that reason I think the possibility of violence is significantly higher than in previous presidential elections.<

Umm... pardon the strength of this post, please, but...

We've bloody well already had violence!!!!

Not talking about the minor vandalizm (and I don't recall hearing about that much vandalizm in the past), but we've even had shots fired into a Repub Campaign HQ (nobody present at the time, IIRC, but still)! Violence in not in the "possibility" category any more. Now, it's kinda a question of severity...


(the above assumes Bush wins, of course)

GOT
November 2, 2004, 07:16 PM
We've bloody well already had violence!!!!

Not talking about the minor vandalizm (and I don't recall hearing about that much vandalizm in the past), but we've even had shots fired into a Repub Campaign HQ (nobody present at the time, IIRC, but still)! Violence in not in the "possibility" category any more. Now, it's kinda a question of severity...

Yes, thats quite amazing. Has stuff like this gone on in other recent USA presidential elections?

lee n. field
November 2, 2004, 07:55 PM
That's almost biblical-wuzzat about brother against brother, son against father, etc., et yada....maybe Kerry is the antichrist.

No, but Antichrist endorsed him :) .

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1252699/posts

(It's a funny, but the web site it links to I find seriously creepy.)

"baal keri."

Not ever havin' been to Hebrew school, wazzat?

Lord Bodak
November 2, 2004, 08:42 PM
Civil War? Not yet. I'm a little concerned about a close contested election leading to some violence, but I think we're a long way away from Civil War. Who the leader is won't cause it, how the leader acts will.

longeyes
November 2, 2004, 10:35 PM
One thing's obvious: If Kerry wins--and I don't know that he will--he is not going to have a mandate, to put it mildly. He'd best keep that in mind. If the Dems start looking at this--again if he wins--as Payback Time, we are headed for some serious upheaval.

Personally, I don't see how Kerry can possibly function, given his background and record, as an effective Commander-in-Chief. Unfortunately, a lot of American voters don't seem to get that very basic reality.

lwsimon
November 2, 2004, 10:54 PM
www.johntitor.com. In '00 i was curious. In '01 I was interested. In '04 i believed. Careful about processed beef. Read it. Follow. At worst, you'll be healthier, have a few more guns, and be better prepared if the power goes out.

OtG
November 3, 2004, 02:21 AM
Oops. Double post.

See below.

OtG
November 3, 2004, 02:32 AM
FilJos:

I was referring to the mood of the country. Not how close it was. And like I said, I wasn't alive. Care to remind me how loving and happy the Nixon/Johnson and Reagan/Carter elections were? (looks like I was off by an election in each case)

The POINT is that during the 68 election, hell during the late 60's, early 70's, there was actually rioting in the streets. We ain't getting that. Protests? Yes, peaceful ones. I think the rioting in Seattle a few years ago was worse. Hell, the riots after the Sox won the ALCS were more dangerous than most of the political protests.


1876:
Rutherford B. Hayes 185
Samuel J. Tilden 184

From the 1840 election (Harrison 234, Van Buren 60)
Who rules us with an iron rod?
Who moves at Satan's beck and nod?
Who heeds not man,
Who heeds not God?
Van Buren, Van Buren!

Who would his friends, his country sell
Do other deeds too base to tell
Deserves the lowest place in hell
Van Buren, Van Buren!

Angry election are not necessarily close elections.
If Bush wins Ohio (and it looks like he will), he'll win by ~60 votes. Not that close.

Thumper:

OtG, if you can get to a phone, call me: I will come over and make whoever's forcing you to read this thread stop.

I did stop, in fact. No need for you to get up. Just checked in a minute ago.

I guess my problem is that I'm trying reallyreally hard to convince myself that most gun owners aren't a 6-pack and a botched FBI raid away from gearing up to take on the Feds.

This kind of crap ain't helping.

If you enjoyed reading about "The next Civil War" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!