A Cause for War?

4est_4est_Gump

Run Forrest! RUN!
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Posts
89,007
E.M. Cadwaladr

"For a republic to be worthy of the name, it must have certain features. Most obviously, political power must, in some meaningful sense, reside with the people and be expressed through their elected officials. Even at this most basic level, our country has a problem. To the extent that we are governed by an unelected bureaucracy we are no longer a republic. Unfortunately, the political disease that afflicts America runs far deeper than that. For power to reside with “the people” there must be a single, generally unified nation which can be identified as “the people.” This nation need not be racially, ethnically, or even religiously homogenous, but the overwhelming majority of its members do need to agree on some common set of interests and values. They need a common identity. That is what a nation is. American now contains at least two nations, and arguably many more. Democratic institutions like elections, intended to settle differences between fellow countrymen, of people who simply disagree on means or minor matters of policy -- cannot settle differences of national identity. This is why organizations like the European Union and the United Nations are only superficially democratic. More to the point, elections staged between competing nations trapped under the authority of a single state -- nations so different in their ideals that each seeks the other’s subjugation or destruction -- such elections settle nothing. Any election that takes place under such conditions will inevitably be seen as illegitimate by the losing side. Trump, progressives say, is not their president -- and neither would Hillary ever have been ours.

"When elections and legislatures attempt to assert the dominance of one nation of people over another they are, in effect, engaging in a kind of warfare. It is a civil war with a bit less bloodshed -- or, perhaps, it is a civil war in its initial shouting and shoving phase. Our daily outrage at the dishonest press, the usurpation of power by minor federal judges, and the predictable shrieking lunacy of our opponents only shows that most of us have not yet come to terms with the reality of our situation. We are in an existential conflict between competing nations -- we are not debating the merits of particular policies. Our differences will not be resolved by orderly procedural means. Reason no longer persuades. Hallowed traditions are despised. The law has become unworthy of respect, because it is so often merely the convenient weapon of people who are willing to cause us real and tangible harm. Indeed, as progressives and conservatives have diverged, we have seen the federal authorities selectively disregard the laws made by their opponents and favor governing by the fiat of executive orders. “I have a phone and I have a pen,” Obama famously declared. He might just as well have added: “…and I don’t care what happens to those hicks in Kentucky and Kansas.”

"A federal government attempting to preside over separate nations bent on one another’s destruction can be neither legitimate nor effective. Our federal government has become little more than a hideous game of ideological badminton between opposing camps of corrupt officials -- smacking enraged and increasingly divided peons back and forth across the political net. Winning national elections no longer means anything, not merely because the individual officials themselves are crooked, but because the institutions they head are now unfit to govern a republic.

"It is no longer possible for conservatives and progressives to coexist within a single state. Sooner or later, the emerging blood feud between our separate nations will overwhelm the superficial political game. It must. We are nationalistic; they are globalists. We are the inheritors of Western civilization; they are its detractors. We are the voice of stability; they are the voice of chaos. We are the battered remnants of Christendom; they are the unholy and improbable alliance of militant atheism and Islam."


http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/06/a_cause_for_war.html#ixzz4jJQ1rQkU

We've already seen the fringes of the violence vested in the Antifa movement who think that their violence is "justified" because they are battling the forces of pure evil, not just people with political viewpoints with whom they disagree.

We see it in the rhetoric of the #BlackLiversMatter movement when it calls for dead cops now and in the deification of an NFL quarterback who possesses all of the skills of a Tim Tebow but who also has the blessing of being of an approved skin color and is clearly not a devout Christian.

We see a Reality Winner who thinks that it is not treason to take down the administration by any means possible but, (just because she was a Sanders supporter) in fact, a patriotic duty. I'll bet that like Snowden and Manning that she sees herself not a a traitor, but as a national treasure.
 
And we've seen violence...

In the domestic terrorists that bomb and threaten women's clinics.

In Donald Trump when he says stuff like "bomb the shit out of them."

In men like Gianforte who believe it is their right to assault a reporter for asking a tough question.


Odd how it is always one sided with these posts. One would think if asked a question, you will always answer "1" and never "0".
 
Rhetoric is not violence. And if we need to offer up a refresher course, President Obama, on more than one occasion, used the rhetoric of violence to inspire his cadre of Social Justice Warriors.


Plus, you seem to be a bit remiss in your ability to come up with violence related to the topic at hand. Please give us the date of the last abortion clinic bombing.


The reporter is a one-off. The shutting down of free speech on campus and the antics of #BLM are ongoing phenomenon. Please pick up your game if you want to match violence to violence, you know try base 16 instead of 10111000 without bit parity...
 
So you're rationalizing violence by kind. Gotcha.

Additionally, you dismiss the rhetoric of one while condemning the rhetoric of another.

You are still being consistently one sided.
 
The reporter is a one-off. The shutting down of free speech on campus and the antics of #BLM are ongoing phenomenon. Please pick up your game if you want to match violence to violence, you know try base 16 instead of 10111000 without bit parity...

A "one-off", huh?

I guess you didn't hear about the white supremacist stabbing 3 people on the train in portland, which led to the calls from #BLM.
:rolleyes:

Violence is ok in your eyes... as long as it's for your cause. You're a liar if you say otherwise.
 
So you're rationalizing violence by kind. Gotcha.

Additionally, you dismiss the rhetoric of one while condemning the rhetoric of another.

You are still being consistently one sided.

Situational Native American often speaks with forked tongue.
*nods*
 
A "one-off", huh?

I guess you didn't hear about the white supremacist stabbing 3 people on the train in portland, which led to the calls from #BLM.
:rolleyes:

Violence is ok in your eyes... as long as it's for your cause. You're a liar if you say otherwise.

The white supremist who shares your vision for the country, sans diversity?

He was a Bernie and Stein supporter.

Just in case you're late to the Lautner memo, he was a big fan of socialism as well.
 
The white supremist who shares your vision for the country, sans diversity?

He was a Bernie and Stein supporter.

Just in case you're late to the Lautner memo, he was a big fan of socialism as well.

Sure he was... keep telling yourself that, I'm sure that it will help you sleep well at night.
 
Hopefully there is a war soon.

The US is too big, and not nearly unified enough to be a country and should be in at least 5 regions/provinces that get to manage their own shit.

Most of our problems stem from everyone trying to control freak over each other when we should be minding our own fuckin' bidniz. But we can't mind our own bidniz.
 
(snip) And if we need to offer up a refresher course, President Obama, on more than one occasion, used the rhetoric of violence to inspire his cadre of Social Justice Warriors.

(snip)

I have to call bullshit on this one. Time to put up or go home AJ. Unless you can substantiate this with a cite or a link you might as well call it a day. Let's see it.
And please don't try to pull an Ish on me. What's that you ask? Welllll.......

Onus probandi – from Latin "onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat" the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions the claim). It is a particular case of the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, here the burden is shifted on the person defending against the assertion.


Comshaw
 
And we've seen violence...

In the domestic terrorists that bomb and threaten women's clinics.

In Donald Trump when he says stuff like "bomb the shit out of them."

In men like Gianforte who believe it is their right to assault a reporter for asking a tough question.


Odd how it is always one sided with these posts. One would think if asked a question, you will always answer "1" and never "0".
You really are insane
 
Meh.

I have plenty of Ammo....

Might be what it takes to wake some people up in the ole USA.
 
E.M. Cadwaladr

"For a republic to be worthy of the name, it must have certain features. Most obviously, political power must, in some meaningful sense, reside with the people and be expressed through their elected officials.
Even at this most basic level, our country has a problem. To the extent that we are governed by an unelected bureaucracy we are no longer a republic.
Unfortunately, the political disease that afflicts America runs far deeper than that. For power to reside with “the people” there must be a single, generally unified nation which can be identified as “the people.” This nation need not be racially, ethnically, or even religiously homogenous, but the overwhelming majority of its members do need to agree on some common set of interests and values. They need a common identity. That is what a nation is.

American now contains at least two nations, and arguably many more. Democratic institutions like elections, intended to settle differences between fellow countrymen, of people who simply disagree on means or minor matters of policy -- cannot settle differences of national identity. This is why organizations like the European Union and the United Nations are only superficially democratic. More to the point, elections staged between competing nations trapped under the authority of a single state -- nations so different in their ideals that each seeks the other’s subjugation or destruction -- such elections settle nothing.
Any election that takes place under such conditions will inevitably be seen as illegitimate by the losing side. Trump, progressives say, is not their president -- and neither would Hillary ever have been ours.

"When elections and legislatures attempt to assert the dominance of one nation of people over another they are, in effect, engaging in a kind of warfare. It is a civil war with a bit less bloodshed -- or, perhaps, it is a civil war in its initial shouting and shoving phase. Our daily outrage at the dishonest press, the usurpation of power by minor federal judges, and the predictable shrieking lunacy of our opponents only shows that most of us have not yet come to terms with the reality of our situation. We are in an existential conflict between competing nations -- we are not debating the merits of particular policies. Our differences will not be resolved by orderly procedural means. Reason no longer persuades. Hallowed traditions are despised. The law has become unworthy of respect, because it is so often merely the convenient weapon of people who are willing to cause us real and tangible harm. Indeed, as progressives and conservatives have diverged, we have seen the federal authorities selectively disregard the laws made by their opponents and favor governing by the fiat of executive orders. “I have a phone and I have a pen,” Obama famously declared. He might just as well have added: “…and I don’t care what happens to those hicks in Kentucky and Kansas.”

"A federal government attempting to preside over separate nations bent on one another’s destruction can be neither legitimate nor effective. Our federal government has become little more than a hideous game of ideological badminton between opposing camps of corrupt officials -- smacking enraged and increasingly divided peons back and forth across the political net. Winning national elections no longer means anything, not merely because the individual officials themselves are crooked, but because the institutions they head are now unfit to govern a republic.
"It is no longer possible for conservatives and progressives to coexist within a single state. Sooner or later, the emerging blood feud between our separate nations will overwhelm the superficial political game. It must. We are nationalistic; they are globalists. We are the inheritors of Western civilization; they are its detractors. We are the voice of stability; they are the voice of chaos. We are the battered remnants of Christendom; they are the unholy and improbable alliance of militant atheism and Islam."


http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/06/a_cause_for_war.html#ixzz4jJQ1rQkU

Whilst I feel that your comment was a bit biased in that it focused only on what one party does wrong:
Excellent article, thanks for posting it.
 
Last edited:
So you're rationalizing violence by kind. Gotcha.

Additionally, you dismiss the rhetoric of one while condemning the rhetoric of another.

You are still being consistently one sided.

Sorry, but you are wrong.

The Left is the side advocating then need and justification for violence.

The only tangible evidence that you offered to prove that the tendency to actual violence is endemic on the right was one local redneck whipping the ass of an obnoxious Leftist...

That is being one-sided while simultaneously ignoring reality.

It is the Left that is assaulting campus speakers who do not toe the pure party line.

Now, change my mind, give me some real examples that will make me sit up and say, holy shit but the Optimist Club is a hotbed of violence and the advocates of might makes right...

;) ;)

DOUBLE-DAWG DARE!!!
 
Whilst I feel that your comment was a bit biased in that it focused only on what one party does wrong:
Excellent article, thanks for posting it.

I'll challenge you to the same thing.

Show me the right-wing equivalence.

Show me the Liberal who is harassed and chased off campus when invited to speak.

I'm patient. I'll wait. You're going to have to do better though than a single instance of one individual losing his temper. The rhetoric, hate and threats to Ann Coulter was so intense that even with a cadre of bodyguards, she decided not to show up on campus because of late, the campus cops are pretty much as cowed by the Left as the regular police and are not inclined to stop the mobs of the Left when they get themselves into a lather.

It's why the campus is no longer safe for a person with viewpoints from the right just as the law-abiding black community is less safe because officers no longer want to engage young black men behaving badly because the activists will turn on them and take to the streets to chant such loving mantras as:

What do we want? DEAD COPS!

When do we want them? NOW!

Show me where angry mobs of right-wing students are physically assaulting members of the Liberal faculty or invited Leftist speakers to campus. Show me that this is a two-way street. DOn't just say it.

PROVE IT!!!
 
"Evergreen State College erupted in protest two weeks ago when a biology professor Bret Weinstein spoke out against a social justice event that coerced white students and faculty to leave campus.

"Since then, the Olympia, Washington, campus has devolved into chaos, while the school administration cowers and capitulates to student mob rule.

"Things are getting so bad that the school is having issues with a group of bat-wielding vigilantes seeking to “community police” the campus. The school was shut down Monday because of acts of vandalism and window smashing the previous night."

https://heatst.com/culture-wars/eve...ds-of-bat-wielding-vigilantes/?mod=sm_tw_post

MOAR R-wing violence!!!

:cool:
 
"... The state of California is in the process of taking a series of political steps that are not only cementing its status as a progressive enclave, it’s stumbling toward its own foreign policy. After Donald Trump withdrew America from the Paris climate agreement, California governor Jerry Brown rushed to fill the void. California is touting its collaborations with China to combat global warming. Here’s Brown, in reporting by the Sacramento Bee:"

“It is a little bold to talk about the China–California partnership as though we were a separate nation, but we are a separate nation,” Brown said of the state, with nearly 40 million residents and the world’s sixth-largest economy. “We’re a state of mind. I include Silicon Valley, I include the environmental activism, the biotech industry, agriculture. This is a place of great investment in innovation.”

"Indeed, California has such a different view of the relationship between citizen and state, it’s virtually seceding from the Constitution, overriding the First Amendment time and again for the sake of “social justice.” And now its legislature is even taking the first steps to implement a $400 billion single-payer health plan — a plan so expensive and radical that even Governor Brown is skeptical. The trends are clear. In the age of Trump, California is determined to go its own way.

"None of this is surprising. Our national political polarization is by now so well established that the only real debate is over the nature of our cultural, political, and religious conflict. Are we in the midst of a more or less conventional culture war? Are we, as Dennis Prager and others argue, fighting a kind of “cold” civil war? Or are we facing something else entirely?

"I’d argue that we face “something else,” and that something else is more akin to the beginning stages of a national divorce than it is to a civil war. This contention rests fundamentally in two trends, one political and the other far beyond politics. The combination of negative polarization and a phenomenon that economist Tyler Cowen calls “matching” is leading to a national separation so profound that Americans may not have the desire to fight to stay together. Unless trends are reversed, red and blue may ultimately bid each other adieu."
David French, NRO
 
Back
Top