Lubbock County Judge Tom Head and Commissioner Mark Heinrich went into great detail Monday night on FOX 34 News @ Nine about why it is necessary to raise the tax rate by 1.7 cents the next fiscal year.
An across-the-board pay increase is needed for the attorneys on the DA's staff to keep them from being poached by higher-paying counties, and the sheriff needs to expand his staff by seven deputies to reduce call response times, minimize officer fatigue and reduce the turnaround time for investigations.
Judge Head said he and the county must be prepared for many contingencies, one that he particularly fears, is if President Obama is reelected.
“He's going to try to hand over the sovereignty of the United States to the UN, and what is going to happen when that happens?,” Head asked.
“I'm thinking the worst. Civil unrest, civil disobedience, civil war maybe. And we're not just talking a few riots here and demonstrations, we're talking Lexington, Concord, take up arms and get rid of the guy.
"Now what's going to happen if we do that, if the public decides to do that? He's going to send in U.N. troops. I don't want 'em in Lubbock County. OK. So I'm going to stand in front of their armored personnel carrier and say 'you're not coming in here'.
"And the sheriff, I've already asked him, I said 'you gonna back me' he said, 'yeah, I'll back you'. Well, I don't want a bunch of rookies back there. I want trained, equipped, seasoned veteran officers to back me."
Whether you agree with the judge, or think his theories are unrealistic, the reality is a tax hike that will provide an additional $832,433 coupled with $2 million in cuts to make the numbers work.
You can sound off at two public hearings, Wednesday at 10 a.m. and Monday at 10a.m. Both hearings are at commissioner’s court.
Wait... They go from legitimate budgetary concerns... To crying about how Obama is gonna sell us down the river and that everything will go to hell and there'll be another civil war? Damn guys. Nice 180.
Yet across the gulf of the Atlantic, minds that are to our minds as ours are to those of the beasts that perish, grounded in reality, regarded these United States with envious eyes, and slowly and surely drew their plans against us.
I think the Red Dawn remake should have made the invaders the U.N. instead of North Korea. That would have played to their intended audience much better.
Easy E wrote: I think the Red Dawn remake should have made the invaders the U.N. instead of North Korea. That would have played to their intended audience much better.
You know, its kind of sad but I can actually see that...
I think the US should stop funding the UN and kick them out of NYC, but I'm not exactly worried about an invasion. The UN couldn't sell girl scout cookies in a famine, invading a country is well beyond their capabilities without the US, UK and a few others doing the /actual/ work while the UN's "generals" strut around the five star hotel closest to the battle space.
Doesn't a judge commenting on this stuff affect his job?
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I think the US should stop funding the UN and kick them out of NYC, but I'm not exactly worried about an invasion. The UN couldn't sell girl scout cookies in famine invading a country is well beyond their capabilities without the US, UK and a few others doing the /actual/ work while the UN's "generals" strut around the five star hotel closest to the battle space.
Doesn't a judge commenting on this stuff affect his job?
In Texas judges are elected if I am not mistaken, so this probably means job security for him.
Is the job of judges in the US different to the UK? Here they oversee court cases and only make public comments about the law during sentencing. They may criticise the law on certain points, but it's about the law as it stands, it's almost never party political or about particular individuals in government. The idea that a currently serving judge would go on TV and make a politically motivated attack against the government and Prime Minister is almost unthinkable. Is it that judges in the US serve a very different function or that ours just have more class?
Howard A Treesong wrote: Is the job of judges in the US different to the UK? Here they oversee court cases and only make public comments about the law during sentencing. They may criticise the law on certain points, but it's about the law as it stands, it's almost never party political or about particular individuals in government. The idea that a currently serving judge would go on TV and make a politically motivated attack against the government and Prime Minister is almost unthinkable. Is it that judges in the US serve a very different function or that ours just have more class?
Do you "become" a judge there?
If I'm not mistaken, the Texas Judge is locally elected. Federal Judges and higher State courts are appointed by the executive branch..
What I'm saying that in some states, local judges are elected... so, it's inherently political.
In high Courts (and all Feds), they're appointed by the executive branch.
Also, I think the British has more class culturely (but, what do I know... my only defense is that my mother travels a lot and those are her words).
It's only when they go to war that class is put in the back seat.
They have the same function, but we have also taken the whole "3 branches of government/checks & balances" thing too far and now everybody is acting like a family on the Jerry Springer show...
d-usa wrote: They have the same function, but we have also taken the whole "3 branches of government/checks & balances" thing too far and now everybody is acting like a family on the Jerry Springer show...
That's true...
Once elected, they normally behave (that is, follow the law).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote: Another Civil war? Ok, I say, West and east vs. South.
The sheer stupidity of the republican party is astounding
Lubbock County Judge Tom Head and Commissioner Mark Heinrich went into great detail Monday night on FOX 34 News @ Nine about why it is necessary to raise the tax rate by 1.7 cents the next fiscal year.
An across-the-board pay increase is needed for the attorneys on the DA's staff to keep them from being poached by higher-paying counties, and the sheriff needs to expand his staff by seven deputies to reduce call response times, minimize officer fatigue and reduce the turnaround time for investigations.
Judge Head said he and the county must be prepared for many contingencies, one that he particularly fears, is if President Obama is reelected.
“He's going to try to hand over the sovereignty of the United States to the UN, and what is going to happen when that happens?,” Head asked.
“I'm thinking the worst. Civil unrest, civil disobedience, civil war maybe. And we're not just talking a few riots here and demonstrations, we're talking Lexington, Concord, take up arms and get rid of the guy.
"Now what's going to happen if we do that, if the public decides to do that? He's going to send in U.N. troops. I don't want 'em in Lubbock County. OK. So I'm going to stand in front of their armored personnel carrier and say 'you're not coming in here'.
"And the sheriff, I've already asked him, I said 'you gonna back me' he said, 'yeah, I'll back you'. Well, I don't want a bunch of rookies back there. I want trained, equipped, seasoned veteran officers to back me."
Whether you agree with the judge, or think his theories are unrealistic, the reality is a tax hike that will provide an additional $832,433 coupled with $2 million in cuts to make the numbers work.
You can sound off at two public hearings, Wednesday at 10 a.m. and Monday at 10a.m. Both hearings are at commissioner’s court.
Since judge was elected he can make comments but he can still be recalled or depending on the laws there pulled from his post because he is violating his oath to defend the law by inciting insurrection.
Hope they yank him from his job and put him in charge of the tinfoil isle of the piggy wiggly down there.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I think the US should stop funding the UN and kick them out of NYC, but I'm not exactly worried about an invasion. The UN couldn't sell girl scout cookies in famine invading a country is well beyond their capabilities without the US, UK and a few others doing the /actual/ work while the UN's "generals" strut around the five star hotel closest to the battle space.
Doesn't a judge commenting on this stuff affect his job?
In Texas judges are elected if I am not mistaken, so this probably means job security for him.
Judge can be a misnomer. We have
justices of the peace (any trash can be that. The Wife's ex was one).
county judges in some areas which seem to be like administrators. Even I don't get them.
then the usual district appellate and supreme for criminal and civil. Judges can be appointed by then have to run on a yes no ballot if I remember (not feeling well today).
Since judge was elected he can make comments but he can still be recalled or depending on the laws there pulled from his post because he is violating his oath to defend the law by inciting insurrection.
Hope they yank him from his job and put him in charge of the tinfoil isle of the piggy wiggly down there.
Whats awesome is how you can be so wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kronk wrote: Lubbock is the armpit of Texas. Take them as seriously as you would take someone from the set of Jersey Shore.
Also, I think the British has more class culturely (but, what do I know... my only defense is that my mother travels a lot and those are her words).
What you'll find is that our government procedure is steeped in tradition and etiquette. The reason judges wouldn't do what this guy has done is because it simply isn't the done thing for a judge to behave like that. They serve the law and operate separately from parliament. While parliament makes laws, judges don't like it when MPs try to interfere directly in sentencing, and MPs don't like it when judges say things that are party political.
Lubbock County Judge Tom Head
“He's going to try to hand over the sovereignty of the United States to the UN, and what is going to happen when that happens?,” Head asked.
:
How is it that a judge, whom I assume know the law. You know; well enough to be a judge. Thinks that Obama all by himself can do something like hand the sovereignty of the country over to the UN. The UN wouldn't know what to do if bloody Liechtenstein handed its sovereignty over to it, let alone any of the top ten largest populations or economies. It's worthy of ridicule.
Also, I think the British has more class culturely (but, what do I know... my only defense is that my mother travels a lot and those are her words).
What you'll find is that our government procedure is steeped in tradition and etiquette.
I've watched the PMs questions and it's more akin to a schoolyard shouting match than a government steeped in etiquette...Man I wish we did that. AT least then we could actually SEE our representatives bickering like children.
Just for my information are your judges elected or appointed? That could have a great effect on why you see the difference, in all likelihood this judge is running for office, and these statements are political because he is ALSO a politician. (I checked he is).
For the record pretty much the entire US legal system (except state law in Louisiana) is based on English Common Law so yes our judges serve the same function.
d-usa wrote: The Armpit of Texas, home of your crazy branch of Arbites.
I don't know. Permian might be the armpit of Texas. Have you been to the Permian Basin (formerly Leondo Escondido) ? The only thing worse than Permian is New Mexico.
The whole region makes Baby Jebus cry. Why we shot up the Comanches to get it I'll never know.
d-usa wrote: The Armpit of Texas, home of your crazy branch of Arbites.
I don't know. Permian might be the armpit of Texas. Have you been to the Permian Basin (formerly Leondo Escondido) ? The only thing worse than Permian is New Mexico.
The whole region makes Baby Jebus cry. Why we shot up the Comanches to get it I'll never know.
Did we shoot up the Comanches to get it, or did we get it as an excuse to shoot up the Comanches. I can never keep the way we screwed the tribes straight...
KalashnikovMarine wrote: For the record pretty much the entire US legal system (except state law in Louisiana) is based on English Common Law so yes our judges serve the same function.
This guy's just a dick.
True that.
However much of Texas law is actually old Spanish law (read Napoleonic code). But the system itself is generally British.
Interesting note: if you pronounce voir dire correctly the judge will correct you. Its intentionally mispronounced here. If you further annoy the judge he will have you horsewhipped, or worse, forced to eat broccoli and watch Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman. Yes we play hardball here.
d-usa wrote: The Armpit of Texas, home of your crazy branch of Arbites.
I don't know. Permian might be the armpit of Texas. Have you been to the Permian Basin (formerly Leondo Escondido) ? The only thing worse than Permian is New Mexico.
The whole region makes Baby Jebus cry. Why we shot up the Comanches to get it I'll never know.
Did we shoot up the Comanches to get it, or did we get it as an excuse to shoot up the Comanches. I can never keep the way we screwed the tribes straight...
Well in our defense, the Comanches were shooting us and Mexico up (the COmanche trail to raid into Mexico is part of texas folklore and even on older maps/reproductions). Then Samuel Colt and Mr. Henry showed them the error of their ways.
Also, I think the British has more class culturely (but, what do I know... my only defense is that my mother travels a lot and those are her words).
What you'll find is that our government procedure is steeped in tradition and etiquette.
I've watched the PMs questions and it's more akin to a schoolyard shouting match than a government steeped in etiquette...Man I wish we did that. AT least then we could actually SEE our representatives bickering like children.
Oh yes there's a lot of that. But they have rules to adhere to, so they still call each other 'the honorable member' while ripping into them in the most childish way. They also can't sit in session if the mace isn't present, so on occasion when things have got heated people gave been known to grab the mace and run off with it effectively suspending the sitting. There's no practical need to have these traditions, they are just respected. It doesn't stop them jeering and being rude, within reason.
Just for my information are your judges elected or appointed? That could have a great effect on why you see the difference, in all likelihood this judge is running for office, and these statements are political because he is ALSO a politician. (I checked he is).
Depending on the level of seniority, judges have to have served as barristers or solicitors for a number of years before being appointed.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I think the US should stop funding the UN and kick them out of NYC, but I'm not exactly worried about an invasion. The UN couldn't sell girl scout cookies in a famine, invading a country is well beyond their capabilities without the US, UK and a few others doing the /actual/ work while the UN's "generals" strut around the five star hotel closest to the battle space.
I've always found it funny how the people who are opposed to the UN also tend to be the people that don't really understand its scope.
The UN doesn't invade other countries, it might sanction invasions (or general military operations) undertaken by its member states but it doesn't actually lead or perpetrate them. What this means is that "UN generals" aren't "UN generals", they're generals from their country of origin operating with the political approval of the UN.
Even peacekeeping operations, the only military activity that the UN has any sort of control over, don't feature any sort of permanent UN personnel outside the political arena.
Need I remind everyone who wants to get on the Superior Dance that the Congressman who thought an island could sink: 1) is a Democrat; 2) is not from Texas.
Look to your own before finding some minor flnky wingnut to make fun of.
Depending on the level of seniority, judges have to have served as barristers or solicitors for a number of years before being appointed.
\Therein lies the difference then between this guy and a judge in your system. He's up for re-election and running on the "people in my district are nutters" platform. His duties also don'[t appear heavily "judicial" in nature actually.
Director of Emergency Management
Prepare County budget for approval by the County Commissioners
Preside over Commissioners Court
Conducts mental competency hearings and other mental health related duties prescribed by law
Serve on Juvenile Board, SPAG Board, Bail Bond Board, and others
Refuse or issue alcohol beverage permits
Responsibilities associated of holding elections
Give notice of public hearings
May conduct Marriage Ceremonies
d-usa wrote: I don't know what makes me facepalm more.
Or the guys like him and all the weird militias running "drills" in the backwoods thinking they could actually take on a real military.
I get your point there are crazies out there, but isn't this kinda what we thought about the insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq? I don't think thesefolks would ever stop a full on army but lord knows if you put a man on his own turf he can kill a lot more "enemy soldiers", professional or not, before they can get to him.
Just an alternate view point that I was thinking while on the way to work.
On the topic though, I think this judge is out of his mind, and I will give the sheriff the benefit of t he doubt that he only agreed in the sense that he didn't want to make enemies in higher places of Lubbock, if there is such a thing as higher places in Lubbock.
Depending on the level of seniority, judges have to have served as barristers or solicitors for a number of years before being appointed.
\Therein lies the difference then between this guy and a judge in your system. He's up for re-election and running on the "people in my district are nutters" platform. His duties also don'[t appear heavily "judicial" in nature actually.
Director of Emergency Management Prepare County budget for approval by the County Commissioners Preside over Commissioners Court Conducts mental competency hearings and other mental health related duties prescribed by law Serve on Juvenile Board, SPAG Board, Bail Bond Board, and others Refuse or issue alcohol beverage permits Responsibilities associated of holding elections Give notice of public hearings May conduct Marriage Ceremonies
"
As noted, some counties have judges that aren't judges but run things. I don't quite understand it. If its "county judge" Bob then thats one of them. That indeed is a very political position. True judges of the courts aren't political like that, but can be just as stupid.
Sometimes I wish there were an organization in charge of going around and tattooing, "THIS PERSON IS STUPID" to peoples' foreheads. I could put my tax dollars behind that.
Frazzled wrote: Need I remind everyone who wants to get on the Superior Dance that the Congressman who thought an island could sink: 1) is a Democrat; 2) is not from Texas.
Look to your own before finding some minor flnky wingnut to make fun of.
Would you like me to go on? You also make the assumption that US troops would uniformally support the government.
Yup, I imagine there would be a massive number of deserters in the event of another Civil War. Not to mention a portion of those loyal to the Government would probably object to fighting against their countrymen.
Its almost exactly what happened with the, previous, Civil War. The bulk of the Army's senior staff defected to the Confederates along with a good portion of the actual army.
The Confederates had almost all of the experienced soldiers. They only lost because the North had a massive manpower and supply advantage, and almost the entire Navy.
A new Civil War would be a very tense situation, both sides would have a fairly equal armament as far as hardware was concerned.
A new American Civil War would be ridiculous...
The people threatening it should grow up and act like adults instead of threatening to shoot holes in the boat every time they don't get to paddle...
Jihadin wrote: I agree Auston. Everyone assume the US military will blindly follow whatever orders or mission its assigned
I distinctly remember that one of the BN commanders in the 82nd told MG Caldwell to go feth himself if he thought paratroopers under his command would fire on US citizens. It was a shining moment in the history of refusing unlawful orders. They gave that guy his star last year.
Not going to go as far as saying there be mass desertion from the military. The government was elected by the people so they are the legal government. It all comes down to lawful and unlawful orders coming from high to low.
Not all Civil Wars are equal, and I doubt the reasoning of 'it happened in 1861 so it will certainly also happen in 2XXX' holds up to much scrutiny. Not all Civil Wars have had the military split, so there are precedents for many different scenarios. Still, it is good to know that the men and women of our armed services, without any actual hint of a need to, have already been considering renouncing any oaths they made because a guy thinks there might be a Civil War because they dislike democracy so much when the other guy wins.
Jihadin wrote: Not going to go as far as saying there be mass desertion from the military. The government was elected by the people so they are the legal government. It all comes down to lawful and unlawful orders coming from high to low.
At that point "lawful" ceases to matter. It becomes a case of material benefit, or moral conviction.
AustonT wrote: I distinctly remember that one of the BN commanders in the 82nd told MG Caldwell to go feth himself if he thought paratroopers under his command would fire on US citizens.
I'm sure it took a lot of soul searching and wrestling with complex ethical issues to stand up to an order that was never given, or even intimated.
Jihadin wrote: Not going to go as far as saying there be mass desertion from the military. The government was elected by the people so they are the legal government. It all comes down to lawful and unlawful orders coming from high to low.
Honest question here... how do you know if the order is lawful? Even if it comes down from the Prez?
AustonT wrote: I distinctly remember that one of the BN commanders in the 82nd told MG Caldwell to go feth himself if he thought paratroopers under his command would fire on US citizens.
I'm sure it took a lot of soul searching and wrestling with complex ethical issues to stand up to an order that was never given, or even intimated.
Honest question here... how do you know if the order is lawful? Even if it comes down from the Prez?
Depends on the wording of the order that comes down to my level. Don't get me wrong now if someone start shooting at the military unit in earnest it will not be a good day for the shooter.
That is being debated to this day, and still reflects a degree of unprofessionalism in a police action.
Either way, the point is that soldiers can get caught up in certain orders. I don't mean that offensively, I'm just saying that you can be ordered to do an innocuous thing, and suffer onerous consequences due to unexpected circumstance.
Honest question here... how do you know if the order is lawful? Even if it comes down from the Prez?
Depends on the wording of the order that comes down to my level. Don't get me wrong now if someone start shooting at the military unit in earnest it will not be a good day for the shooter.
Yet no UCMJ was taking against the unit leaders I believe. Blind obidience to orders does not save a commander or soldiers from prosecution. example is the WWII german military and paramilitary grps
edit
Thats nothing new Whembly. I've been involved exercises in quite a few port cities during my time as a Nightstalker.
Everyone thinks they would be the one to stand up to authority or absolutely know right from wrong, but history also shows those people doing some pretty messed up gak as well. Abu Ghraib, Kent State, Stanford Prison Experiments, Stanley Milgram's experiments on social behavior, that incident with the guy calling a fast food restaurant and getting the manager to imprison and strip search an employee, Diffusion of Responsibility, ect ect.
Jihadin wrote: Yet no UCMJ was taking against the unit leaders I believe.
Yes, the idea that, thanks to vague accounts all around, the military would back it's own after having them fire on undesirables during the Nixon era is completely out of the realm of possibility. Of course there is as much evidence to back up the claim the military purposefully covered it up and chose not to charge anyone as there is evidence that there was a shooter.
Yes, the idea that, thanks to vague accounts all around, the military would back it's own after having them fire on undesirables during the Nixon era is completely out of the realm of possibility. Of course there is as much evidence to back up the claim the military purposefully covered it up and chose not to charge anyone as there is evidence that there was a shooter.
Since its beyond my time, a different army, a different mentality, questionable actions on both sides and not privy to the orders that were given to NG unit. I cannot debate any further on the Kent state affair.
AustonT wrote: I distinctly remember that one of the BN commanders in the 82nd told MG Caldwell to go feth himself if he thought paratroopers under his command would fire on US citizens.
I'm sure it took a lot of soul searching and wrestling with complex ethical issues to stand up to an order that was never given, or even intimated.
you can imagine willy wonka if you'd like:
Go on about how there was never a serious discussion about issuing a ROE in continuation of the NOPD ROE to shoot looters. You can also tell me how the DoJ isn't investigating those "shoot on site" order and the soldiers claiming they received similar instructions don't exist.
Or TLR: ORLY?
Poppabear wrote:Why in gods green earth to people actually take the crap that is said from FOX FETHING NEWS and actually think its legitimate.
And why do people even bother posting there crap on forums?
Oh and because MITT ROMNEY is a better option.
If you think Obama is better for New Zealand, you may have him.
Melissia wrote:Great, the thread's turned in to a bunch of blowhards trying to, well, blowhard.
Where is my mirror macro when I need it. Rarely have I seen a blacker kettle speaking derisively to a pot collection.
@AustinT: So you are now claiming he was given an order to fire on citizens? It still sounds like he was never given any such orders, which goes back to refuting orders that were never given.
Since you brought up the DoJ, at what point on the flow chart does the DoJ have authority over the DoD? Can Eric Holder just start ordering around officers and soldiers?
Since you brought up the DoJ, at what point on the flow chart does the DoJ have authority over the DoD? Can Eric Holder just start ordering around officers and soldiers?
No. the DoJ has no position in the CoC for the US Military
Easy E wrote: I think the Red Dawn remake should have made the invaders the U.N. instead of North Korea. That would have played to their intended audience much better.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:The UN couldn't sell girl scout cookies in a famine, invading a country is well beyond their capabilities without the US, UK and a few others doing the /actual/ work while the UN's "generals" strut around the five star hotel closest to the battle space.
To be fair, the US does feth all for the United Nations, militarily. It's mostly really poor nations renting out their troops for money, which is why most of the work is actually done by Africans or Indians, though the Chinese have been stepping up lately as well. Wait a minute ...!
Ah, that mysterious shooter that failed to even wound any of the soldiers, with his weapon and ammunition that were never found. And whose presence must have unnerved the troops so much that they casually assumed a firing line position as ordered by their leader, according to the audiotapes.
... please.
Jihadin wrote:Didn't click on the link on my last post eh Lynata. Think it was the same link I made on the OWS thread
You're right, I didn't - it wasn't there as I was writing mine.
However, with that info you linked, isn't it true that the only other confirmed weapon on location belonged to someone on the FBI's payroll?
Also, more than a minute passing between the four shots supposedly discharged by this person and the National Guard assuming a firing line does indicate that the events are not as directly connected as you make it sound. It certainly did not happen in an act of self-defence, else the shots would have been fired in immediate succession - and again, I assume one of the soldiers would at least have been wounded.
Compare the amount that was fired by each "side". I personnaly burn through 4 clips (120+ rds) to get a possible two shooters on one of my tours. Also took a minute to figure out where the firing was coming from. Till you been in a actual firefight you would truly understand the dynamics on how it goes down. Of course your idea of "assuming a fire line" might differ then mine. You bring the most fire power online as fast as you can to suppress the "enemy" once you identify the source.
Jihadin wrote:Also took a minute to figure out where the firing was coming from.
It was obviously not coming from the random students that were gunned down.
Jihadin wrote:You bring the most fire power online as fast as you can to suppress the "enemy" once you identify the source.
"Identify" how? Who or what did they identify? It obviously wasn't a panic reaction, and neither did they target anything or anyone specific. The orders given to the troops can be heard on the tape. Surprisingly, none of the soldiers seems to have yelled something like "shooter!" or whatever you would expect in such a situation. They waited for more than a minute before taking aim and opening up with 61 or 67 shots on a bunch of unarmed civilians that just happened to be in the wrong spot at the wrong time.
Or are you basically saying it's okay to calculatedly cut down a crowd when a single unidentified shooter might be in their midst? Note, calculatedly, not out of reflex. Because that is what you are defending.
And that is still assuming that this was actually the case. You're still glossing over the very source you cited as evidence actually hinting at said shots being fired on the students rather than by them. The sad thing is that, if the article's conclusions are actually true, the guy wasn't even an agent provocateur but just a cowboy on government payroll who didn't know what he was getting himself and others into.
Nobody ever even made the claim that they "identified" anyone or that they saw a guy with a pistol or heard gunshots before. Not even the Guardsmen that were interviewed. That's all just you trying to find reasons.
Jihadin wrote:Of course your idea of "assuming a fire line" might differ then mine.
See, right now it just feels like you are defending this reaction out of esprit du corps, simply dismissing an obvious and admittedly ugly thing that happened that was not supposed to happen. It's not an isolated case either; apparently those were some crazy days back then, and the moral difference between stabbing unarmed protesters with a bayonet and pulling a trigger on them is rather slim imho. Something like this should not just be swept under the rug, lest you run the risk of suffering a repetition. Awareness of errors in the past is key to future success.
Jihadin wrote: Compare the amount that was fired by each "side". I personnaly burn through 4 clips (120+ rds) to get a possible two shooters on one of my tours. Also took a minute to figure out where the firing was coming from. Till you been in a actual firefight you would truly understand the dynamics on how it goes down. Of course your idea of "assuming a fire line" might differ then mine. You bring the most fire power online as fast as you can to suppress the "enemy" once you identify the source.
See there's your problem right there. You're not sure until you nuke the site from orbit.
The weirdest thing about that nutter's comments in the OP is that he's claiming he needs the extra money to maintain law and order once the order for UN takeover is given. As in he needs the money for when the jackbooted UN thugs takeover and he needs to make sure the protestors are kept under control.
dogma wrote: At that point "lawful" ceases to matter. It becomes a case of material benefit, or moral conviction.
Or doing what your mates are doing. Most of the time whole military divisions will be loyalists or rebels. In some units it might break down to the squad level which side they join, but I don't think I've ever seen individual soliders moving from one side to the other.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: Everyone thinks they would be the one to stand up to authority or absolutely know right from wrong, but history also shows those people doing some pretty messed up gak as well. Abu Ghraib, Kent State, Stanford Prison Experiments, Stanley Milgram's experiments on social behavior, that incident with the guy calling a fast food restaurant and getting the manager to imprison and strip search an employee, Diffusion of Responsibility, ect ect.
Yep.
I read something similar one time about slavery and other immoral regimes. Everyone assumes if they were made slaves they'd rise up, or that they'd never, ever have slaves of their own. Yet history shows very few slaves throw off their chains (or even try to) and even fewer slaveowners ever release them.
It's very easy to be a paragon of morality when you view the situation from afar, and have nothing to lose from your moral conviction. People actually in that situation generally invent some kind of moral reasoning that explains what they're doing is actually okay.
Or doing what your mates are doing. Most of the time whole military divisions will be loyalists or rebels. In some units it might break down to the squad level which side they join, but I don't think I've ever seen individual soliders moving from one side to the other.
NCO and Officer chain will prevent majority of what your talking about. It'll be individuals who are more likely switch sides incase of a "Civil War" in the US. Incase a governor calls up his state national guard units to facilitate a state seperation he/she pretty much will have a "stagnate" unit. It all comes down to lawful/unlawful orders that would be issued from above.
Actually the US only pays UN dues in proportion with every other country by GDP. So as much of my income goes to the UN as any US citizen does.
Not long ago that wasn't true - US citizens actually paid a lower percentage of their GDP than any other country as the US successfully lobbied for a rule that said no country could pay more than 22.5% of the total UN bill, which only applied to the US, who at that time represented more than 22.5% of world GDP. With the rise of China and strong growth across developing countries in Asia in general that no longer applies though.
I think it's time to introduce to the world "Dakka's law"
You've heard of "Godwin's law" about the Nazi theory and the internet? Well I give you "Dakka's law". "What is this Dakka's law?" I hear you say. Dakka's law is this:
If you get a group of American's together on a forum, you can guarantee that at some point, usually a couple of pages in, that comments about their government being out to get them appear. Even though you hold yourselves up to the leaders of the free world and what it has to offer. Even though the rest of the world sit back in amazement at the types of freedoms your Constitution give you, for anything and everything, You still manage to come across as a country on the verge of a dictatorship!!!
To quote Matty...fething hell!!! You want the bloody moon on a stick!!!
Jihadin wrote: NCO and Officer chain will prevent majority of what your talking about. It'll be individuals who are more likely switch sides incase of a "Civil War" in the US. Incase a governor calls up his state national guard units to facilitate a state seperation he/she pretty much will have a "stagnate" unit. It all comes down to lawful/unlawful orders that would be issued from above.
Maybe I didn't explain myself clearly. The point is you don't get individual soldiers within the 101st Airborne picking sides. The whole lot will go one way or the other. Sometimes you get splits further down the chain, maybe in particularly fractious circumstances getting down to the squad level, but I've never seen it split at the individual level, with each grunt making his own choice.
And as dogma pointed out, by the time government sovereignty has been called into doubt the idea of "lawful/unlawful" orders has become a nonsense. It becomes a matter of personal gain (if I bring my troops to your cause I get to be a general? sweet!) or personal conviction (for Virginia!), or as I added to his point, doing what your mates are doing (the 101st Airborne is remaining loyal and so each soldier in there will by and large go along with that).
Wolfstan wrote: I think it's time to introduce to the world "Dakka's law"
You've heard of "Godwin's law" about the Nazi theory and the internet? Well I give you "Dakka's law". "What is this Dakka's law?" I hear you say. Dakka's law is this:
If you get a group of American's together on a forum, you can guarantee that at some point, usually a couple of pages in, that comments about their government being out to get them appear. Even though you hold yourselves up to the leaders of the free world and what it has to offer. Even though the rest of the world sit back in amazement at the types of freedoms your Constitution give you, for anything and everything, You still manage to come across as a country on the verge of a dictatorship!!!
To quote Matty...fething hell!!! You want the bloody moon on a stick!!!
Well, constant paranoia about the government's motives is largely how we got - and keep - those freedoms.
Both sides do it, and both sides tend to overdo it. With Bush, it was all about how the Patriot Act's turning us into North Korea. With Obama, it's all about how he's a communist socialist Muslim Kenyan infiltrator.
Ah yes, the United Nations. I hate them! If Obama wants to draft in United Nations troops, I say take to the streets, find anyone who has immigrated from the United Nations, and lynch them! And burn the holy book of the UN too.
Wolfstan wrote: I think it's time to introduce to the world "Dakka's law"
You've heard of "Godwin's law" about the Nazi theory and the internet? Well I give you "Dakka's law". "What is this Dakka's law?" I hear you say. Dakka's law is this:
If you get a group of American's together on a forum, you can guarantee that at some point, usually a couple of pages in, that comments about their government being out to get them appear. Even though you hold yourselves up to the leaders of the free world and what it has to offer. Even though the rest of the world sit back in amazement at the types of freedoms your Constitution give you, for anything and everything, You still manage to come across as a country on the verge of a dictatorship!!!
To quote Matty...fething hell!!! You want the bloody moon on a stick!!!
This must be a new phenomen purely contrived by late 20th century and early 21st century Americans.
Some Tea Party Lunatic wrote:Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force;
like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master.
Edit: I have no idea why "wtf" is in my quote box.
I remember a month or two ago in a similar thread, that somebody (I think it was Auston) laughed at the idea of UN troops imposing Obama's will to curb firearms in the USA.
I remember agreeing with him and replying with this:
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah x1000
Civil war? hahahahahahahahah x1000
I need to get to Texas, a career as a judge is on the cards. I can spell Texas and I know the difference between El Paso the town, and El Paso the mexican food company. Do I qualify
Well... if it was me we may have agreed that about the UN and Obama being ridiculous dribble, but I have been fairly vocal in my opinion that civil war is looming in the US. I just don't think it's going to be over Obama, or the UN. I accept that makes me the focal point of some ridicule. Sometimes reasonable people believe ridiculous things. I'm ok with that.
Does this judge want to take his slaves out of Texas on the grounds that they are property? Is Abe Linc in the white house again? Is Fort Sumner under attack?
I've been an observor of American politics for a good while now, and everytime a democrat is in office, nonsense like this gets spouted. It happened to Bill Clinton, and it's happening to BO on the grounds that he's black/muslim/enemy of America etc etc
To be fair, Bush got a lot of vitriol his way, a lot of which was below the belt. But American politics seems to have turned nasty, nobody seems to be working for the common good. The only guy in recent years who comes out of this with any credit is John McCain.
This November you will see America in its worst possible light, which is a shame because most ordinary Americans I've met are decent people.
Does this judge want to take his slaves out of Texas on the grounds that they are property? Is Abe Linc in the white house again? Is Fort Sumner under attack?
I've been an observor of American politics for a good while now, and everytime a democrat is in office, nonsense like this gets spouted. It happened to Bill Clinton, and it's happening to BO on the grounds that he's black/muslim/enemy of America etc etc
To be fair, Bush got a lot of vitriol his way, a lot of which was below the belt. But American politics seems to have turned nasty, nobody seems to be working for the common good. The only guy in recent years who comes out of this with any credit is John McCain.
This November you will see America in its worst possible light, which is a shame because most ordinary Americans I've met are decent people.
That's because most ordinary Americans are pretty much in the center. The overwhelming majority of the country, in fact. But there's no money to be made in the center. Speaking to the center doesn't keep round-the-clock news channels programmed, nor does it generate ad revenue on websites. Nor, increasingly, does it get anyone elected to office, because you'll always have someone more strident calling you an x-in-name-only.
AustonT wrote: Well... if it was me we may have agreed that about the UN and Obama being ridiculous dribble, but I have been fairly vocal in my opinion that civil war is looming in the US.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Fair, enough, but Civil war for what reason?
Clearly not for the same reasons as the one 150 years ago. BTW it's Sumter with a t. Sumner is a place, just not the place I think you meant. But you actually answered yourself.
American politics seems to have turned nasty, nobody seems to be working for the common good.
There's a growing divide between Americans, it's most obvious in politics but that's not the only place it lives. The problem is that it's not just geographic, or ethnic and it's not just right or left. There are too many of us, in too large of groups that have a different vision of the future and refuse to compromise. Sooner or later a big enough group of Americans will draw the line in the sand and say "Here and no further." politically we proved that in 2010 when we elected a House on a win at all costs platform.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Fair, enough, but Civil war for what reason?
Clearly not for the same reasons as the one 150 years ago. BTW it's Sumter with a t. Sumner is a place, just not the place I think you meant. But you actually answered yourself.
American politics seems to have turned nasty, nobody seems to be working for the common good.
There's a growing divide between Americans, it's most obvious in politics but that's not the only place it lives. The problem is that it's not just geographic, or ethnic and it's not just right or left. There are too many of us, in too large of groups that have a different vision of the future and refuse to compromise. Sooner or later a big enough group of Americans will draw the line in the sand and say "Here and no further." politically we proved that in 2010 when we elected a House on a win at all costs platform.
Politicallly - - I'd say we repeal the 17th admendment (allowing direct elections of Senators). Originally, Senators we're elected from their state's legislative body acting as a state ambassators to the federal government. Laws would be passed much differently than they are now as states would have a larger "say" in how tax revenue are distributed.
Socially-- I think there's a growing divide between those who choose to be on welfare (they can work) versus the taxpayers.
But do I think we'll have a civil war... nah.
Too many guns on the streets. It'd be a blood bath on epic proportion and I think most of us intuitively knows that.
AustonT wrote: There's a growing divide between Americans, it's most obvious in politics but that's not the only place it lives. The problem is that it's not just geographic, or ethnic and it's not just right or left. There are too many of us, in too large of groups that have a different vision of the future and refuse to compromise. Sooner or later a big enough group of Americans will draw the line in the sand and say "Here and no further." politically we proved that in 2010 when we elected a House on a win at all costs platform.
There's plenty of reasonable arguments to be made that polarization in politics is mostly illusory:
I think we can actually blame the media here for the appearance of far more polarization than there actually is. There IS evidence that the illusion of polarization is driving the most extreme elements of each party to vote more often, however, which certainly is effecting the parties--- but it isn't representative of people at large.
Seaward wrote: Well, constant paranoia about the government's motives is largely how we got - and keep - those freedoms.
That'd make sense if the groups most likely to make lots of noise about civil liberties didn't have a mad on hate for the ACLU.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AustonT wrote: There's a growing divide between Americans, it's most obvious in politics but that's not the only place it lives. The problem is that it's not just geographic, or ethnic and it's not just right or left. There are too many of us, in too large of groups that have a different vision of the future and refuse to compromise. Sooner or later a big enough group of Americans will draw the line in the sand and say "Here and no further." politically we proved that in 2010 when we elected a House on a win at all costs platform.
I'll be blunt with you - what you've typed above is just comical.
AustonT wrote: There's a growing divide between Americans, it's most obvious in politics but that's not the only place it lives. The problem is that it's not just geographic, or ethnic and it's not just right or left. There are too many of us, in too large of groups that have a different vision of the future and refuse to compromise. Sooner or later a big enough group of Americans will draw the line in the sand and say "Here and no further." politically we proved that in 2010 when we elected a House on a win at all costs platform.
I'll be blunt with you - what you've typed above is just comical.
AustonT wrote: I'll be blunt back- you live in Austrailia.
So please then do expand. Tell me of the great dividing issues that are going to cause you to take up arms and kill other Americans. Is it gay marriage? Is it that one political party has even more deficit spending than the other political party? Is it the suggestion to increase taxes on the rich by a couple of percent?
Please, do tell. I am keen to learn from an American who is there right now living through the dark days which only bloodshed can end.
AustonT wrote: I'll be blunt back- you live in Austrailia.
So please then do expand. Tell me of the great dividing issues that are going to cause you to take up arms and kill other Americans. Is it gay marriage? Is it that one political party has even more deficit spending than the other political party? Is it the suggestion to increase taxes on the rich by a couple of percent?
Please, do tell. I am keen to learn from an American who is there right now living through the dark days which only bloodshed can end.
It wouldn't be any one issue, I don't think. It would be the general recognition that Reagan's old statement - more unites us than divides us - is no longer true.
It's not the issues anyway, though. It's the utter contempt each side has for the other, and the way in which our political system and our media force you into one of two competing camps.
Seaward wrote: It would be the general recognition that Reagan's old statement - more unites us than divides us - is no longer true.
The real problem isn't that the statement isn't true (it isn't true though), the problem is that Reagan was right but many don't want to believe it because they would rather demonize political opposition in order to win elections. It is turning into scorched earth tactics. Winning is all that matters, even if you have to tear the country apart to do it.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I remember a month or two ago in a similar thread, that somebody (I think it was Auston) laughed at the idea of UN troops imposing Obama's will to curb firearms in the USA.
I remember agreeing with him and replying with this:
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah x1000
Civil war? hahahahahahahahah x1000
I need to get to Texas, a career as a judge is on the cards. I can spell Texas and I know the difference between El Paso the town, and El Paso the mexican food company. Do I qualify
No. You have no concept of quality health food. If you weren't born with a chicken fried steak in your hands, or a bag of chips for queso, you're not a Texan.
Seaward wrote: It wouldn't be any one issue, I don't think. It would be the general recognition that Reagan's old statement - more unites us than divides us - is no longer true.
It's not the issues anyway, though. It's the utter contempt each side has for the other, and the way in which our political system and our media force you into one of two competing camps.
But that's the thing, false media/political narratives about a culture war work only on the most superficial level. It's enough to get people to buy a bumper sticker saying how some other group of people are bad, or to get some people to turn up for a rally, and to get them to turn up to vote (most of them, anyway), but not much more than that.
That kind of myth really isn't enough to get many people out there killing their fellow citizens.
These arguments are holy without merit, in any kind of fact, it is pure racism against President Obama, if a white democrat got in (ala Bill Clinton or equivalent). We would not here this kind of rhetoric. If this is the ONLY argument the right wingers can put up "If you elect someone we don't like there will huge danger" then that it is indicative to there point and we truly have nothing to fear I truly pray the President Obama gets in office for four more years, because the alternative I bare not even thinking about, this stuff is scary. The objections the right has against women's rights to abortion, free access to birth control and the right to have ultimate say over their lives and their reproductive capabilities is truly scary. This is just one example of the reality's we will face if the Republicans get in.
I have been raised by parents who believe in equality for all people and that the debates that are going on in the states at the moment have very little traction else were in the world.
This is just a general statement, not an agruement. I simply am saying that if President Obama gets re-elected, nothing "bad" will come of it, the republican alternative is something I think we should all dread thinking about.
While I don't think civil war is likely; I do agree we're a damn sight more polarized now then I ever remember in my life.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Poppabear wrote: These arguments are holy without merit, in any kind of fact, it is pure racism against President Obama, if a white democrat got in (ala Bill Clinton or equivalent). We would not here this kind of rhetoric.
Bro, they tried to impeach Clinton while claiming he was a rapist complicit in a cover-up murder. I don't think racism works as a sole factor here.
Ouze wrote: While I don't think civil war is likely; I do agree we're a damn sight more polarized now then I ever remember in my life.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Poppabear wrote: These arguments are holy without merit, in any kind of fact, it is pure racism against President Obama, if a white democrat got in (ala Bill Clinton or equivalent). We would not here this kind of rhetoric.
Bro, they tried to impeach Clinton while claiming he was a rapist complicit in a cover-up murder. I don't think racism works as a sole factor here.
The sole factor is that the Republicans are nuttier than a fruitcake... or fruitier than a nutcake which for some reason I like more...
I'm not saying the Democrats aren't crazy... they just hide it slightly better...
Seaward wrote: It wouldn't be any one issue, I don't think. It would be the general recognition that Reagan's old statement - more unites us than divides us - is no longer true.
It's not the issues anyway, though. It's the utter contempt each side has for the other, and the way in which our political system and our media force you into one of two competing camps.
But that's the thing, false media/political narratives about a culture war work only on the most superficial level. It's enough to get people to buy a bumper sticker saying how some other group of people are bad, or to get some people to turn up for a rally, and to get them to turn up to vote (most of them, anyway), but not much more than that.
That kind of myth really isn't enough to get many people out there killing their fellow citizens.
How much of it is actually a myth? I don't recall my fellow citizens being this vitriolic towards each other - not just on TV, mind you, but in daily interaction whenever politics comes up - in my lifetime. The politicians and the pundits have always gone for the throat, but when you've got people in line at the supermarket check-out going at each other...
Frazzled wrote: You have people going at it at the supermarket over politics? You people have too much time on your hands.
The worst I ever saw was a fight when some yankee brought something like 30 items to the '15 items or less' line then started to get uppity.
Saw two last week. First time in my life. Not actual fights, just shouting matches. First one, I was standing in line, trying to buy some goddamn Frosted Mini Wheats, and the dude in front of me was buying like an apple and a Campbell's soup-to-go thing. The cashier made some comment about it, the guy made some joke about times being hard, and then some jackass at the back of the line chimed in with, "That's why we need a permanent change in the White House, y'all." It was on from there. Cashier, who happened to be black, ended up getting called a welfare queen, the jackass at the back of the line was called a hillbilly racist, etc. etc. etc.
There still is no rebellion about to happen. Just a bunch of ignorant fearmongers who think that their inane ramblings actually represent the average person in the US.
Frazzled wrote: You have people going at it at the supermarket over politics? You people have too much time on your hands.
The worst I ever saw was a fight when some yankee brought something like 30 items to the '15 items or less' line then started to get uppity.
Saw two last week. First time in my life. Not actual fights, just shouting matches. First one, I was standing in line, trying to buy some goddamn Frosted Mini Wheats, and the dude in front of me was buying like an apple and a Campbell's soup-to-go thing. The cashier made some comment about it, the guy made some joke about times being hard, and then some jackass at the back of the line chimed in with, "That's why we need a permanent change in the White House, y'all." It was on from there. Cashier, who happened to be black, ended up getting called a welfare queen, the jackass at the back of the line was called a hillbilly racist, etc. etc. etc.
"Its times look those when you have to be extra careful" -Biblo Baggins "and start swinging a bat. Those bastards are holding up the line." -Frazzled.
Seaward wrote: First one, I was standing in line, trying to buy some goddamn Frosted Mini Wheats, and the dude in front of me was buying like an apple and a Campbell's soup-to-go thing. The cashier made some comment about it, the guy made some joke about times being hard, and then some jackass at the back of the line chimed in with, "That's why we need a permanent change in the White House, y'all." It was on from there. Cashier, who happened to be black, ended up getting called a welfare queen, the jackass at the back of the line was called a hillbilly racist, etc. etc. etc.
Man, where the F are you shopping. It sounds like a reality show.
Ouze wrote: While I don't think civil war is likely; I do agree we're a damn sight more polarized now then I ever remember in my life.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Poppabear wrote: These arguments are holy without merit, in any kind of fact, it is pure racism against President Obama, if a white democrat got in (ala Bill Clinton or equivalent). We would not here this kind of rhetoric.
Bro, they tried to impeach Clinton while claiming he was a rapist complicit in a cover-up murder. I don't think racism works as a sole factor here.
That was just an example, any other white democrat could have got in, hence the 'ala'. If a white presiedent was elected instead of Obama, this type of rhetoric would not be seen, we most likely would here other nonsense but that is besides the point.
All this stuff that is being said "If President Obama gets re-elected there will be HUGE problems" or "Another Civil War". This type of stuff is just insulting to basic human intelligence, and again, its just incompetent, compulsive racism. The people who make these claims are probaley the same people who stock pile guns getting ready for the one government "Turns on then".
Did you even read my entire post or just stop at the Bill Clinton example?
Poppabear wrote: . If a white presiedent was elected instead of Obama, this type of rhetoric would not be seen, we most likely would here other nonsense but that is besides the point. Did you even read my entire post or just stop at the Bill Clinton example?
Yes, there are bigots in this country. Sadly, I cannot deny that or change it.
To say that the vitriol spewed towards Obama on TV and other media by detractors is racially motivated is beyond silly, though. That shows how low your attitude towards the US is, I'm afraid.
I am seeing the EXACT same level of hatred towards Obama from the far right as we were seeing thrown at Bush towards the end of his first and second administrations from the far left.
The Obamacare rhetoric is of the same scale and magnitude as the Blood for Oil rhetoric.
Ouze wrote: While I don't think civil war is likely; I do agree we're a damn sight more polarized now then I ever remember in my life.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Poppabear wrote: These arguments are holy without merit, in any kind of fact, it is pure racism against President Obama, if a white democrat got in (ala Bill Clinton or equivalent). We would not here this kind of rhetoric.
Bro, they tried to impeach Clinton while claiming he was a rapist complicit in a cover-up murder. I don't think racism works as a sole factor here.
That was just an example, any other white democrat could have got in, hence the 'ala'. If a white presiedent was elected instead of Obama, this type of rhetoric would not be seen, we most likely would here other nonsense but that is besides the point.
All this stuff that is being said "If President Obama gets re-elected there will be HUGE problems" or "Another Civil War". This type of stuff is just insulting to basic human intelligence, and again, its just incompetent, compulsive racism. The people who make these claims are probaley the same people who stock pile guns getting ready for the one government "Turns on then".
Did you even read my entire post or just stop at the Bill Clinton example?
Bush was called a Nazi, frequently.
Reagan was called Nazi.
Johnson was called: Nazi, Communist (interesting that) and baby killer.
Nixon was called a baby killer.
Poppabear wrote: That was just an example, any other white democrat could have got in, hence the 'ala'. If a white presiedent was elected instead of Obama, this type of rhetoric would not be seen, we most likely would here other nonsense but that is besides the point.
All this stuff that is being said "If President Obama gets re-elected there will be HUGE problems" or "Another Civil War". This type of stuff is just insulting to basic human intelligence, and again, its just incompetent, compulsive racism. The people who make these claims are probaley the same people who stock pile guns getting ready for the one government "Turns on then".
Did you even read my entire post or just stop at the Bill Clinton example?
I stopped at the Bill Clinton example. That being said, I disagree with you. I think you give too much credit to the current parties to think if there were a white Democrat that the GOP would work reasonably with him (and likely, vice versa). I think the current strategy will remain, for the time being, to depersonalize, dehumanize, and then vote against and stall on every single thing done by the opposing party. They say water is wet, you get a unanimous referendum vote from your party saying you dry off with water after a shower. I think our political system has been veering into "stupid and ridiculous" at a heightened rate of speed, and racism simply is too logical an explanation.
I do agree with you that any sort of actual uprising is highly unlikely, for the same reason Shuma does: I think Americans are too complacent and will simply whine on the internet, no matter how bad it gets. I'm sorry to Godwin this thread, but I feel that in our modern age, we'd twitter all the way to the ovens.
I'm not sure it's the first one but Frazz beat you to Godwin by two posts if he was the first. So you don't have to apologize for proving the Godwin law.
Melissia wrote: There still is no rebellion about to happen. Just a bunch of ignorant fearmongers who think that their inane ramblings actually represent the average person in the US.
I think this applies equally well without assigning a party to the ignorant fear mongers. Polarization's just a game to distract the masses.
purplefood wrote: The sole factor is that the Republicans are nuttier than a fruitcake... or fruitier than a nutcake which for some reason I like more... I'm not saying the Democrats aren't crazy... they just hide it slightly better...
As I've said a few times, there's no shortage of nutters in either party, or in any other party around the world. What's unique about the Republicans is that so many of their nutters hold positions of leadership.
I mean, to catch a Democrat saying something truly odious you have to pick out an actress that was famous in the 80s for taking her clothes off, but to find something similar from a Republican you just interview a senate candidate.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: How much of it is actually a myth? I don't recall my fellow citizens being this vitriolic towards each other - not just on TV, mind you, but in daily interaction whenever politics comes up - in my lifetime. The politicians and the pundits have always gone for the throat, but when you've got people in line at the supermarket check-out going at each other...
All I'm saying is if you look at other countries where civil war has broken out you have conflict between factions where there is a massive divide in some place. There's a class divide that is so severe that people will turn to violence, or there's some clash of ideology that's so great that people are willing to kill for it.
I just can't see that in the US. For all the noise of a culture war, the actual difference in substance between the two parties is a couple of percent in taxes. No matter how impressively noisy the pundits are in ramping things up, you simply aren't going to get a meaningful number of people saying 'man that guy's plan will change my tax rate by 1% so I'm going to go blow up a Federal building.'
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: Saw two last week. First time in my life. Not actual fights, just shouting matches. First one, I was standing in line, trying to buy some goddamn Frosted Mini Wheats, and the dude in front of me was buying like an apple and a Campbell's soup-to-go thing. The cashier made some comment about it, the guy made some joke about times being hard, and then some jackass at the back of the line chimed in with, "That's why we need a permanent change in the White House, y'all." It was on from there. Cashier, who happened to be black, ended up getting called a welfare queen, the jackass at the back of the line was called a hillbilly racist, etc. etc. etc.
How dumb do you have to be to call someone a welfare queen while they are actually at work? The single piece of information the guy had about the cashier was that she worked, and he decided to attack her by saying she didn't work... that's a brain that just decided to stop receiving incoming information, isn't it?
/snark
