Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Blacksails wrote:
Can you please fix your Republican party?

-Signed, your neighbour to the north.

Its not the republicans packing machetes to go "protest."
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/08/26/4758754/man-with-machete-arrested-at-convention.html

 Jihadin wrote:

A civil war would take a lot of effort. Fat people don't have revolutions. America won't revolt.

If it does happen. Won't take much effort to round them up

Diabeties is a great way to keep a population loyal.

Diabeties is a great way to keep a population loyal.

Why I stay physicaly fit....I hate needles

The only thing that really allowed the US to strongly form the two factions was the slow travel of information coupled with a low population. Most just did what their neighbors did, and their were two main cultural belief systems.

--And before anyone says it, slaves weren't the main cause of the ACW- it was State's Rights. People in the North had slaves, even during the war, and even President Lincoln intended the slaves to be freed- but not made free Americans. They would be shipped out of the country, because he believed that while all men should be equal, the two races "weren't fit to live next to each other for all the trouble it would bring".

The point being that the war was about the fact that many southern states didn't like that DC was a place "so far away" and was still dictating their way of life. "So far away" demonstrating the travel of information back then, as to many states that huge distance was a couple of hundred miles- less than I drove on one half of my Honeymoon from Michigan to Kentucky.

The media and it's speed of spreading information would have one house on a street fighting the other rather than a civil war. And that's not a civil war, that's just social anarchy.

--And before anyone says it, slaves weren't the main cause of the ACW- it was State's Rights. People in the North had slaves, even during the war, and even President Lincoln intended the slaves to be freed- but not made free Americans. They would be shipped out of the country, because he believed that while all men should be equal, the two races "weren't fit to live next to each other for all the trouble it would bring".

That's... Pretty revisionist history right there.

 Blacksails wrote:
Can you please fix your Republican party?

-Signed, your neighbour to the north.

Sure... when will both parties stop moving to the extremes.

 sebster wrote:
The last civil war was over an issue of immense importance, a moral conviction that man should not hold man in slavery, and against that was people's livelihoods, a fear of what freed slaves might unleash, and an outrage that people in some other part of the country might dictate laws on a state issue such as slavery.

That's the kind of thing people go to war over. Real, big, important stuff.

Compare that to the current range of key issues, most of which are things people like to think of as very important indeed, but are fairly minor, or downright irrelevant to how people live their lives. I mean yes, the deficit is a big deal, but only a handful of nutters are going to risk their lives over it. A strong safety net is important to people, but I can't see many people leaving their families to take up arms over preserving it.

All we're seeing is people responding to the culture war nonsense that the political parties are using to drive voting among their bases voters, and failing to put that in a sensible context.

sebster... slavery was certainly one of the things fought for during the civil war and in it's conclusion.

But, what started it were the unfair tarifs imposed onto the southern economy (the North muddling with the South)... the south were kicking arse in the global economy at that time (tobacco, cotton, sugar, etc...). THATS what started the war... then, once started everyone brought their greviences to the table.

What's sad is that it took the bloodiest war in American history to address slavery.

That's... Pretty revisionist history right there.

Just repeating- not a believer.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

--And before anyone says it, slaves weren't the main cause of the ACW- it was State's Rights. People in the North had slaves, even during the war, and even President Lincoln intended the slaves to be freed- but not made free Americans. They would be shipped out of the country, because he believed that while all men should be equal, the two races "weren't fit to live next to each other for all the trouble it would bring".

That's... Pretty revisionist history right there.

I'm with Shuma...

Whaaat?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Can you please fix your Republican party?

-Signed, your neighbour to the north.

Its not the republicans packing machetes to go "protest."
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/08/26/4758754/man-with-machete-arrested-at-convention.html

Right... how many crimes occured during OWS? Loads...

How many during the Tea Party (juxaposing "groups")... still waiting....

 whembly wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Can you please fix your Republican party?

-Signed, your neighbour to the north.

Sure... when will both parties stop moving to the extremes.

Do people outside of Fox News actually swallow this? I fail to see how the Democrats are "extreme", unless there are calls for the nationalisation of industry that i'm not aware of.

Well there certainly was the crime of bad fashion at the tea party rally I saw.

 Frazzled wrote:
Well there certainly was the crime of bad fashion at the tea party rally I saw.

*snort... yeah...totally unacceptable...

For any of you fine folks that live near BC and a civil war does hit America, i found a store on the island that i/ you can legally buy a .50 BMG at and various other fun items such as a Russian HKS that just got shipped from the Kremlin and has not being used since at least WWII

 Testify wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Can you please fix your Republican party?

-Signed, your neighbour to the north.

Sure... when will both parties stop moving to the extremes.

Do people outside of Fox News actually swallow this? I fail to see how the Democrats are "extreme", unless there are calls for the nationalisation of industry that i'm not aware of.

*sigh* I don't watch news shows... they're boring, so stop with this "Fox News" is the anti-christ mantra.

Back on topic. The political groups (R) and (D) are getting more and more extreme. Look in this link and scroll down to the bottom page for the animated gif:
http://voteview.com/Clinton_and_Obama.htm
You'll see that the (D) and (R) are 'moving' away from each other... as in, getting more extreme. This was done in '08 and I'm sure it's even more extreme now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tazz Azrael wrote:
For any of you fine folks that live near BC and a civil war does hit America, i found a store on the island that i/ you can legally buy a .50 BMG at and various other fun items such as a Russian HKS that just got shipped from the Kremlin and has not being used since at least WWII

You can legally buy it now methinks... just need a class3 license and for the gun to be made prior some some year (1985?).

Sure... when will both parties stop moving to the extremes.

The democrats are less left now than they were in the 80s or 90s on virtually every party platform outside of gay marriage. The republicans have drifted farther and farther right this last decade, both parties have not been drifting away from the center. The republicans are as sharply conservative and distilled as they have ever been in the history of the country.

All parties change platforms and voter bases over time, but the right has shifted strongly, first with the united christian coalition and now with the populist tea party deficit struggle. Both movements pulled the party towards conflicting social conservative and libertarian fringes and the dual failed wars and inability to waffle on defense have pulled them in a third direction beyond their voter base.

You can't have christian and libertarian policies while being strong on defense during foreign wars, yet conservatives are hardcore about all three. The democrats have been "happy" trying to maintain status quo or return to clinton policies (healthcare reform was a failed clinton policy).

 whembly wrote:

*sigh* I don't watch news shows... they're boring, so stop with this "Fox News" is the anti-christ mantra.

Back on topic. The political groups (R) and (D) are getting more and more extreme. Look in this link and scroll down to the bottom page for the animated gif:
http://voteview.com/Clinton_and_Obama.htm
You'll see that the (D) and (R) are 'moving' away from each other... as in, getting more extreme. This was done in '08 and I'm sure it's even more extreme now.

You mean if you define past politics according to modern standards, the closer to the present you get the more well definied peoples' opinions get? Well blow me down.

Here's political compass' take. The '08 election:


and '12:


From a historically neutral standpoint, they've actually gotten closer together.

Speaking of Libertarianism, I just read "Civil Disobedience", the Essay that it is largely based on. It is just about encouraging Anarchy, and 90% of it is utterly ridiculous. Makes me see just how crazy the Libertarian party is...

 GalacticDefender wrote:
Speaking of Libertarianism, I just read "Civil Disobedience", the Essay that it is largely based on. It is just about encouraging Anarchy, and 90% of it is utterly ridiculous. Makes me see just how crazy the Libertarian party is...

I'm pretty sure modern libertarianism is based on a poorly understood direct analogue of whatever the hell atlas shrugged was about.

Both parties largely just cater to whichever viewpoint will get them the most votes. they go extreme when it suits them if they think it will put the other side in a bad light.

I always thought if both parties expended less of an effort making the other look bad with mud-slinging and spent time just improving what they claim to support, the country would be stronger.

Shuma and Testify... I'm talking "relative" from where they're were at traditionally to now.

And party platforms are generally worthless when determining where they're at on the political scale... sure, they'll give you a ballpark on where they stand.

The link I posted are actual voting records for both the House and Senate.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Both parties largely just cater to whichever viewpoint will get them the most votes. they go extreme when it suits them if they think it will put the other side in a bad light.

I always thought if both parties expended less of an effort making the other look bad with mud-slinging and spent time just improving what they claim to support, the country would be stronger.

Now that is the truth...

 whembly wrote:
Shuma and Testify... I'm talking "relative" from where they're were at traditionally to now.

And party platforms are generally worthless when determining where they're at on the political scale... sure, they'll give you a ballpark on where they stand.

The link I posted are actual voting records for both the House and Senate.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Both parties largely just cater to whichever viewpoint will get them the most votes. they go extreme when it suits them if they think it will put the other side in a bad light.

I always thought if both parties expended less of an effort making the other look bad with mud-slinging and spent time just improving what they claim to support, the country would be stronger.

Now that is the truth...

The link you gave uses some pretty strange standards for measuring political leanings in vote and modern voting records are a reflection of party consolidation and retaliation on topics more than they are representative of the senators views. I'd be quicker to check state and local politics than I would national. The white house hasn't functioned well as a representative voting body since fox took the media back into the yellow zone. The majority of party politics are done on a state level.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Shuma and Testify... I'm talking "relative" from where they're were at traditionally to now.

And party platforms are generally worthless when determining where they're at on the political scale... sure, they'll give you a ballpark on where they stand.

The link I posted are actual voting records for both the House and Senate.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Both parties largely just cater to whichever viewpoint will get them the most votes. they go extreme when it suits them if they think it will put the other side in a bad light.

I always thought if both parties expended less of an effort making the other look bad with mud-slinging and spent time just improving what they claim to support, the country would be stronger.

Now that is the truth...

The link you gave uses some pretty strange standards for measuring political leanings in vote and modern voting records are a reflection of party consolidation and retaliation on topics more than they are representative of the senators views. I'd be quicker to check state and local politics than I would national. The white house hasn't functioned well as a representative voting body since fox took the media back into the yellow zone. The majority of party politics are done on a state level.

Right Shuma... notice the TREND. My point wasn't so much that of the politician's so called political leanings... but, more of WHAT they did during their tenure... Because, ultimately, what they did in congress is what impacted American lives.

I just took the test... figures...

Not sure what dat makes me? Hey Frazzle... would you still take me in your Republic of Weiners? (dang... dakka split my post up... wierd)

OMG

yea, really? Civil war was only a reality when a gigantic civil infrastructure was not yet created


for christ's sake, anyone one in the US trying to start a civil war would die in a matter of days


there is no way in hell, there will be civil uprisings, but no fething civil wars

 DIDM wrote:
OMG

yea, really? Civil war was only a reality when a gigantic civil infrastructure was not yet created


for christ's sake, anyone one in the US trying to start a civil war would die in a matter of days


there is no way in hell, there will be civil uprisings, but no fething civil wars

You seem pretty passionate.

Is your contention that a modern first-world country cannot have a civil war?

Why are people still talking about this.

Remember the "Global Financial Crisis" and how the States was meant to crumble and and break out into civil war because millions of people would lose their jobs and what not . . . did that happen, NO!

This won't happen either, you know why? America's silly government won't let it happen, most Americans are to damn dependent on the Government, Social Welfare, Obamacare and what not to start shooting each other.

There is no chance that civil war or anything on a big level will happen.

Hypothetically if it did though (with everyone and their dog owning a gun over there) be an interesting show to watch wouldn't?

 ShumaGorath wrote:
It also doesn't help that there aren't clear territorial lines separating belief systems in the modern US. You can't organize a front when every street corner battles every other. The closest you could have are sectarian power struggles.

True. It'd be more like, say Germany during the Weimar Republic, open street battles. Of course, they had street battles between Nazis and Socialists. You'd be having street battles between pro-business centrists who have a side wing of liberal progressives, and pro-business right wingers who have a side wing of conservative Christians.

It's all just two nutty, but I think that there's two US servicemen who post on this forum talking about the USA collapsing or disolving into civil war as a real thing that's going to happen soon is interesting. And very sad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
--And before anyone says it, slaves weren't the main cause of the ACW- it was State's Rights. People in the North had slaves, even during the war, and even President Lincoln intended the slaves to be freed- but not made free Americans. They would be shipped out of the country, because he believed that while all men should be equal, the two races "weren't fit to live next to each other for all the trouble it would bring".

I really, really can't be bothered going in to all this again, and now wish I hadn't made the analogy to the US civil war and gone with Weimar Germany or Tsarist Russia.

But just no. Absolutely fething no. The state's rights thing is just wrong. Absolute fiction made up by people who didn't like to admit they started a war to protect an ugly economic/social system. The state's rights thing just makes no sense if you read the Confederate Constitution - if the goal had been free states then they would have put in place a constitution that said 'every state is free to have slaves if it wants to', instead they put in a clause that states 'no state can outlaw slavery'.

Nor does state's rights make any sense when you look at the actions of the Southern States in the lead up to war - they attempted to pass laws restricting non-slave states from acting as they pleased, and allowing slaves to be free men.

I mean, yeah, the situation was very complex and a lot of things were at play but it all boils down to one basic dividing point - the North was increasingly moving towards being a nation in which the idea of one person owning another was morally unacceptable, and the South held a social and economic structure dependant on on the ownership of slaves.

Also, I have never seen your quote before and when I type it into google the only site google returns is dakka, showing your quote. Which I have never seen happen before, so kudos for typing something that has never been entered into the internet anywhere before. Do you have another copy of the quote, or a source, because I'd like to look it up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
sebster... slavery was certainly one of the things fought for during the civil war and in it's conclusion.

But, what started it were the unfair tarifs imposed onto the southern economy (the North muddling with the South)... the south were kicking arse in the global economy at that time (tobacco, cotton, sugar, etc...). THATS what started the war... then, once started everyone brought their greviences to the table.

That's not true. If we really have to get into this on dakka again, the South had dominated politics for some time. Lincoln was the first president to win the Presidency without any success in the South. This in large part was because while the South was very wealthy on the back of cotton trade, much of this wealth was centred at the top, and so there was little population swell beneath that. The country's politics was increasingly coming to be dominated by the growing North.

It didn't take a genius to figure what was going to happen when an increasingly politically powerful North was increasingly opposed to slavery, and that was a grave fear in the South. Hence the walkout in the Democratic Convention in 1860 by the Southern members over, guess what, slavery.

Hence the Southern Democratic party putting up their own candidate, Breckinridge, who differed from the Democratic nomination, Douglas, on one issue - slavery (Douglas was actually a moderate on slavery and felt it should be left to state's rights - this was wildly unacceptable to the Southern Democrats). In the main election Breckinridge won a fraction of the vote Douglas won, but won a lot more electoral votes because his votes were focussed entirely in the South, where he picked up every state. His win there was helped in no small part by a yellow journalism campaign in the South that Lincoln was going to free the slaves. Lincoln won the election without carrying a single slave holding state.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Bloodfrenzy187 wrote:
If gak hits the fan all of the dakkites should form a colony and wargame while all of the other maniacs blow themselves up and get shot.

Frazzled is not concerned. Frazzled will just declare the Republic of Greater Texas. All enlightened self interested individuals will naturally flock to the banner of the Great Wienie. Soon the states will fall in line and Greater Texas will be born!

Its kinda funny because I wrote in my short story that there would emerge an American Nation ruled by Texans. Because all Texans are superior to everyone else in the united states. Most because of the accents. I am sorry but I gave in!

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Bloodfrenzy187 wrote:
If gak hits the fan all of the dakkites should form a colony and wargame while all of the other maniacs blow themselves up and get shot.

Frazzled is not concerned. Frazzled will just declare the Republic of Greater Texas. All enlightened self interested individuals will naturally flock to the banner of the Great Wienie. Soon the states will fall in line and Greater Texas will be born!

Its kinda funny because I wrote in my short story that there would emerge an American Nation ruled by Texans. Because all Texans are superior to everyone else in the united states. Most because of the accents. I am sorry but I gave in!

Its de wimminz.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-YHPwCmt74

 whembly wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

--And before anyone says it, slaves weren't the main cause of the ACW- it was State's Rights. People in the North had slaves, even during the war, and even President Lincoln intended the slaves to be freed- but not made free Americans. They would be shipped out of the country, because he believed that while all men should be equal, the two races "weren't fit to live next to each other for all the trouble it would bring".

That's... Pretty revisionist history right there.

I'm with Shuma...

Whaaat?

As am I. I hear the argument all the time, but usually from racists. Slavery was in fact a huge issue and one of the main causes of the civil war.

 Ahtman wrote:
Thinking the world (or the country) is coming to an end is an American tradition. We, as a people, tend toward paranoia more then many others in this regard.

This is the correct answer.

An asteroid impact in the next 5-10 years is more likely than a real civil war.