Is Obama creating a civil war in America?

[ready4ONE 5,400]

  Otto und Karin said:

  Danno said:

You mean like the British "misunderestimated" the Terrorist of their day.. The Continental Army?

Technically I think they misunderestimated the French... but who's counting right?

It's not nice to pick on Danno's lack of historical knowledge when he is getting in a killer zinger alluding to his political positions being as clearly correct as the Colonist's back in the day who helped fight and win the Revolution against the King.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

  Mister_Bill said:

  Mr. Big Dog said:

  GabiandVi said:

This is a total stretch. He has been a terribly divisive force, but it's crazy to think that will lead to civil war.

Don't misunderestimate the ** terrorists.

What a great word!

Great Leaders create great words.

[Ban Hammer 13,965]

  ready4ONE said:

  Otto und Karin said:

  Danno said:

You mean like the British "misunderestimated" the Terrorist of their day.. The Continental Army?

Technically I think they misunderestimated the French... but who's counting right?

It's not nice to pick on Danno's lack of historical knowledge when he is getting in a killer zinger alluding to his political positions being as clearly correct as the Colonist's back in the day who helped fight and win the Revolution against the King.

actually, nothing wrong with his historical knowledge as the colonists didn't fight "fair" as per continent rules, instead using native american warfare tactics and refusing to fight in a line which was the standard of that era - which was a complaint by the british.

[john & jean 37]

so the colonists invented SWAT

[natty bumppo 297]

  john & jean said:

so the colonists invented SWAT

learned gorilla warfare from the indians ..

[Danno 1,228]

  Otto und Karin said:

  Danno said:

You mean like the British "misunderestimated" the Terrorist of their day.. The Continental Army?

Technically I think they misunderestimated the French... but who's counting right?

Technically, they ALSO misunderestimated the French.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Rogers' Rangers Standing Orders
By Major Robert Rogers, 1759

• Don't forget nothing.

• Have your musket clean as a whistle, hatchet scoured, sixty rounds powder and ball, and be ready to march at a minute's warning.

• When you're on the march, act the way you would if you was sneaking up on a deer. See the enemy first.

• Tell the truth about what you see and do. There is an army depending on us for correct information. You can lie all you please when you tell other folks about the Rangers, but don't never lie to a Ranger or officer.

• Don't never take a chance you don't have to.

• When we're on the march we march single file, far enough apart so one shot can't go through two men.

• If we strike swamps, or soft ground, we spread out abreast, so it's hard to track us.

• When we march, we keep moving till dark, so as to give the enemy the least possible chance at us.

• When we camp, half the party stays awake while the other half sleeps.

• If we take prisoners, we keep 'em separate til we have had time to examine them, so they can't cook up a story between 'em.

• Don't ever march home the same way. Take a different route so you won't be ambushed.

• No matter whether we travel in big parties or little ones, each party has to keep a scout 20 yards ahead, twenty yards on each flank and twenty yards in the rear, so the main body can't be surprised and wiped out.

• Every night you'll be told where to meet if surrounded by a superior force.

• Don't sit down to eat without posting sentries.

• Don't sleep beyond dawn. Dawn's when the French and Indians attack.

• Don't cross a river by a regular ford.

• If somebody's trailing you, make a circle, come back onto your own tracks, and ambush the folks that aim to ambush you.

• Don't stand up when the enemy's coming against you. Kneel down. Hide behind a tree.

• Let the enemy come till he's almost close enough to touch. Then let him have it and jump out and finish him up with your hatchet.

http://www.psywarrior.com/links.html

[mrsean 4]

no but the bush and cheaney crew sure started a real fxxxxkd up war thank him and our economy thanks again republicans!!

[mrsean 4]

  w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r said:

A Hollywood conservative has headed East. It's "Freedom Concert" time for Jon Voight. The Academy Award winner will join Sean Hannity in Cincinnati and Atlanta this weekend to honor fallen soldiers and present college scholarships to surviving children. Mr. Voight -- a warrior himself in many ways -- has been cogitating about the state of America, meanwhile.

"There's a real question at stake now. Is President Obama creating a civil war in our own country?" Mr. Voight tells Inside the Beltway.

"We are witnessing a slow, steady takeover of our true freedoms. We are becoming a socialist nation, and whoever can't see this is probably hoping it isn't true. If we permit Mr. Obama to take over all our industries, if we permit him to raise our taxes to support unconstitutional causes, then we will be in default. This great America will become a paralyzed nation."

Be outraged, Mr. Voight advises.

"Do not let the Obama administration fool you with all their cunning Alinsky methods. And if you don't know what that method is, I implore you to get the book 'Rules for Radicals,' by Saul Alinsky . Mr. Obama is very well trained in these methods," he continues, citing a television campaign critical of the Republican Party and contentious town-hall meetings about health care reform.

"The real truth is that the Obama administration is professional at bullying, as we have witnessed with ACORN at work during the presidential campaign. It seems to me they are sending down their bullies to create fist fights among average American citizens who don't want a government-run health care plan forced upon them," Mr. Voight says. "So I ask again. Is President Obama creating a civil war in our own country?"

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/a...68484451/print/

[justashooter 430]

  Otto und Karin said:

  Danno said:

You mean like the British "misunderestimated" the Terrorist of their day.. The Continental Army?

Technically I think they misunderestimated the French... but who's counting right?

IIRC, it was colonials that burgoyne surrendered to at albany.

his surrender is considered the end of the war by serious students of the conflict.

  Madame Cleo said:

Excellent.

America truly is barmy. Civil war when the elected process is still working? Loony tunes.

When you elect your representatives, you are supposed to know what policies they were elected on and support the implementation of these policies. This idea that a politician makes up the policies once they are in office just doesn't make sense. What you seem to want is a system of government that is able to flex every five minutes, not every 4 years as was envisaged. How anyone expects anything to get done under these terms is beyond me.

iirc, the civil war was about the results of the actions of elected representatives. the main issue was unreasonable taxation. the slavery issue was brought in halfway thru the war to increase the flow of money into the northern interest.

  rebeccajo said:

I think there is some very scary stuff going on out there - whether this could lead to 'civil war' might be a stretch.

When I see news reports of individuals carrying weapons to the perimeter of events, it does concern me as to what the mindset of people is turning too.

they are just reminding that free speech is protected by freedom to bear.

[scandal 951]

  justashooter said:

iirc, the civil war was about the results of the actions of elected representatives. the main issue was unreasonable taxation. the slavery issue was brought in halfway thru the war to increase the flow of money into the northern interest.

Balderdash. The proximate political cause was Lincoln's Republican victory in the election of 1860, and his campaign pledge to restrict slavery to those states which already had it, and prevent its spread to Kansas and other western territories. Southern states seceded into the confederacy in March 1861, and began hostilities at Fort Sumter in April 1861. Taxation was never suggested as a casus belli.

[Peikko 1,575]

  justashooter said:

  Otto und Karin said:

  Danno said:

You mean like the British "misunderestimated" the Terrorist of their day.. The Continental Army?

Technically I think they misunderestimated the French... but who's counting right?

IIRC, it was colonials that burgoyne surrendered to at albany.

his surrender is considered the end of the war by serious students of the conflict.

  Madame Cleo said:

Excellent.

America truly is barmy. Civil war when the elected process is still working? Loony tunes.

When you elect your representatives, you are supposed to know what policies they were elected on and support the implementation of these policies. This idea that a politician makes up the policies once they are in office just doesn't make sense. What you seem to want is a system of government that is able to flex every five minutes, not every 4 years as was envisaged. How anyone expects anything to get done under these terms is beyond me.

iirc, the civil war was about the results of the actions of elected representatives. the main issue was unreasonable taxation. the slavery issue was brought in halfway thru the war to increase the flow of money into the northern interest.

  rebeccajo said:

I think there is some very scary stuff going on out there - whether this could lead to 'civil war' might be a stretch.

When I see news reports of individuals carrying weapons to the perimeter of events, it does concern me as to what the mindset of people is turning too.

they are just reminding that free speech is protected by freedom to bear.

I think in your case it is more like freedom to beaver.

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

Thinking back to my political violence and revolution class I can certainly say that the US is not headed for civil war though some of the factors my be swirling around. The reason I say this is because people have to be really upset across the nation and I'm not saying pockets of unrest here and there it has to capture the entire nation. Think about how many people that is then think about how many people are still politically apathetic and unaffected. While there is a percentage of people that are unemployed there is also a large percentage of people that have jobs and are still living a comfortable life style. The US currently is also far too large to capture the attention of every American citizen. Maybe on a state level such as the riots that broke out in California in 1994 we might see civil unrest. This could certainly spill over boarders but I don't believe that it would spread further than this although there were reports during that time that there were pockets of riots as far as Seattle. This does not mean it was the entire nation in flames though. It's just far to big to meet the circumstances! There also has to be a flash point such as the ruling in the Rodney King case. Think again about how many people that angered. It affected only pockets around the nation not the entire nation. In my opinion from observation the dog in this case has a lot of bark but no bite.

To get to that point everyone has to be affected in a way that is depriving them and angering them. Nation wide hunger could do it. Hunger makes people irrational and angry. Would it last more than a few days though is the question.

[justashooter 430]

  scandal said:

  justashooter said:

iirc, the civil war was about the results of the actions of elected representatives. the main issue was unreasonable taxation. the slavery issue was brought in halfway thru the war to increase the flow of money into the northern interest.

Balderdash. The proximate political cause was Lincoln's Republican victory in the election of 1860, and his campaign pledge to restrict slavery to those states which already had it, and prevent its spread to Kansas and other western territories. Southern states seceded into the confederacy in March 1861, and began hostilities at Fort Sumter in April 1861. Taxation was never suggested as a casus belli.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/miller1.html

Why were business and political leaders in the North so intent on keeping the southern states in the Union? It was, to paraphrase Charles Dickens, solely a fiscal matter. The principal source of tax revenue for the federal government before the Civil War was a tariff on imports. There was no income tax, except for one declared unconstitutional after its enactment during the Civil War. Tariffs imposed by the federal government not only accounted for most of the federal budget, they also raised the price of imported goods to a level where the less-efficient manufacturers of the northeast could be competitive. The former Vice-President John C. Calhoun put it this way:

"The North had adopted a system of revenue and disbursements in which an undue proportion of the burden of taxation has been imposed upon the South, and an undue proportion of its proceeds appropriated to the North… the South, as the great exporting portion of the Union, has in reality paid vastly more than her due proportion of the revenue."

http://ngeorgia.com/history/why.html

Tariffs and the Nullification Crisis

As industry in the North expanded it looked towards southern markets, rich with cash from the lucrative agricultural business, to buy the North's manufactured goods. However, it was often cheaper for the South to purchase the goods abroad. In order to "protect" the northern industries Jackson slapped a tariff on many of the imported goods that could be manufactured in the North. When South Carolina passed the Ordinance of Nullification in November 1832, refusing to collect the tariff and threatening to withdraw from the Union, Jackson ordered federal troops to Charleston. A secession crisis was averted when Congress revised the Tariff of Abominations in February 1833.