It's you that don't understand. That was "equality under the law." Not equality of economic outcome. France and other nations embrace ideas like equality of outcome. Americans have not, historically.
No I don't like dealing with people who are so deluded, that there is little basis for conversation. Also I don't like dealing with people that use ad hominems in their arguments; a tactic you employ quite often.
Heh. Such trenchant analysis. If you care to, see my link below, where a leftist is calling for Civil War. And I'm not calling for anything. Rather, I'm merely noting that things are headed in this direction.
I'm sure you really believe that the liberal city of Portland is spontaneously having liberal riots for no reason because that's what you've been told. If you really want to know why Portland is a battleground, it starts and ends with Joey Gibson.
So? Scenarios are just that, scenarios. It's like trade scenarios, sure we could trade for Butler or Kawhi or whoever, sure there's a path for it to happen, scenarios, doesn't mean it will. People talk about this stuff because it gets clicks and views. I don't think we are even close to being in a state of civil war.
ill take this opportunity to point out that you are on record saying that breitbart is the only legitimate source of news and that even fox is "leftist".
Um what? Origin of Thomas Jefferson's use of the phraseEdit Thomas Jefferson, through his friendship with Lafayette, was heavily influenced by French philosophers of the Age of Enlightenment, such as Voltaire, Rousseau and Montesquieu. In their often censored writings, those philosophers advocated that men were born free and equal. This later led to the French Revolution of 1789 and the concept of Human Rights (Droits de l'Homme in French). At the age of 33, Jefferson may have also borrowed the expression from an Italian friend, born in Prato, and neighbor, Philip Mazzei,[6] as noted by Joint Resolution 175 of the 103rd Congress as well as by John F. Kennedy in A Nation of Immigrants.[8][9] In 1776 the Second Continental Congress asked Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Robert Livingston, and Roger Sherman to write the Declaration of Independence. This Committee of Five voted to have Thomas Jefferson write the document. After Jefferson finished he gave the document to Franklin to proof. Franklin suggested minor changes, one of which stands out far more than the others: "We hold these truths to be sacred and un-deniable..." became "We hold these truths to be self-evident." The second paragraph of the United States Declaration of Independence starts as follows: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.-- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."[10] Stop with your obfuscation like you have any idea what they meant and nobody is advocating for equal of outcome. That's quite a strawman.
Interesting that when i was in school (Before the stupid mandatory test teaching), we had a conversation about who could defeat Russia or USA. The thing is that the only way either of those countries could be defeated was by implosion from within.... As you can see that did happen with Russia, only time will tell if it happens to America. T_Man
This stuff has been in the air forever it was the impetus of the OKC bombing and was the theme of the Turner Diaries.
I agree with this. The difference is that the "pioneers" of this movement have succeeded and there are about 10,000x as many hardcore adherents and many, many more sympathetic ears as there were in the early 90's. Mainstream conservatives used to categorically reject these whackos. Now, there are good people on both sides of the issue. NRA regularly talks about defending "liberty" with "blood". Alex Jones talks about exterminating liberals and did so at the 2016 RNC. In polls, Americans' confidence in the fundamental goodness of their fellow Americans is at all time lows. If you want to feel warm and fuzzy, check out "Free Helecopter Rides" at knowyourmeme, which is apparently a common enough phrase among the hard right that it warrants an entry.
"war" requires a defined 'Us versus Them". In the US there are as many shades of political opinion as there are people. You're an 'antivaxxer', I'm Medicare for all, does that mean we are going to shoot each other over gerrymandering? This thread is stoopid. Like when I was 10 and we figured we better get ready to have a gang fight with the kids from the other side of Main Street.
Don't really agree there are than many more people than in the early 90's. There was a huge militia movement in the 90's. You know with whole black helicopter scare.
They've gone further right. Social security and medicare predate modern conservatism and were well-accepted and appreciated government tools for decades once people saw they worked. It was only in the last half-century when conservatives' ideology moved so free-market that these safety net structures really became inconsistent with their beliefs. Likewise with Obamacare, which is a market-based solution. The Heritage Foundation concocted it in the 1990s, but they wouldn't have even considered it 20 years later. The right is moving further right and the only reason we don't see them move against some of these programs is because their geriatric voters rely on them too much.
Those kinds of movements not huge by actual numbers, they just make for easy entertainment and visceral responses. They are mostly astroturf by non-believers for political power and economic gain.
I wouldn't even deny this, but the Forward Observer takes this into account in his analysis. Most people don't fight in a war, even an "official" one. And, it doesn't take many people (relatively) to cause civil unrest. Also, as I have stated, this can be a very tense "cold" war, with no bullets or violence, but with internal strains and dissentions running high. I'd say we are there, in a national sense. I would say that these strains have been underway since the election of 1992. Not coincidentally, that was when the "original" cold war ended. And, the election of 1992 (for those here who remember it) was unusual in the nastiness it produced. That was because we could finally start looking inward instead of outward; which, as we can see, is not necessarily a good thing for national political unity. Also interesting, HRC was a lightning rod for criticism in that election; just as she was in 2016 (and remains). We've been a 50/50 nation since then. The election of 2000 drove that point home, and then some. Most people who are calling this thread "silly" are imagining a grand military conflict; but I tried to address that in my original post. In vain, it seems. To those who doubt, ask yourself this: do you recall a time when the nation's politics, and political unity, were as strained as they are today?
The national Guard shot college protesters in 1970, the KKK was lynching blacks and organizers , the Democratic National Convention devolved into riots, White college kids bombed Draft Offices, the Watt's Section of Los Angeles was burned to the ground, the Philadelphia police dropped a bomb on an occupied tenament in 1985 So, yeah, I've seen worse.
