It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A new American civil war

page: 14
57
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 05:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: Tartuffe

No animal may sleep in a bed, with sheets.

Everyone was so worried about Big Brother from 1984 that they completely forgot that Animal Farm is the playbook at hand and a much better story honestly. Took two years to be published too and was banned in the USSR, for reasons. Still banned in NK and heavily censored in Vietnam today. Banned from schools in UAE because of talking pigs, but that is a different issue.


The DPRK was started a few years after Animal Farm was first published. It is, like you said, as if they used it as the playbook.




posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 05:17 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

Are you sure abiut that? Amendments can be made to nullify any of the first 10.

But you are missing or ignoring the point. 99% is greater than 0.0001 so how is 0.0001 imposing themselves on 99.999% less tyrannical?



edit on 5-4-2019 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: sine.nomine

You make some really good points here sine


Phew, you can say that again!! I think the depth and breadth alone should be enough to give anybody second (and third, and fourth) thoughts

I suspect the "continuity of government" plan would go into effect, keeping the same power structure and command authority... although practical enforcement of that authority could be difficult at best depending on the scenario and how widespread insurrection/violence was

It seems that small unit tactics would be prevalent, with threat actors scattered around the country who were there to instill fear, harm the likely-strained economy and generally make a ruckus.

One thing is clear, the concept of hearts and minds would be all important. The side that started attacking unarmed populations, infrastructure or committing acts we generally call "terrorism" would have the bulk of the population against them, and it seems to me this would determine the winner in such a physical or "kinetic" scenario

The power vacuum would be incredibly dangerous, and the concept of rights as we know them would seem more like luxuries. I can only hope that those dedicated to preserving and defending the Constitution would so vastly outnumber those who do not that justice and "goodness" itself would win the day.

I am glad we agree the situation is almost unthinkable. But in light of the last 2 years, I no longer believe we have the luxury of not thinking about it and at least preparing to defend ourselves, our communities and our way of life in case of X

And you are very right, it is a damn shame the discussion is even happening (and more importantly taken seriously). Just a few years ago, this topic would've been dismissed outright as impossible and the fact it no longer is seen that way shows just how far downhill we've gone in such a short period of time

I worry for the future of our nation, and truly hope a solution that doesn't involve open warfare arises. And it could! make no mistake it could be resolved peacefully. But in doing so, everyone has to understand you don't always get everything (or anything) that you want. And when such a conflict does arise, we would have to agree that preserving the Constitution and constitutional order is paramount over the divisive wedge-issue of the day or the subject of whoever's latest outrage. If that seems like a tall order that's because it is!

Maybe I'm wrong and maybe the belligerents in this conflict actually care enough about our country and the Constitution to simply agree to disagree and leave each other alone! To stop pushing their own personal beliefs on others who don't agree with those beliefs through the legislature/courts and to stop attacking folks in public merely for disagreeing with what they're saying (AKA their own opinions)

We can hope, pray and keep our eyes open



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: JBurns

Are you sure abiut that? Amendments can be made to nullify any of the first 10.

But you are missing or ignoring the point. 99% is greater than 0.0001 so how is 0.0001 imposing themselves on 99.999% less tyrannical?




I am absolutely, 100% certain that any attempt to nullify the bill of rights (in whole or in part) would result in a hot civil war. And rightfully so. The bill of rights exists as a bulwark against government tyranny, and efforts to nullify it in whole or in part would be seen (rightfully) as an act of utmost aggression and violence and responded to in kind.

*Could* it be? Technically, it may be possible. Although no one has ever attempted it (for obvious reasons). I suspect our SCOTUS would step in long before that, however.

I do not believe overt acts of violence are justified in *almost* any scenario. Attempting to nullify the bill of rights, however, can only be interpreted by Americans in one way: hostile, dangerous and malicious.



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

You keep missing the point. Civil war is one group imposing themselves on another. Representatives voting in laws that not everyone agrees with is one group imposing themselves on others.

The FF of the US. Starting a revolution that more than 1% didn't want is tyranny, according to the argumenr you made earlier. I'm just pointing out how hyperbolic that strawman was.



edit on 5-4-2019 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 05:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: JBurns

You keep missing the point. Civil war is one group imposing themselves on another. Representatives voting in laws that not everyone agrees with is one group imposing themselves on others.

The FF of the US. Starting a revolution that more than 1% didn't want is tyranny, according to the argumenr you made earlier. I'm just pointing out how hyperbolic that strawman was.




Just to be picky, but a civil war is a war between groups within the same country.



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Tartuffe

Not sure what your point is?



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 05:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Tartuffe

Not sure what your point is?


Just the point that your definition of civil war is wrong.



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

I think the point is situational awareness. Always know if surrounded by a faction in a new American Civil War if you should hug a tree or pee on a tree.



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns
You are 100% correct and agree with you whole heartedly. Now how to deal with it since these morons who support this have almost 75% of the media backing them. Im angry as hell but what to do? Voting seems to not be the answer as when the American people have decided the Marxist/Democrats whine , yell, and make stuff up and their journalist minions promote it. Joseph Gobbels once said" tell a lie long enough and it becomes the truth.

How can we fight this when the universities are infiltrated by Bill Ayers and Saul Alinsky Commie professors. This is just all out of hand. McCarthy was correct in the 1950's and should have taken half of Hollywood and banished them to the USSR.

An information battle seems hopeless. I am really afraid if these morons get into office in greater numbers it will become what our founders said could happen, armed protest. This is why the second amendment must stand so we can protect the first amendment and the very Constitution itself.



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Tartuffe

Where did I define civil war?



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 06:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Tartuffe

Where did I define civil war?



"You keep missing the point. Civil war is one group imposing themselves on another."



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 06:12 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Nobody wins except maybe the dead. Would there ever be peace after such a war/revolution?



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 06:16 PM
link   
The irony is that the true war is between the citizens and the unelected government. And here we are...



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Tartuffe

That isnt my definition.

Even you said it is a war between groups within a same country.

Are you saying that groups within the same country can't impose their will on other groups?

Still not sure what your point is.



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 06:20 PM
link   
Just stumbled across a recent article in Washington Post


At a moment when the country has never seemed angrier, two political commentators from opposite sides of the divide concurred recently on one point that was once nearly unthinkable: The country is on the verge of “civil war.”

First came former U.S. attorney Joseph diGenova, a Fox News regular and ally of President Trump’s. “We are in a civil war,” he said. “The suggestion that there’s ever going to be civil discourse in this country for the foreseeable future is over. . . . It’s going to be total war.”



The next day, Nicolle Wallace, a former Republican operative turned MSNBC commentator and Trump critic, played a clip of di­Genova’s commentary on her show and agreed with him — although she placed the blame squarely on the president.


Those who try to frame this as something it is not (a result of racism, for instance) are doing so in anticipation of providing cover for their own. The concept of hearts and minds is real, and it is likely the media would divide along existing faction lines in an effort to spin these events to fit their specific allegiances and narrative

It wouldn't be a bad time to reaffirm commitment to the Constitution and defending it from all who threaten it. The Constitution is our birth right, and the duty of every American to uphold, preserve & defend it to the best of their ability

www.washingtonpost.com... 0257b_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.56f2d0c09e9f



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

They can - however, one group seeks to uphold the Constitution and one seeks to limit the rights of the other, nullify the bill of rights and attack our very way of life. The ideals that created this nation are under attack (along with all who defend those ideals) by those who are self-avowed socialists/communists that seek to "fundamentally transform" and alter this country

They find the idea of a Constitutionally limited Republic unpalatable because that means they don't have free reign to do whatever they like. A good example is with firearms, or free speech/religion. These ideals are objectively right, and individuals/groups standing against them are not on the right side of history nor are they on the side of the US Constitution



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

It still worse than your. 99% imposing themselves on 1% is tyranny claim.



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ansuzrune
a reply to: JBurns
You are 100% correct and agree with you whole heartedly. Now how to deal with it since these morons who support this have almost 75% of the media backing them. Im angry as hell but what to do? Voting seems to not be the answer as when the American people have decided the Marxist/Democrats whine , yell, and make stuff up and their journalist minions promote it. Joseph Gobbels once said" tell a lie long enough and it becomes the truth.

How can we fight this when the universities are infiltrated by Bill Ayers and Saul Alinsky Commie professors. This is just all out of hand. McCarthy was correct in the 1950's and should have taken half of Hollywood and banished them to the USSR.

An information battle seems hopeless. I am really afraid if these morons get into office in greater numbers it will become what our founders said could happen, armed protest. This is why the second amendment must stand so we can protect the first amendment and the very Constitution itself.


Ansuzrune thanks for your reply

McCarthy was indeed spot on, he and others recognized the genuine threat subversive organizations post to the post-war peace. As we've always been warned, those who despise what we've built will work to destroy, subvert or delegitimize it. And I think the unexpected election of Trump in 2016 forced them to move up their time table and start before they were ready

In my opinion only, this is why such organizations have no place in American politics/society. Yes, some of what they say is protected free speech. Importantly, however is noting that their stated objectives (socialism or communism) is expressly unconstitutional and represents the goal of overthrowing the US order and installing a puppet unlawful regime in its place


An information battle seems hopeless. I am really afraid if these morons get into office in greater numbers it will become what our founders said could happen, armed protest. This is why the second amendment must stand so we can protect the first amendment and the very Constitution itself.


You are right about that buddy
Although maintaining a presence in information-land is very important. However, it can be as simple as being on forums/comments/blogs and providing factual rebuttals to socialist talking points and pointing out misrepresentations of fact. They thrive on subterfuge, obfuscation and deception, and of course the enemy of those things is the spotlight of truth and awareness

But I too fear this will be insufficient. If (and with the hordes of ideologically brainwashed college students being churned out) it is only a matter of time before our rights are subverted through the very process and institutions designed to uphold them. However, as our declaration of independence notes:


When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

2.1 We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

2.2 That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

2.3 Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

2.4 But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.


Realistically, it is foolish to think we will ever be stronger as a unified force standing behind the Constitution-as-written than we are in the here and now

The fact socialism/communism is indeed illegal under Article 4 Section 4 of the Constitution serves as a casus belli for drawing a line in the sand.



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

No, I'm saying your claim that "civil war is one group imposing themselves on another" is wrong. That's it.



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join