The Liberal Gun Club Forum

Several here have (and continue) to laugh at my assertion that the US will break up during my lifetime (I'm in my 40's). But politically our differences are changing from differences to hate and intolerance. Many are no longer willing to "live and let live", or co-exist with those who are of differing political philosophy. Here's one more example, of which we've seen many such examples in the past few years: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/liberals-south ... 57516.html

In America we no longer give any thought to what we all have in common anymore, we only think about our differences; and that's all we think about and talk about. This pervasive attitude IS breaking up the US. Not will, IS...but it's a very slow process. But this very slow process is a snowball, and will gain speed exponentially as it builds momentum, until the US errupts into either a peaceful breakup (not likely), general civil war or regional/local civil wars. THIS is why I have military style weapons at home. Not to use them against my government to take over my government (I love this country). But when my government falls, or is falling; there will come a time when lawlessness and rebellion will become open, and my family may need to fight against those who would force us to an ideology whether we like it or not. Like the old "conversion at the point of a sword".

Don't worry about it, FS, you're going to be raptured in 11 days and won't be here for it. All us non believers are gonna have to fight it out in the end times. Could you PM your address and the combo to your gun safe in case we need to borrow a few things?

I'm interested to read about what you think you can do to help the situation, because it's naive to think that only political differences are the issue. How do you reconcile your discriminatory religious beliefs to what you seem to be railing against in the political sphere? This is not a malicious prod, I'm genuinely interested in your perspective and how you mesh your contradictory beliefs into practice.

The most likely future street battles will probably resemble the early 1900s when robber barons did the kinds of things they're doing today. Which we survived. We also survived the 1960s and if there was ever a time when it looked like the country was unfolding, that may have been it, aside from the civil war. Which we survived. I myself wouldn't mind seeing something like a civil war against the right-wing jackasses who seem hellbent on driving this country into the ditch.

Oldskool wrote:The most likely future street battles will probably resemble the early 1900s when robber barons did the kinds of things they're doing today. Which we survived. We also survived the 1960s and if there was ever a time when it looked like the country was unfolding, that may have been it, aside from the civil war. Which we survived. I myself wouldn't mind seeing something like a civil war against the right-wing jackasses who seem hellbent on driving this country into the ditch.

1968 was truly a crack in time.

What would a modern Civil War look like? A bunch of apathetic, obese couch potatoes blasting away at each other for control of the last standing Hardee's? Color me unconvinced. The only danger of civil war in the near future is if Congress and the Supreme Court remove all restrictions on corporations assuming state power and Coke declares Jihad against Pepsi.

FS, you should check out Dmitry Orlov. Sounds up your alley.
http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/

"1968 was truly a crack in time."

As someone born in 1968, I resemble that remark.

FrontSight wrote: THIS is why I have military style weapons at home. Not to use them against my government to take over my government (I love this country). But when my government falls, or is falling; there will come a time when lawlessness and rebellion will become open, and my family may need to fight against those who would force us to an ideology whether we like it or not. Like the old "conversion at the point of a sword".

I agree.

Countries break up all the time. That's fine. If the South ever again decides to leave, they won't get any argument from me.

A country is merely a conglomeration of people who share a broad consensus on governance. When this consensus breaks down, there is no country.

Here's where my loyalties lie (lay?):

http://www.cascadianow.org/

I hope you are wrong about your your Synonyms! I don't really think that will happen but I guess anything is possible these days....

FrontSight wrote:Several here have (and continue) to laugh at my assertion that the US will break up during my lifetime (I'm in my 40's). But politically our differences are changing from differences to hate and intolerance. Many are no longer willing to "live and let live", or co-exist with those who are of differing political philosophy. Here's one more example, of which we've seen many such examples in the past few years: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/liberals-south ... 57516.html

In America we no longer give any thought to what we all have in common anymore, we only think about our differences; and that's all we think about and talk about. This pervasive attitude IS breaking up the US. Not will, IS...but it's a very slow process. But this very slow process is a snowball, and will gain speed exponentially as it builds momentum, until the US errupts into either a peaceful breakup (not likely), general civil war or regional/local civil wars. THIS is why I have military style weapons at home. Not to use them against my government to take over my government (I love this country). But when my government falls, or is falling; there will come a time when lawlessness and rebellion will become open, and my family may need to fight against those who would force us to an ideology whether we like it or not. Like the old "conversion at the point of a sword".

You can hardly take what's going on in Arizona as a yard stick for the rest of the country. I have a lot of family in Arizona so I've spent quite a bit of time down there. They have their own special breed of rethuglicunt idiot.

My uncle lives there, he's a retired Airforce Colonel and extremely conservative, yet he votes Democrat and has for years because he's come to the realization that many of the Democratic politicians are actually conservatives and that the Republican party is really fascist.

I tend to agree with you, FrontSight, although my focus is more on economic collapse driven by energy scarcity (a la Orlov) rather than break up.

True, breakup is a good bet to follow collapse, but at that point we won't much care whether we are part of one big dysfunctional political unit or several small ones.

Critics of Orlov often point out that, while the USSR did break up, the resulting countries are now more or less functional, they didn't go into a tailspin.

True in their case, but those countries (especially Russia and central asia) have relatively abundant energy and other resources that we don't have. And, Orlov points out they had several other advantages for surviving collapse relative to us, including a tradition of community and low-tech improvisation.

Anything can happen in this climate. With the Supreme Court and various Republican governors bought and paid for by Koch Industries running amok, the little guy getting squeezed harder and harder every day, and right wing talking heads on the radio, television and internet preaching their hate and fear about how we liberals are out to destroy this country, something will cause someone to snap. And when it finally happens, there will be a second Civil War. I just hope I have enough ammo to last.

I think that this might be a good thread to post this because Sam Smith sums up what has happened to liberalism in our country very well, interesting what he has to say about Nixon. http://prorev.com/libdead.htm

Who in 1975 would have thought that 'we' would witness the end of the Soviet Union? Who would have thought, during the 1984 Winter Olympics, that in a decade or so Yugoslavia would more or less cease to exist.

To think that the ties that bind our country together are stronger than its divisiveness, is in light of our collective experience, well, not dangerous but perhaps nearsighted.

The question really centers upon what 'we' are willing to endure to maintain the union.

rolandson wrote:Who in 1975 would have thought that 'we' would witness the end of the Soviet Union? Who would have thought, during the 1984 Winter Olympics, that in a decade or so Yugoslavia would more or less cease to exist.

To think that the ties that bind our country together are stronger than its divisiveness, is in light of our collective experience, well, not dangerous but perhaps nearsighted.

The question really centers upon what 'we' are willing to endure to maintain the union.

Here is my take on the situation. I am not denying that it is possible that the US may fragment, but here is why I think that the comparisons of the USSR and Yugoslavia are not apt. The Soviet Union was created out of the ruins of the Russian Empire which in and of itself were never really unified except for by the force of arms. The USSR's politburo, Stalin, and his successors simply took the place of the Tsars. The USSR was devastated by WWII but they moved on and began the arms race/Cold War which was a somewhat unifying factor. Once people understood that the country was hollowed out, they began to break away naturally and the national government was no longer able to stop them. Yugoslavia was a similar situation. A country cobbled together from different nationalistic groups. It was less than 100 years old when it collapsed just like the Soviet Union.

The United States, though cobbled together from different nationalities, shares a different history where people came from those places not to set up separate nation states but to become American. While we have had problems with race and identity there is still a sense of being American, though some people have always been trying to define the term by their own narrow set of characteristics. We are not Californians first or New Yorkers first (although some might feel that way), we are Americans. I am of Mexican heritage and much of the time I feel closer to my Mexican heritage than to the Anglo culture that is supposed to be American. The problem is that I feel that Mexicans, as well as Chinese, Blacks, Irish, Slavs, etc... had a big hand in building this nation too and rather than rejecting the cultures off hand, they should be acknowledged and the best parts should be incorporated into the national identity. But I digress.

The second thing that makes us different than the two comparisons is our wealth and development. Both of the comparison countries were basically countries without infrastructure, both personal and structural. The Soviet Union built on a massive scale, but not necessarily for the benefit nor at the direction of the people. They have massive natural resources, but the government kept those resources away from the people. I am not as familiar with Yugoslavia's financial history but I know that inthe 90s approximately 22% of the workforce was unemployed and 1.5 million had not been paid for a few months. Our unemployment is high right now, but government assistance is blunting the effects for many of the unemployed.

Again, that is not to say that it can't happen, but I think we are a long way from it and the differences though real and deep are often magnified beyond their actual significance.

eelj wrote:I think that this might be a good thread to post this because Sam Smith sums up what has happened to liberalism in our country very well, interesting what he has to say about Nixon. http://prorev.com/libdead.htm

That article pretty well sums up my point of view.

masonalannz wrote:Don't worry about it, FS, you're going to be raptured in 11 days and won't be here for it. All us non believers are gonna have to fight it out in the end times. Could you PM your address and the combo to your gun safe in case we need to borrow a few things?

I like your attitude, you get first pick of my collection when I’m taken up into the clouds.

AdAstra wrote:I'm interested to read about what you think you can do to help the situation, because it's naive to think that only political differences are the issue. How do you reconcile your discriminatory religious beliefs to what you seem to be railing against in the political sphere? This is not a malicious prod, I'm genuinely interested in your perspective and how you mesh your contradictory beliefs into practice.

You lost me there….

I wasn’t aware my beliefs are contradictory, can you elaborate on what you’re getting at?

Van wrote:I agree.

Countries break up all the time. That's fine. If the South ever again decides to leave, they won't get any argument from me.

A country is merely a conglomeration of people who share a broad consensus on governance. When this consensus breaks down, there is no country.

That's kinda what I was hinting at. My comments are semi-tongue in cheek, but clearly you get my gist.

FrontSight wrote:

AdAstra wrote:I'm interested to read about what you think you can do to help the situation, because it's naive to think that only political differences are the issue. How do you reconcile your discriminatory religious beliefs to what you seem to be railing against in the political sphere? This is not a malicious prod, I'm genuinely interested in your perspective and how you mesh your contradictory beliefs into practice.

You lost me there….

I wasn’t aware my beliefs are contradictory, can you elaborate on what you’re getting at?

I'm not surprised you're not aware of it, and that pretty much answered my question.

Caliman73 wrote:

rolandson wrote:Who in 1975 would have thought that 'we' would witness the end of the Soviet Union? Who would have thought, during the 1984 Winter Olympics, that in a decade or so Yugoslavia would more or less cease to exist.

To think that the ties that bind our country together are stronger than its divisiveness, is in light of our collective experience, well, not dangerous but perhaps nearsighted.

The question really centers upon what 'we' are willing to endure to maintain the union.

Here is my take on the situation. I am not denying that it is possible that the US may fragment, but here is why I think that the comparisons of the USSR and Yugoslavia are not apt. The Soviet Union was created out of the ruins of the Russian Empire which in and of itself were never really unified except for by the force of arms. The USSR's politburo, Stalin, and his successors simply took the place of the Tsars. The USSR was devastated by WWII but they moved on and began the arms race/Cold War which was a somewhat unifying factor. Once people understood that the country was hollowed out, they began to break away naturally and the national government was no longer able to stop them. Yugoslavia was a similar situation. A country cobbled together from different nationalistic groups. It was less than 100 years old when it collapsed just like the Soviet Union.

The United States, though cobbled together from different nationalities, shares a different history where people came from those places not to set up separate nation states but to become American. While we have had problems with race and identity there is still a sense of being American, though some people have always been trying to define the term by their own narrow set of characteristics. We are not Californians first or New Yorkers first (although some might feel that way), we are Americans. I am of Mexican heritage and much of the time I feel closer to my Mexican heritage than to the Anglo culture that is supposed to be American. The problem is that I feel that Mexicans, as well as Chinese, Blacks, Irish, Slavs, etc... had a big hand in building this nation too and rather than rejecting the cultures off hand, they should be acknowledged and the best parts should be incorporated into the national identity. But I digress.

The second thing that makes us different than the two comparisons is our wealth and development. Both of the comparison countries were basically countries without infrastructure, both personal and structural. The Soviet Union built on a massive scale, but not necessarily for the benefit nor at the direction of the people. They have massive natural resources, but the government kept those resources away from the people. I am not as familiar with Yugoslavia's financial history but I know that inthe 90s approximately 22% of the workforce was unemployed and 1.5 million had not been paid for a few months. Our unemployment is high right now, but government assistance is blunting the effects for many of the unemployed.

Again, that is not to say that it can't happen, but I think we are a long way from it and the differences though real and deep are often magnified beyond their actual significance.

Though Orlov's discussion is intriguing and raises comparisons that certainly catch one's attention, the question proffered was, again; who among those old enough to remember, envisioned the collapse of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact? It was not an attempt to equate them to our current social and political circumstance.

The notion that America will endure just because 'we are Americans' is ridiculous. Fewer than 150 years ago we proved that our union is fragile, breakable and only as strong as the military might of those intent upon maintaining some sense of collective political and economic control.

To most of the cultures that now inhabit America, 150 years is an extremely short period of time; it was just yesterday. The south still refers to the Civil War as "The War of Northern Aggression".

The idea that the Soviet Union would one day collapse was simply incomprehensible to a child of the 50's. It was equally incomprehensible to the political masters of the 80's. It came about as a complete surprise. It emphasizes that notion that 'there is no such thing as a sure thing'.

masonalannz wrote:Don't worry about it, FS, you're going to be raptured in 11 days and won't be here for it. All us non believers are gonna have to fight it out in the end times. Could you PM your address and the combo to your gun safe in case we need to borrow a few things?

LMFAO

FrontSight wrote:

Van wrote:I agree.

Countries break up all the time. That's fine. If the South ever again decides to leave, they won't get any argument from me.

A country is merely a conglomeration of people who share a broad consensus on governance. When this consensus breaks down, there is no country.

That's kinda what I was hinting at. My comments are semi-tongue in cheek, but clearly you get my gist.

Maybe it will be peaceful--like when Czechoslovakia split.

Van wrote:

FrontSight wrote:

Van wrote:I agree.

Countries break up all the time. That's fine. If the South ever again decides to leave, they won't get any argument from me.

A country is merely a conglomeration of people who share a broad consensus on governance. When this consensus breaks down, there is no country.

That's kinda what I was hinting at. My comments are semi-tongue in cheek, but clearly you get my gist.

Maybe it will be peaceful--like when Czechoslovakia split.

I honestly think we hate each other to much for something like that to happen.