I love war.

[RdClZn]

Having said that, even with the crack-downs and renewed repressions there was a long-term and irreversible effect driving social transformations and reforms but it was evolutionary and it took decades to materialise.

In the case of the post-ww2 USSR, the "concessions" where almost immediately revoked. The driving force for constitutional reforms was there even in the 30's, and it was the very reason for Stalin's purge. What happened later was the increase in the gulag population, together with an increasing enforcement of the laws still in force. His presence, actions and death were the true catalysts for change in the USSR, not the war.

[BTGBullseye]

China quite easily could... They have enough manpower to do an invasion.

 

A year ago I would have agreed. A year ago I was very uninformed.

 

The US navy, intelligence services, armed forces, and the sheer distance and natural barriers in the way would turn it into a disaster before it began.

You're putting a lot of faith in a group of individuals that you know very little about, and no faith whatsoever in a group that could walk an invading army to our shores over the dead they walk into the ocean.

 

As for a civil war, you would be surprised just how close we are to having one now, focusing around the current US government violating the constitution repeatedly, and not being held accountable.

 

This is a bullshit far-right delusion. The US government is not violating the Constitution.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ilyashapiro/2014/01/13/president-obamas-top-10-constitutional-violations-of-2013/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/sep/14/trashing-the-constitution/?page=all

http://mic.com/articles/52889/5-ways-your-constitutional-rights-are-being-violated

http://dailycaller.com/2010/12/27/the-top-10-violations-of-the-constitution-by-obama-and-the-111th-congress/

 

And a nice big hyperlinked list of violations and their stories.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/17716-a-legacy-of-violations-the-u-s-bill-of-rights-hyperlinked

 

Just a question, did you get these values drilled into you by teachers at your school?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeleef/2014/05/01/higher-education-has-a-strong-leftist-bias-but-not-enough-for-one-prof/

[RdClZn]

China quite easily could... They have enough manpower to do an invasion.

 

A year ago I would have agreed. A year ago I was very uninformed.

 

The US navy, intelligence services, armed forces, and the sheer distance and natural barriers in the way would turn it into a disaster before it began.

You're putting a lot of faith in a group of individuals that you know very little about, and no faith whatsoever in a group that could walk an invading army to our shores over the dead they walk into the ocean.

It's not faith. They simply don't have the technical capacity, nor the developed doctrine of large scale oversea invasion. Power projection is not a strong point of the PLA, nor one of its' intended aims.

[ThePest179]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ilyashapiro/2014/01/13/president-obamas-top-10-constitutional-violations-of-2013/

 

1. Not a violation.

2. Not a violation.

3. Not a violation.

4. Not a violation.

5. Not a violation.

6. Not a violation unless it's conclusively proved to be Obama's fault.

7. Not a violation.

8. Not a violation.

9. Is a violation of several court amendments if implemented, but I have no idea if it was or not.

10. Is not a violation.

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/sep/14/trashing-the-constitution/?page=all

 

War in Libya: Violation.

"Undermining the military": A complete lie and far-right accusation.

Abortion rights: Not a violation, and I don't even know if this happened.

Appointing "czars": Not a violation.

"Illegal recess appointments": Not a violation.

"Forced" Healthcare: If you believe this is a violation, then you might as well stop.

"Not enforcing laws": You're scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Fast and Furious scandal: A violation, but for much different reasons than presented. Just want to point out that this was a Bush era policy.

"Violation of voting rights": Another far-right lie.

EPA "Violations: Not a violation.

"Net Neutrality": I fail to see how this violates the First amendment. Not a violation.

Violating "State's Rights": Subjectively racist claim.

NLRB "Violations": More information necessary.

 

http://mic.com/articles/52889/5-ways-your-constitutional-rights-are-being-violated

 

1. Illegal without a doubt, but not a Constitutional violation.

2. Violation.

3. Not a violation.

4. Not a violation, and will most likely cease being an issue in several years.

5. Violation on state level, not a federal one.

 

Keep in mind that these come from the Bush era. Doesn't excuse its abuse by Obama, but was without a doubt abused similarly, if not worse than before Obama.

 

http://dailycaller.com/2010/12/27/the-top-10-violations-of-the-constitution-by-obama-and-the-111th-congress/

 

10. Bush era policy, and frankly given the context I don't care if it's a violation.

9. Not a violation (why is this even an issue?).

8. Not a violation.

7. Not a violation.

6. Not a violation.

5. Not a violation.

4. Bush era policy, but wasn't a violation either way.

3. Objectively racist claim.

2. Not a violation.

1. Not a violation.

 

And a nice big hyperlinked list of violations and their stories.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/17716-a-legacy-of-violations-the-u-s-bill-of-rights-hyperlinked

 

Which rarely corresponds to your other sources.

 

Just a question, did you get these values drilled into you by teachers at your school?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeleef/2014/05/01/higher-education-has-a-strong-leftist-bias-but-not-enough-for-one-prof/

 

Not at all, in fact my teachers have not "drilled" anything into me or my classmates. Your source for this is also very biased to the right.

 

Just a question, did you get your values drilled into you by your parents?

[BTGBullseye]

So you just got done saying that I was right that there are many violations of the US Constitution, and are saying that I'm still wrong simply because it's conservative sites that are the only ones reporting this information?

[ThePest179]

So you just got done saying that I was right that there are many violations of the US Constitution,

 

There were a total of two to four violations.

 

and are saying that I'm still wrong simply because it's conservative sites that are the only ones reporting this information?

 

90% of the supposed violations were (what a shock!) conservatives complaining about policies that they hate. For the other 10%, you were correct.

[BTGBullseye]

And yet again, that is exactly what you are saying. You don't like Conservative policies, so everyone who does is wrong.

 

I proved, and you acknowledged that the US government is repeatedly violating the US Constitution, (with no consequences) and yet you don't consider that to be a problem.

[ThePest179]

And yet again, that is exactly what you are saying. You don't like Conservative policies, so everyone who does is wrong.

 

When they claim 9 things out of ten are violations when they aren't, and then proceed to gloss over or ignore the ones that are (occasionally), my respect for them tends to decrease considerably.

 

I proved, and you acknowledged that the US government is repeatedly violating the US Constitution, (with no consequences) and yet you don't consider that to be a problem.

 

I consider this a serious problem, the reason I'm not really showing a serious reaction is that this has occurred since 2001, and is sadly unlikely to end.

 

Your claims of "civil war is imminent" are unfounded, however.

[BTGBullseye]

I never said "imminent" or anything similar... You're putting meaning to words where none was intended AGAIN.

 

I said that he would be surprised at how close we are, but it will take quite a bit to actually start it. Since the Republicans now have the Senate majority, and are trying to remove the federal 15-round limit on civilian firearm magazines, the tension may ease significantly.

[ThePest179]

I never said "imminent" or anything similar.

 

My mistake.

 

I said that he would be surprised at how close we are, but it will take quite a bit to actually start it.

 

That seems more rational than before. I still think that the actual possibility of it happening is about as likely as Indonesia becoming a Caliphate, though.

[BTGBullseye]

You're entitled to believe what you will... It still is something that is very possible to happen in the relatively near future.

[Vapymid]

Since the Republicans now ... are trying to remove the federal 15-round limit on civilian firearm magazines, the tension may ease significantly.

 

Excuse my ignorance here, please, but why would that be a factor?

 

Regards

[ThePest179]

Since the Republicans now ... are trying to remove the federal 15-round limit on civilian firearm magazines, the tension may ease significantly.

 

Excuse my ignorance here, please, but why would that be a factor?

 

Regards

 

The militia movement feels threatened by it, that's why. My guess is that BTG means "civil war", but reality is "crazy far right movements".

[BTGBullseye]

Excuse my ignorance here, please, but why would that be a factor?

Because it would allow people to put as many rounds in their handguns as the police and military, instead of limiting us to 15 rounds maximum. Besides, there will likely only be a few thousand individuals who will want to carry more than a 15 round mag, so it was a relatively pointless law to begin with.

 

The militia movement feels threatened by it, that's why. My guess is that BTG means "civil war", but reality is "crazy far right movements".

It's not a "far right movement" issue... It's a freedom issue. When people are free to carry as many rounds in their guns as they want, they feel safer. Criminals don't have limits, only law abiding citizens do. This doesn't open up automatic weapons for civilian use. (something that I personally feel is a good restriction at this time)

[ThePest179]

It's not a "far right movement" issue..

 

Yes, yes it is.

[BTGBullseye]

So you're saying that despite the fact that every single political orientation test there is, all of which I have taken, saying that I'm a moderate in almost every way, I'm actually just a member of the right wing extremists? Are you really that dense that you consider anything that isn't an extreme Liberal (the American version of Liberal) idea/policy to be part of the far right agenda?

[ThePest179]

So you're saying that despite the fact that every single political orientation test there is, all of which I have taken, saying that I'm a moderate in almost every way, I'm actually just a member of the right wing extremists?

 

The views you have expressed here indicates the opposite.

[BTGBullseye]

Your evaluation of the politicality of the views themselves is flawed.

[BTGBullseye]

Another set of violations of the laws of this country by members of the US government...

 

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/01/government-releases-documents-about-spying-just-time-christmas

[Rover]

I'm all for setting aside a large patch of barren dessert, getting all the war-cheerleaders in there, cordon it off and tell them to go nuts on each other and leave us non-psychopaths completely out of it. All the blood and spilled guts you crave and no dead innocent civilians, win win.

 

 

 

As for the "civil war is coming" narrative, that is a popular narrative among American gun-fondling far-right conservatives, it's connected the persecution narrative that somehow has managed to take root among US conservatives who are largely male, white, christian and heterosexual. I can't think of a demographic more dominant in America than that one. Yet some members of this group have experienced the loss of their ability to persecute and or discriminate against minority groups as a form of persecution.

It's amazing how some conservatives experience their inability to impose their beliefs on others (for example, the prohibition of same sex marriage) as inherently oppressive. "You're not allowing me to arbitrarily limit your life's choices, stop oppressing me!"

Therefore, the noises coming out of the far-right fever swamp are best ignored or mocked.

 

Edit: BTG, I'm not calling you a far-right nutjob, but I do think that is where the "we're close to civil war" narrative is coming from.

 

That being said, BTG has a point about the US Gov often just tossing the constitution aside when it becomes inconvenient, often however this is done with voter approval or at least without any kind of voter backlash. It goes back all the way to the alien and sedition acts of 1798, the sedition act of 1918 etc.

The war on terror and the war on drugs have been really rough on the 4th amendment for example, with large scale electronic eavesdropping programs and heavily armed cops busting down doors in the middle of the night over even the most minuscule amount of drugs. both Bush and Obama have been absolutely atrocious in this respect but voters have been largely apathetic about this. Make no mistake, Obama has continued and expanded many bush-era programs and has been down right orwellian in his administration's handling of whistle blowers. It is likely this trend will continue, people are alarmingly willing to toss their principles aside when they feel threatened.

 

But the whole "we're close to civil war" narrative only exists in the far-right fever swamps where it is believed Obama is a secret kenyan muslim communist nazi marxist from the socialist dimension who is using gay marriage and health insurance subsidies to usher in communist sharia law so he can put all the christians into fema sodomy-camps because he hates baby jesus and America just so much!

 

I'm exaggerating there, but only a little.