Can We Prevent a Second Civil War? (FYI)

[Lex Armarum]

Wow.

I'm just ribbing you guys...

Nonetheless, I can't support Ron Paul if there is a better alternative. Ron Paul has some good ideas but the country and the world is not ready for them. Maybe when his son is ready to run, it will be. In the meantime, we need a candidate to slow the train and put it on the right track. If we make too sudden a stop (immediate application of Ron Paul's philosophy) we risk disaster despite our good intentions.

Sarah Palin is a good intermediary with good values; and, NO, she's not stupid as some would have you believe. I do not know why so-called conservatives and republicans buy into that media meme so easily and readily.

 

[GNLaFrance]

If we make too sudden a stop (immediate application of Ron Paul's philosophy) we risk disaster despite our good intentions.

Agreed.

NO, she's not stupid as some would have you believe. I do not know why so-called conservatives and republicans buy into that media meme so easily and readily.

I wonder myself. I don't like this notion, but I suspect there may be some misogyny at the base of it.

 

[StanleyG]

Kinda hard to do when we dont have people with the 32lb brass cojones like Putin. He's the reason why Russia is not a broken country with constant in-fighting.

LOL, Russia is a broken country with constant in-fighting. A country rulled by numerous strongmen from ol' KGB that are able to hold on to power due to high oil and natural resource prices. Watch that oil price.. its the key to who controls the rusting Soviet nukes.

 

[jpk1md]

LOL, Russia is a broken country with constant in-fighting. A country rulled by numerous strongmen from ol' KGB that are able to hold on to power due to high oil and natural resources prices. Watch that oil price.. its the key to who controls rusting Soviet nukes.

Russia is a mess.

Little has fundamentally changed post fall of the USSR.....Control rests in the hands of a few individuals.....and those few individuals were largely the same folks pulling the strings before the wall fell.

They were an authoritarian state before and remain an authoritarian state.

 

[Markp]

I'm just ribbing you guys...

Nonetheless, I can't support Ron Paul if there is a better alternative. Ron Paul has some good ideas but the country and the world is not ready for them. Maybe when his son is ready to run, it will be. In the meantime, we need a candidate to slow the train and put it on the right track. If we make too sudden a stop (immediate application of Ron Paul's philosophy) we risk disaster despite our good intentions.

Sarah Palin is a good intermediary with good values; and, NO, she's not stupid as some would have you believe. I do not know why so-called conservatives and republicans buy into that media meme so easily and readily.

I think Bachmann is an easier sell then Palin, I agree than Palin isn't as stupid as the major media players would have us believe but she's poisoned goods at this point. I know liberals ("moderate" ones) who believe that she's stupid and Palin would not gain enough of the middle ground to pull it off. I also believe that Ron Paul is simply too old at this point to really pull off the presidency. He's a great guy with great values, but I too would prefer to wait on Rand Paul to mature into the presidency at this point.

I think, and although he's a harder sale than even Palin, that Newt Gingrich is the only logical choice of a statesman with the leadership and credentials to lead us out of this mess. It won't happen, but I would love to see a Gingrich/Bachmann ticket, which would set up for a Bachmann/Paul (Rand) Ticket. Michelle Bachmann needs to get on the national stage and feel the heat associated with a presidential run without getting skewered like Palin did.

Back to the original question, can we prevent a second civil war? I'm not sure that we deserve to avoid that outcome nor am I convinced that avoiding that outcome is for the greater good of the country in the long run. I hope that we avoid it, I hope like hell we don't have a civil war, because if we do have a civil war, it certainly won't be very civil.

To be sure, change is coming, and I don't believe we have a whole lot of hope coming with it. I said over a year ago, I believe that we will have inflation on a massive level and it's coming, if you haven't seen it, open your eyes and look at what you are paying for goods and services.

Mark

 

[jpk1md]

I believe that we will have inflation on a massive level and it's coming, if you haven't seen it, open your eyes and look at what you are paying for goods and services.

Mark

Sure enough its already here.

Anyone else notice the fact that a great many manufacturers have been reducing the size/volume/weight of packages in order to keep the price relatively stable?

We're already paying the same/more for less product in many cases....and prices are poised to jump pretty hard in coming months....particularly food prices since Texas and much of the South are facing outright crop failures or diminished yields as a result of drought/weather etc.....watch what happens to wheat prices.....

As to the OP, I for one hope we find solutions that allow an avoidance such a conflict but if it were to ever happen it would be one without precidence since it would not be between states per se but more likely between neighbors of opposing ideologies and potentially whomever is in charge of gov at the time.

 

[Les Gawlik]

FDR's policies deepened and extended the depression of 1929-1943, which ended after he maneuvered the US into WW2.

Yup. Doesn't bode well for us now.

 

[jaypark]

interesting thread.... while its all good reading I'm prepping for the upcoming zombie proliferation and insurrection that is probable

and yes palin is unelectable like it or not and prob so is Newt... Bachman is also in that category as well as Ron... what we need is a pro Jobu, Clandestine, Splinter platform... as long as I can run the CIA... oh and Charlie Sheen for WH spokesperson

 

[Les Gawlik]

Sure enough its already here.

Anyone else notice the fact that a great many manufacturers have been reducing the size/volume/weight of packages in order to keep the price relatively stable?

The .gov changed the way it calculated inflation after Ronaldus Magnus famously asked, "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" If they used the same calculations today, the inflation rate would be about 10%. If they were honest with unemployment figures, the misery index would be above 20%, or in Carter territory.

 

[Inigoes]

The .gov changed the way it calculated inflation after Ronaldus Magnus famously asked, "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" If they used the same calculations today, the inflation rate would be about 10%. If they were honest with unemployment figures, the misery index would be above 20%, or in Carter territory.

we're at 11.48

http://www.miseryindex.us/

 

[EL1227]

I'm sure you understand, but I want to point out, that the current and future battles will not be economic in nature although that is the terminology that is and will be used (along with a healthy helping of accusations of psychological ailments) by detractors and supporters of freedom. It will be a battle over ideology - the distribution of resources (who and how, the determining factors of how to distribute resources and who receives these resources) - much like our Revolution and and Civil War were.

Right now, there is a surge in the ideology that government can best determine the distribution of resources and who distributes them/receives them. The difference for us is and has always been centralization of power versus the balancing of powers.

See here: http://www.ushistory.org/DECLARATION/ (no copyright infringement here )

How much of that revered and instructive document is applicable or near imminent in modern times?

What I fear the most is NOT that whether resources get 'redistributed', but that the 50% of the population who are on the receiving end of redistribution riot when it's cut back drastically or off completely.

 

[jaypark]

What I fear the most is NOT that whether resources get 'redistributed', but that the 50% of the population who are on the receiving end of redistribution riot when it's cut back drastically or off completely.

cmon down and get you some

 

[Red_Dot]

Luckily, I believe the failed economic policies of our Dear Leader have the politically ignorant at least understanding that what he is doing is impacting them directly through the gas pump and grocery store. This unfortunately does not mean that they will dig a little deeper and come to understand that The Chairman is doing all of this intentionally.

....

The only hope is that mainstream media will disappear thereby no longer providing cover for the socialists.

No offense, but you show the same ignorance you seem concerned about. As one of those "mainstream" media types, I'm always amazed at how people "THINK" media works. I am the first to admit there are those with agendas. There are cops who abuse their power, firefighters who get drunk and take engines for a ride late at night, and priests that do inappropriate things with little kids.

95-99% of mainstream media (not the 1000's of "blogs" that have shown up and call themselves media) at least attempt to be non-biased. I'm not going to get into a rant session, but I will tell you how MY day usually goes if I'm working with a media outfit that day...

10a - story assigned (could be coverage at the capitol, white house decision, or local story, lets assume its Obama-Care for sake of arguement)
1030 or so - Call / email dem. and rep. leaders, 2-3 political thinktanks (for outside opinion) 2-3 healthcare experts (usually a doctor, maybe private practice for field experience), and continue calling / emailing hoping someone calls back for an interview.
11a - leave to go grab interview (hopefully we've heard from someone by now. Remember we just called all these people saying "Stop what you're doing and let us come interrupt your day on zero notice to talk to us")
1145 - do interview down at the Capitol with a Dem talking about ObamaCare
1230 - Hear back from "across the isle". We're lucky today, they called back, we can grab so-and-so in between meetings for 5mins at 1:45.

At this point we want to leave to go grab "people reaction or the political analysts" but we need "both sides of the story" so we blow off the thinktanks analysts and no MOS (man on the street) interviews)

2p - Of course they're late, knock out quick 5min interview with opposing side
215 - Race uptown to grab Doctor and get his reaction to policy
3pm - Dr. Interview
3:15 - Race back to station
345 til 5 - Reporter logs and writes story
5 til 6 - Edit story
Story airs at 6pm.

What you have to grasp is most times the "slant" isn't from the media, its from either people not wanting to talk, not responding fast enough, poor media skills, or just treating the media like the enemy.

MOST MEDIA, if they are worth anything, report what the sides are saying and you should make up your own mind. Even the someone biased station I work for is fairly decent at that. Far more the deciding factor is how people from both sides of issues handle themselves with the media and who you can get that is willing to stop what they are doing and do an interview within a couple of hours. Newspapers have the luxury of time sometimes, but television is almost always same day turns with one crew working on each story. I mean can you seriously say that if your day was like that 5 days a week you'd take time to go talk to the guy who when you reached out to him on a story talked about how "we are covering for the socialists"?

Okay sorry, that was a little more than I meant to vent out, but I see that a lot, and its no different than if you got on this board and started hating on police officers.

/RANT OFF

 

[AZSig556]

I disagree with the author's premise at the outset. The next civil war will be pro-government control vs. liberty in its myriad forms.

I agree that the loss of liberty will be the primary cause of any civil war/reorganization of government, but I don't ever see it happening

Poverty in America is only having one car, foodstamps for Walmart, basic cable (probably HD), and some other type of government handout. It is nothing like the Great Depression...

That being said, the population is this country is too complacent to even care about what is going on. If a Democrat goes in office, your taxes may go up 2%. Republican, down 2%. Maybe for us, a change in high cap mags or evil black rifles.

The beauty of our two party system is that it caters to that 80% of the population that just wants to get cheap gas, milk, and only work 40 hrs a week. The "vast right wing extremists" or the dirty drum circle hippies have no chance of influencing our system, thereby giving us great stability.

Where things have gone wrong is that both sides had their heads in the sand for the last 40 years when things started to slide. Increasing trade deficit, loss of manufacturing jobs, dependency on foreign oil, etc. The same stability that we praise for keeping our country stable has kept us going slowly down....although somehow in a very stable manner that nobody feels it until its too late

 

[oldman12]

The left nut job in the white house is changing our stability

 

[jpk1md]

Any serious discussion must include a recognition of the value of the dollar.

This is an interesting table that shows the Comparative Value of the U.S. Dollar (Approx) since 1800.

http://mykindred.com/cloud/TX/Documents/dollar/

But, to be fair lets just look at since 1900 to present to see the impact of the fed reserve acts and new deal on the value of the dollar

 

[Lex Armarum]

No offense, but you show the same ignorance you seem concerned about. As one of those "mainstream" media types, I'm always amazed at how people "THINK" media works. I am the first to admit there are those with agendas. There are cops who abuse their power, firefighters who get drunk and take engines for a ride late at night, and priests that do inappropriate things with little kids.

95-99% of mainstream media (not the 1000's of "blogs" that have shown up and call themselves media) at least attempt to be non-biased. I'm not going to get into a rant session, but I will tell you how MY day usually goes if I'm working with a media outfit that day...

10a - story assigned (could be coverage at the capitol, white house decision, or local story, lets assume its Obama-Care for sake of arguement)
1030 or so - Call / email dem. and rep. leaders, 2-3 political thinktanks (for outside opinion) 2-3 healthcare experts (usually a doctor, maybe private practice for field experience), and continue calling / emailing hoping someone calls back for an interview.
11a - leave to go grab interview (hopefully we've heard from someone by now. Remember we just called all these people saying "Stop what you're doing and let us come interrupt your day on zero notice to talk to us")
1145 - do interview down at the Capitol with a Dem talking about ObamaCare
1230 - Hear back from "across the isle". We're lucky today, they called back, we can grab so-and-so in between meetings for 5mins at 1:45.

At this point we want to leave to go grab "people reaction or the political analysts" but we need "both sides of the story" so we blow off the thinktanks analysts and no MOS (man on the street) interviews)

2p - Of course they're late, knock out quick 5min interview with opposing side
215 - Race uptown to grab Doctor and get his reaction to policy
3pm - Dr. Interview
3:15 - Race back to station
345 til 5 - Reporter logs and writes story
5 til 6 - Edit story
Story airs at 6pm.

What you have to grasp is most times the "slant" isn't from the media, its from either people not wanting to talk, not responding fast enough, poor media skills, or just treating the media like the enemy.

MOST MEDIA, if they are worth anything, report what the sides are saying and you should make up your own mind. Even the someone biased station I work for is fairly decent at that. Far more the deciding factor is how people from both sides of issues handle themselves with the media and who you can get that is willing to stop what they are doing and do an interview within a couple of hours. Newspapers have the luxury of time sometimes, but television is almost always same day turns with one crew working on each story. I mean can you seriously say that if your day was like that 5 days a week you'd take time to go talk to the guy who when you reached out to him on a story talked about how "we are covering for the socialists"?

Okay sorry, that was a little more than I meant to vent out, but I see that a lot, and its no different than if you got on this board and started hating on police officers.

/RANT OFF

I wholeheartedly disagree with your analysis/rant. My wife is an editor/producer for the MSM (I'm not saying much more than that) but I have frequent occasion to spend time in the newsroom and hobnobbing with the fifth estate. Here's the problem with the MSM and its bias: it's inherent, innate, and unrecognized. It's bred into the language you use in stories, how you write your copy, how you cast/tease stories, and what stories you pick. You believe that you're trying to be unbiased but your (the proverbial you/your) biases are so ingrained that you don't even recognize the bias when its present because the language, to you, seems correct and true.

Never mind the fact that most journalists and staff are part of AFTRA, SAG, or some other media union; the vast majority of the people in the MSM are democrats or liberal republicans. Let me explain how this works for everyone:

As an example, your typical dyed-in-the-wool libtard thinks conservatives/republicans are evil and mentally ill. Most of them believe this because they believe in their own view so passionately and deeply that any challenge to that belief or disagreement must be the result of mental deficiency. You see symptoms of this quite frequently in language used by liberal pundits, bloggers, politicos, and so-called journalists.

While journalists may not be as rabid as your average libtard and more adept at hiding their biases, it shines through when they pick stories because stories that challenge or contradict their underlying beliefs are considered "un-newsworthy." (Notice the MSM lack of attention to gas prices; the gun walker scandal; O's scandalous statements about voters; etc, etc, etc) When stories are considered newsworthy, the reporting almost always leans in favor of the liberal position because the reporter does not recognize the challenging facts as true but rather contrived, coming from a biased source, or, when the facts are irrefutable, ignores them outright. I see it all the time and I always get into argument with you a**holes at parties because of this. I once got into a screaming match with a known and reputable anchor over Bill Gates'/Warren Buffetts' taxation hypocrisy.

But hey, why am I arguing with you about this. There's plenty of evidence out there that more than adequately demonstrates media bias: the Wall Street Journal's James Taranto's "Best of the Web Today;" BigJournalism.com; the Media Research Center; the Media Malpractice documentary; and so on.

I rest my case.

(Please do not take this as a personal attack. I do not mean it as such.)

 

[Redcobra]

No offense, but you show the same ignorance you seem concerned about. As one of those "mainstream" media types, I'm always amazed at how people "THINK" media works. I am the first to admit there are those with agendas. There are cops who abuse their power, firefighters who get drunk and take engines for a ride late at night, and priests that do inappropriate things with little kids.

95-99% of mainstream media (not the 1000's of "blogs" that have shown up and call themselves media) at least attempt to be non-biased. I'm not going to get into a rant session, but I will tell you how MY day usually goes if I'm working with a media outfit that day...

10a - story assigned (could be coverage at the capitol, white house decision, or local story, lets assume its Obama-Care for sake of arguement)
1030 or so - Call / email dem. and rep. leaders, 2-3 political thinktanks (for outside opinion) 2-3 healthcare experts (usually a doctor, maybe private practice for field experience), and continue calling / emailing hoping someone calls back for an interview.
11a - leave to go grab interview (hopefully we've heard from someone by now. Remember we just called all these people saying "Stop what you're doing and let us come interrupt your day on zero notice to talk to us")
1145 - do interview down at the Capitol with a Dem talking about ObamaCare
1230 - Hear back from "across the isle". We're lucky today, they called back, we can grab so-and-so in between meetings for 5mins at 1:45.

At this point we want to leave to go grab "people reaction or the political analysts" but we need "both sides of the story" so we blow off the thinktanks analysts and no MOS (man on the street) interviews)

2p - Of course they're late, knock out quick 5min interview with opposing side
215 - Race uptown to grab Doctor and get his reaction to policy
3pm - Dr. Interview
3:15 - Race back to station
345 til 5 - Reporter logs and writes story
5 til 6 - Edit story
Story airs at 6pm.

What you have to grasp is most times the "slant" isn't from the media, its from either people not wanting to talk, not responding fast enough, poor media skills, or just treating the media like the enemy.

MOST MEDIA, if they are worth anything, report what the sides are saying and you should make up your own mind. Even the someone biased station I work for is fairly decent at that. Far more the deciding factor is how people from both sides of issues handle themselves with the media and who you can get that is willing to stop what they are doing and do an interview within a couple of hours. Newspapers have the luxury of time sometimes, but television is almost always same day turns with one crew working on each story. I mean can you seriously say that if your day was like that 5 days a week you'd take time to go talk to the guy who when you reached out to him on a story talked about how "we are covering for the socialists"?

Okay sorry, that was a little more than I meant to vent out, but I see that a lot, and its no different than if you got on this board and started hating on police officers.

/RANT OFF

This sums up the problem within the media. The lack of indepth reporting because of time constraints. And this in turn is caused by the media's need to always have something to fill the time no matter what. It's a deadline driven business as opposed to an outcome driven business.

 

[Redcobra]

Here's the problem with the MSM and its bias: it's inherent, innate, and unrecognized. It's bred into the language you use in stories, how you write your copy, how you cast/tease stories, and what stories you pick. You believe that you're trying to be unbiased but your (the proverbial you/your) biases are so ingrained that you don't even recognize the bias when its present because the language, to you, seems correct and true.

Never mind the fact that most journalists and staff are part of AFTRA, SAG, or some other media union; the vast majority of the people in the MSM are democrats or liberal republicans. Let me explain how this works for everyone:


While journalists may not be as rabid as your average libtard and more adept at hiding their biases, it shines through when they pick stories because stories that challenge or contradict their underlying beliefs are considered "un-newsworthy."

Excellent points.

 

[Dogabutila]

What you have to grasp is most times the "slant" isn't from the media, its from either people not wanting to talk, not responding fast enough, poor media skills, or just treating the media like the enemy.

There is just one thing you are missing. If the media is just so trustworthy and unbiased etc. why do you think the reason might be that some people don't want to talk to the media / treat them like the enemy?

It can't possibly be that because they have been taken completely out of context for the reporters own personal reasons, or burn with/by selective editing or anything right?

It's just because they are unrealistic and frightened, untrusting people right?