(06-29-2018 08:14 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 07:35 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  We're past the days of another military civil war in the U.S. but some type of political breakup of the Union is probably inevitable. The only thing that will bring the sides back together is a future in which all new humans are genetically engineered for high intelligence, and that's probably still a ways off.

What makes you think that will make a difference? You don’t think there are plenty of people, like half, on both sides of the aisle with both high and relatively low(er) intelligence?

Can only assume you’re joking to get some kind of reaction. I hope.

No, like most progressives, he can't envision anyone with an IQ over 80 being a neanderthal conservative. Correct me if I'm wrong, Poly...

I don't see a civil war. For one thing, there is a HUGE difference between being a keyboard commando versus firing a weapon at someone, etc. mThere's also a big difference in the occasional protest getting out of hand than full scale conflict. Sure, there may be a few outliers that go off the deep end but, IMO, not enough where all Hades breaks loose.

(06-29-2018 01:15 PM)VA49er Wrote:  I don't see a civil war. For one thing, there is a HUGE difference between being a keyboard commando versus firing a weapon at someone, etc. mThere's also a big difference in the occasional protest getting out of hand than full scale conflict. Sure, there may be a few outliers that go off the deep end but, IMO, not enough where all Hades breaks loose.

Shooting at someone isn't even close to getting shots fired back. LOL

(06-29-2018 02:06 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 01:15 PM)VA49er Wrote:  I don't see a civil war. For one thing, there is a HUGE difference between being a keyboard commando versus firing a weapon at someone, etc. mThere's also a big difference in the occasional protest getting out of hand than full scale conflict. Sure, there may be a few outliers that go off the deep end but, IMO, not enough where all Hades breaks loose.

Shooting at someone isn't even close to getting shots fired back. LOL

Yep, which is why I don't think a full scale civil war is in the cards.

(06-29-2018 02:08 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 02:06 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 01:15 PM)VA49er Wrote:  I don't see a civil war. For one thing, there is a HUGE difference between being a keyboard commando versus firing a weapon at someone, etc. mThere's also a big difference in the occasional protest getting out of hand than full scale conflict. Sure, there may be a few outliers that go off the deep end but, IMO, not enough where all Hades breaks loose.

Shooting at someone isn't even close to getting shots fired back. LOL

Yep, which is why I don't think a full scale civil war is in the cards.

Agreed but no way the federal government lets any states succeed. It will be met with military force. Any politician that threatens breaking away from the union is playing to the fringe base. Mainstream voters, meaning most voters, don't want this. Just politicians being polticians

(06-29-2018 02:24 PM)JTiger Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 02:08 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 02:06 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 01:15 PM)VA49er Wrote:  I don't see a civil war. For one thing, there is a HUGE difference between being a keyboard commando versus firing a weapon at someone, etc. mThere's also a big difference in the occasional protest getting out of hand than full scale conflict. Sure, there may be a few outliers that go off the deep end but, IMO, not enough where all Hades breaks loose.

Shooting at someone isn't even close to getting shots fired back. LOL

Yep, which is why I don't think a full scale civil war is in the cards.

Agreed but no way the federal government lets any states succeed. It will be met with military force. Any politician that threatens breaking away from the union is playing to the fringe base. Mainstream voters, meaning most voters, don't want this. Just politicians being polticians

I do. I want the snowflake states of America, and a separate region called the Liberation States of America.. Or Liberty States of America... That name needs some work.. but yeah, I want to be separate from all of the leftist loons. I don't want to force my way of governance on them, and I don't want their version of governance on me. We should part peacefully. Because at this point in the development of social media and being "plugged in" nobody is going to be swayed to one side or the other. At least, I'm not changing MY views. I know some progressives who feel the same way. They ain't changing, bro.

(06-29-2018 02:08 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 02:06 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 01:15 PM)VA49er Wrote:  I don't see a civil war. For one thing, there is a HUGE difference between being a keyboard commando versus firing a weapon at someone, etc. mThere's also a big difference in the occasional protest getting out of hand than full scale conflict. Sure, there may be a few outliers that go off the deep end but, IMO, not enough where all Hades breaks loose.

Shooting at someone isn't even close to getting shots fired back. LOL

Yep, which is why I don't think a full scale civil war is in the cards.

I agree on this, there’s no “Civil War” in the making.

But, I can definitely see an escalation of the fringe sides gettin their groove on.

Antifag v. whatever bookface cobbled together group, yup.

especially after the next Gorsuch is sworn in.

I hope some of these clogs and clowns get their torches burning and head on down my street to meet Mr 7-iron.

Be too funny.

(07-01-2018 01:10 AM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 02:24 PM)JTiger Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 02:08 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 02:06 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 01:15 PM)VA49er Wrote:  I don't see a civil war. For one thing, there is a HUGE difference between being a keyboard commando versus firing a weapon at someone, etc. mThere's also a big difference in the occasional protest getting out of hand than full scale conflict. Sure, there may be a few outliers that go off the deep end but, IMO, not enough where all Hades breaks loose.

Shooting at someone isn't even close to getting shots fired back. LOL

Yep, which is why I don't think a full scale civil war is in the cards.

Agreed but no way the federal government lets any states succeed. It will be met with military force. Any politician that threatens breaking away from the union is playing to the fringe base. Mainstream voters, meaning most voters, don't want this. Just politicians being polticians

I do. I want the snowflake states of America, and a separate region called the Liberation States of America.. Or Liberty States of America... That name needs some work.. but yeah, I want to be separate from all of the leftist loons. I don't want to force my way of governance on them, and I don't want their version of governance on me. We should part peacefully. Because at this point in the development of social media and being "plugged in" nobody is going to be swayed to one side or the other. At least, I'm not changing MY views. I know some progressives who feel the same way. They ain't changing, bro.

I know it's hard to believe but every one doesn't have to agree with your views. More importantly those leftist states contribute tax revenue to the federal government that many red states, think Mississippi here, take in more than they pay up. That math needs to balance out and that is why succession will never happen even though they don't buy your brand of politics.

(07-02-2018 06:35 AM)JTiger Wrote:  I know it's hard to believe but every one doesn't have to agree with your views. More importantly those leftist states contribute tax revenue to the federal government that many red states, think Mississippi here, take in more than they pay up. That math needs to balance out and that is why succession will never happen even though they don't buy your brand of politics.

This is a misleading statement. It's not the states that give money to the federal government or receive it, it's people in those states. And that leads to several problems.

One, dig into the methodologies used in those "studies" that come up with this result, and you'll find some very questionable assumptions. For example, taxes on oil and gas production are allocated not based on where the oil and gas are produced but rather on where they are used. New York gets allocated a big ink of those tax revenues, but if Texas seceded, those taxes would stay in Texas. There are other areas, like defense spending, where methodology needs to be examined as well.

Two, another big factor is Fred and Ethel, who work 40 years in Chicago and then retire to Florida. The taxes they paid into social security were attributed to Illinois, but their withdrawals go to Florida. Is this really Illinois subsidizing Florida, or is it just Fred and Ethel getting their money back? And way fewer people spend all their working lives in Florida and then retire to Illinois, than vice versa.

Three, a lot of the payments to red states result from blue-sponsored welfare programs to low income recipients. If they were to form a red nation, presumably a lot of those programs--and the related expenditures--would go away.

Anyway, who came up with this red/blue state stuff? Seems to me that red is the color of the far left everywhere else in the world, so shouldn't red be the democrat color?

(07-02-2018 06:53 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 06:35 AM)JTiger Wrote:  I know it's hard to believe but every one doesn't have to agree with your views. More importantly those leftist states contribute tax revenue to the federal government that many red states, think Mississippi here, take in more than they pay up. That math needs to balance out and that is why succession will never happen even though they don't buy your brand of politics.

This is a misleading statement. It's not the states that give money to the federal government or receive it, it's people in those states. And that leads to several problems.

One, dig into the methodologies used in those "studies" that come up with this result, and you'll find some very questionable assumptions. For example, taxes on oil and gas production are allocated not based on where the oil and gas are produced but rather on where they are used. New York gets allocated a big ink of those tax revenues, but if Texas seceded, those taxes would stay in Texas. There are other areas, like defense spending, where methodology needs to be examined as well.

Two, another big factor is Fred and Ethel, who work 40 years in Chicago and then retire to Florida. The taxes they paid into social security were attributed to Illinois, but their withdrawals go to Florida. Is this really Illinois subsidizing Florida, or is it just Fred and Ethel getting their money back? And way fewer people spend all their working lives in Florida and then retire to Illinois, than vice versa.

Three, a lot of the payments to red states result from blue-sponsored welfare programs to low income recipients. If they were to form a red nation, presumably a lot of those programs--and the related expenditures--would go away.

Anyway, who came up with this red/blue state stuff? Seems to me that red is the color of the far left everywhere else in the world, so shouldn't red be the democrat color?

It used to be red=dem, blue= gop but then they up and changed it. 1980's I think.

(07-01-2018 02:52 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 02:08 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 02:06 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 01:15 PM)VA49er Wrote:  I don't see a civil war. For one thing, there is a HUGE difference between being a keyboard commando versus firing a weapon at someone, etc. mThere's also a big difference in the occasional protest getting out of hand than full scale conflict. Sure, there may be a few outliers that go off the deep end but, IMO, not enough where all Hades breaks loose.

Shooting at someone isn't even close to getting shots fired back. LOL

Yep, which is why I don't think a full scale civil war is in the cards.

I agree on this, there’s no “Civil War” in the making.

But, I can definitely see an escalation of the fringe sides gettin their groove on.

Antifag v. whatever bookface cobbled together group, yup.

especially after the next Gorsuch is sworn in.

I hope some of these clogs and clowns get their torches burning and head on down my street to meet Mr 7-iron.

Be too funny.

Agreed. There will also be the loony tunes left and right and these days they get all the headlines resulting in some folks thinking an actual civil war may be possible. Luckily, IMO, the vast majority of folks are sensible and know the loonys on both sides are wacko.

(07-02-2018 07:03 AM)thespiritof1976 Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 06:53 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 06:35 AM)JTiger Wrote:  I know it's hard to believe but every one doesn't have to agree with your views. More importantly those leftist states contribute tax revenue to the federal government that many red states, think Mississippi here, take in more than they pay up. That math needs to balance out and that is why succession will never happen even though they don't buy your brand of politics.

This is a misleading statement. It's not the states that give money to the federal government or receive it, it's people in those states. And that leads to several problems.

One, dig into the methodologies used in those "studies" that come up with this result, and you'll find some very questionable assumptions. For example, taxes on oil and gas production are allocated not based on where the oil and gas are produced but rather on where they are used. New York gets allocated a big ink of those tax revenues, but if Texas seceded, those taxes would stay in Texas. There are other areas, like defense spending, where methodology needs to be examined as well.

Two, another big factor is Fred and Ethel, who work 40 years in Chicago and then retire to Florida. The taxes they paid into social security were attributed to Illinois, but their withdrawals go to Florida. Is this really Illinois subsidizing Florida, or is it just Fred and Ethel getting their money back? And way fewer people spend all their working lives in Florida and then retire to Illinois, than vice versa.

Three, a lot of the payments to red states result from blue-sponsored welfare programs to low income recipients. If they were to form a red nation, presumably a lot of those programs--and the related expenditures--would go away.

Anyway, who came up with this red/blue state stuff? Seems to me that red is the color of the far left everywhere else in the world, so shouldn't red be the democrat color?

It used to be red=dem, blue= gop but then they up and changed it. 1980's I think.

No it became a thing in 2000, due to the TV maps. Networks used to use whatever color they wanted to fill in the states, then they decided to make it uniform in the 80s or 90s but they switched colors every election cycle. (Clinton's map was red in '96 for example). I remember watching Reagan's landslide reelection in 84 and the whole map on TV was painted blue. After 2000, when it just so happened to be cycles Bush red and Gore blue, people started talking red states and blue states and it stuck. I remember making fun of the idea as far back as aftermath of Bush v Gore. I still refuse to use it myself because everyone knows internationally and historically red has always been the color of socialism and the left as it grew out of the French Revolution while blue is the color of classical liberalism, American-style conservatism, libretarianism, and center-right parties around the world.

(07-02-2018 06:53 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 06:35 AM)JTiger Wrote:  I know it's hard to believe but every one doesn't have to agree with your views. More importantly those leftist states contribute tax revenue to the federal government that many red states, think Mississippi here, take in more than they pay up. That math needs to balance out and that is why succession will never happen even though they don't buy your brand of politics.

This is a misleading statement. It's not the states that give money to the federal government or receive it, it's people in those states. And that leads to several problems.

One, dig into the methodologies used in those "studies" that come up with this result, and you'll find some very questionable assumptions. For example, taxes on oil and gas production are allocated not based on where the oil and gas are produced but rather on where they are used. New York gets allocated a big ink of those tax revenues, but if Texas seceded, those taxes would stay in Texas. There are other areas, like defense spending, where methodology needs to be examined as well.

Two, another big factor is Fred and Ethel, who work 40 years in Chicago and then retire to Florida. The taxes they paid into social security were attributed to Illinois, but their withdrawals go to Florida. Is this really Illinois subsidizing Florida, or is it just Fred and Ethel getting their money back? And way fewer people spend all their working lives in Florida and then retire to Illinois, than vice versa.

Three, a lot of the payments to red states result from blue-sponsored welfare programs to low income recipients. If they were to form a red nation, presumably a lot of those programs--and the related expenditures--would go away.

Anyway, who came up with this red/blue state stuff? Seems to me that red is the color of the far left everywhere else in the world, so shouldn't red be the democrat color?

I understand your point and the people in those states paying taxes was supposed to be implied in my response. I should have another cup of coffee before I post something.



My point is that the Federal Government will never let something like this happen. They will cut off all federal funding that states depend on for big ticket needs. Any civil war would be financial versus armed conflict.

If we wait a little while, I think the left and right are going to see significant splits in their own camps and there won't be enough of an accord to have a Civil War or a national split.

Both sides are being held together by tape and string (AKA Donald Trump). I don't think many people appreciate just how much division exists in both parties. If Trump wasn't one of the final choices, both parties would be desperately searching for identities and the factions would be very pronounced.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/07/01/the-...ee-speech/

"...I have written in these pages about the dangers of free speech absolutism, about the responsibility that free speech places on citizens to wield it wisely and with measured moderation. But when The New York Times is blaring fake news on its front page in an attempt to sway public opinion in the direction of shutting down speech, it is clear that those who wish to silence me are far more dangerous than those who say things I find abhorrent.


Free speech is all we’ve got. And if The New York Times or liberal Supreme Court justices want to take my pen or anyone else’s, well, they can take it from my cold, dead hand."