Bick
Administrator 
Posts: 6,901
|
Post by Bick on Nov 20, 2019 14:59:13 GMT -8
If I can interject here, there already is a cold war going on, and the skirmishes between antifa and the far right proud boys, or whatever they're called, have become violent. It's not just on campuses, but in protests on the street.
I don't recall there being violent left v right protests the past, nor can I recall the kind of overt crap someone receives, simply by being identified as supporting the POTUS...which then gets glorified by the predominantly left leaning media.
Put it all together, and more than a few are ready to have a go with the other side. The side that's pretty fed up with it all includes yours truly.
|
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,287
|
Post by RSM789 on Nov 20, 2019 15:51:27 GMT -8
OK, I'll stop being facetious now. RSM, and I think you'll agree that our beliefs are much more alike than they are different. But we certainly differ on what the threshold should be to start a civil war in this country. Such wars may be warranted over whether or not one man has the right to enslave another, but they shouldn't even be considered in jest as a trigger over policy differences. I'd be willing to bet were both rational people, and that rational people can find a happy medium without threatening to or actually blowing each other away. On my wall in my office is a quote from Frederic Bastiat: "Every time we object to a thing being done by the government, the socialists conclude that we object to it being done at all".
Your response, while admittedly tongue in cheek, was a perfect example of that quote (BTW, I'm not calling you a socialist). All of the areas in which I described overbearing government interference or influence, you concluded meant I did not want any interference or influence at all. That is a false choice and is a mis-characterization of my point (be it deliberate or unintentional). We, as a nation, are not as free as we should be. Our government has, over the decades, grabbed more and more areas of control where it should not have such power. To want to bring back that power to Constitutional levels is not advocating anarchy. Further, a civil war is only as bloody as the more control oriented side chooses it to be. Had Lincoln told the South "Good Luck" and let them secede, there would have been no war, no bloodshed, at least at that time. How the future would have turned out is unknown, but the point is bloodshed only occurs if one side wants to control the other side. Most on the right are not advocating killing those on the left or even forcing them to live the way we choose, we'd be happy to split the country in two peacefully. They can have their big government nation, we can have our small government nation, simple enough. But the left doesn't want that, they want control, they want power and they want it done via governmental force upon those who don't agree. So I ask, who are the ones actually advocating blowing someone away? Not the folks on my side. I know you pride yourself on being a centered, middle of the road person with good intentions. However, sitting on the fence on this one will end up with your descendants either in virtual shackles or in the position of placing others in the same state. Since I started with a quote, let me end with one, this time from Barry Goldwater: “Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.” |
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,815
|
Post by MDDad on Nov 20, 2019 16:29:16 GMT -8
I'm sure you realize that is a statement of personal preference, and not of fact.
No, but speaking of civil war IS advocating anarchy. Look, maybe it's just me. I'm probably the only dude on this forum whose parents were on the losing side of a world war, and I could see every day what it cost them. I have a hard time with people advocating a war for petty purposes, even in jest.
I think that's an easy thing to say when you look at the current situation only domestically, Looking at it internationally, it would be a disaster.
Yeah, except that California would certainly be part of the new Left Amerika, and all but two of us would have to move. If we could arrange it so the left would get only all the shit states, I'm in.
That restates something I posted months or even years ago. The main personal difference between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives just want to be left alone to live their lives as they see fit. Liberals are so convinced of their intellectual superiority and their more highly evolved social sensibilities that they feel a biological imperative to impose their views on everyone.
I don't have a quote to end with, but I have one that SHOULD be a quote: "Libertarianism as a pesonal philosophy is marvelous. But as government policy it is absolute anarchy."
Nice chatting with you.
|
|
SK80
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 7,378
|
Post by SK80 on Nov 20, 2019 17:11:09 GMT -8
Your posts have taken on the exact format and layout of a Vilepagan post, I see his influence, style and substance all over this board now. Good job guys, you've returned to TOB under a different web address.
|
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorFate on Nov 20, 2019 17:14:25 GMT -8
Dave, yes I am guilty of using hyperbole in my responses. But the real hyperbole started when people began bandying about the idea of a civil war being waged over our political differences. Wouldn't you agree that was way over the top? Let's keep it real MDDad. No one is recommending starting a civil war. We are merely saying that the possibility of a civil war is no longer as far-fetched as it was a decade ago. And, I'm sorry but, ignoring the possibility that it could ever happen, seems to me, to be a far less prudent attitude than admitting that it is, in fact, a concern. |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Nov 20, 2019 17:23:23 GMT -8
Well said MDDad, I agree with everything you posted, with one exception. You wrote:
"The main personal difference between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives just want to be left alone to live their lives as they see fit. Liberals are so convinced of their intellectual superiority and their more highly evolved social sensibilities that they feel a biological imperative to impose their views on everyone."
In my opinion the only difference between conservatives and liberals is what they wish to regulate, not how much to regulate. To paraphrase, Conservatives are so convinced of their moral superiority and their more highly evolved social sensibilities that they feel a biological imperative to impose their views on everyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Nov 20, 2019 17:24:05 GMT -8
Why thank you SK, what a nice thing to say.  |
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Nov 20, 2019 17:54:12 GMT -8
Dave, yes I am guilty of using hyperbole in my responses. But the real hyperbole started when people began bandying about the idea of a civil war being waged over our political differences. Wouldn't you agree that was way over the top? No. i believe it is possible. I further believe there are people who want to bring the United States experiment down and paying people to stage civil insurrection is one way they could do it. |
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,287
|
Post by RSM789 on Nov 20, 2019 19:11:52 GMT -8
Well said MDDad, I agree with everything you posted,.. There you go MDDad, proof positive that you are looking at this incorrectly...  |
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,287
|
Post by RSM789 on Nov 20, 2019 19:35:16 GMT -8
I'm sure you realize that is a statement of personal preference, and not of fact. No, but speaking of civil war IS advocating anarchy. Look, maybe it's just me. I'm probably the only dude on this forum whose parents were on the losing side of a world war, and I could see every day what it cost them. I have a hard time with people advocating a war for petty purposes, even in jest. I disagree that is a statement of personal preference, I am not basing it on what I want, I am basing it on the founding documents of the country. You look at those & how the federal & state governments were designed to operate and it becomes self evident (pun intended) that our nation is not as free as it should be. The only way speaking of civil war is advocating anarchy is if we are in a George Orwell novel. Freedom of speech exists for the express purpose of exchanging ideas without the fear of reprisal from government. When conditions exist that make discussion of a civil war (not advocating or planning it) timely, those who want to control will label it anarchy as a way to shut it down.
MDDad, I hope this doesn't come across as disrespectful, but I believe your personal experience, what your parents lost, is clouding your vision. You saw what they went through, you see your current life and the contrast between the two makes you not want to give up what you currently have in order to potentially better our society. What I believe you are missing is to extrapolate out what our country will be like in 25, 50, 100 years if we continue on the current path of expanding government control. What you perceive now as good, what is holding you back, is on its way out if we don't right the ship. In the same way so many Brits so desperately wanted "peace in our time" when it came to dealing with Germany prior to WWII, wanting to not rock the boat when you are headed towards a waterfall is a recipe for loss. I'm pretty sure there were a lot of Colonists back in the mid 1700's who thought all these "complaints" about King George, England and taxation without representation were just foolish and they too probably had a hard time with people advocating a war for such "petty" reasons... |
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,287
|
Post by RSM789 on Nov 20, 2019 19:45:59 GMT -8
In my opinion the only difference between conservatives and liberals is what they wish to regulate, not how much to regulate. Your opinion is incorrect. There have been Republican politicians who love the idea of regulating, but they do not conform to the ideas of either conservatism or libertarians. The basic concepts of those two ideologies is small governments and immense liberty, freedom & personal responsibility. If someone doesn't practice that philosophy, no matter what political party they belong to or what they call themselves, they are not conservatives or libertarians. Hell, the last Libertarian presidential ticket had Bill Weld on it, who is one of the most authoritarian d-bags the world has ever seen. Maybe liberal Massachusetts considers Weld to be conservative, but they are starting from a point of bias that is way left. |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Nov 21, 2019 4:00:55 GMT -8
Well, I guess you told me. I think I'll stick with my opinion nonetheless.
|
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,901
|
Post by Bick on Nov 21, 2019 10:59:25 GMT -8
MDDad - I haven't really heard of anyone advocating we take up arms at this point. But if you've got 2 sides who are clearly unobjective, and continue to ratchet up the rhetoric, eventually you will come to blows.
Maybe it's more like a gang war than a full blown Civil War, but make no mistake about it...This will be a war at some point if we keep it up.
|
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorFate on Nov 21, 2019 20:52:53 GMT -8
|
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,901
|
Post by Bick on Nov 21, 2019 21:03:00 GMT -8
I think there's a greater chance of violence if he WINS
|
|
