Posted on 01/20/2009 5:14:39 AM PST by PurpleMountains
In my opinion, the cultural war between secular-progressives and traditional Americans will become a violent, bloody war if the Democrats in Congress try to criminalize policy differences by trying to punish members of the Bush Administration for attempting (and succeeding) to protect American lives. Obama isn’t saying much, although he appointed Holder, but Pelosi, Conyers, Reid, Holder and others are mouthing some very dangerous thoughts. As a minimum, practices that were originated by Carter and Clinton and merely continued by the Bush Administration (such as rendition and warrantless wiretapping) will be given much publicity, and, beyond that, some of us will be forced to support some violent people we normally shun and despise.
(Excerpt) Read more at forthegrandchildren.blogspot.com ...
“pelosi, conyers, reid, holder and others are mouthing some very dangerous thoughts.”
stalinists in action, bringing the new politburo into the open from the incubator of insidious leftism.
IMHO
Step away from the Cool AID.
There is not going to be any 2nd Civil War and talking about the libtards and their anti-American agenda in those terms simply makes us the bad guys and turns people in the middle off.
Remember, this a-hole won pretty big. Most of this country, at the moment, is hoping for big things from him.
That is just reality.
Its emotionally cathartic to discuss leaving the morons, but look at the electoral map and lets deal in realty.
53-47 is not "pretty big".
You're right about the "a-hole", though.
Civil war isn’t possible in the traditional sense because there aren’t clearly defined regional divisions. The Red state/blue state thing doesn’t really work because most blue states are blue only because of a few cities. My state of Michigan has 83 counties but only a handful of those make us blue.
A shooting war would be little more than a short lived siege of cities.
India and Pakistan managed to split up without a civil war...
Nope. If 0bama punishes Bush, he’ll leave himself open. Remember...he’s keeping many of the Bush policies intact that he could be punished for.
When D-Day (Divorce Day) comes, we need to make sure the split-up is generally along county lines and not state lines.
It is no longer YOUR job to tell others what to think or do, there’s a new RULER in town...
A conservative who mentions a possible civil war is labeled by the MSM a ‘right wing extremist’.
A lefy who mentions a possible civil war is labeled by the MSM as a ‘patriot’......
We are ALREADY in a Cold civil war........
I haven’t had a sip of the kool aid in years .....
53% of the popular vote is not “pretty big”.
When Bush won 52%, America was “divided”.
Now that Obama’s won 53%, America is “united”.
Go figure.
I agree, however, that it’s a little crazy to be talking about a second civil war.
The war between Pakistan and India is really still going on and now both parties have nuclear weapons. It is more dangerous than a civil war.
There eventually could be violence if an amnesty is passed.
Catering to the middle certainly worked out well for McCain, didn't it?
By your own admission, McCain "lost pretty big".
I remember Henry "Scoop" Jackson, Hubert Humphrey, Harry Truman -- I knew the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party was a friend of America. The Rat Party is no Democratic Party.
The 1960s New Left Marxist street rabble took over the Democratic Party in the 1970s. Now these Marxists and their ideological issue are the leaders and stalwarts of the Rat Party.
Theirs was the more radical Marxism of Mao and Che. They wanted to spark a race war. It's what Rats do.
Today the tinderbox may be the millions of ILLEGAL aliens some of whom are gang members and many more without respect for the U.S. of A. That's the Rat's cannon fodder. IMO.
I agree that 1% is nuts when delineating the difference between divided and united, but IMO, 53% is huge when looking at the social dynamics that made such a travesty possible. It didn’t hurt that McCain sold out and took a dive, but I suppose it’s better to be in a Democrat’s handbasket than in a “Republican” one. Except for abortion, McCain wasn’t likely to do much different than Obama and he would have been unlikely to stand up to the Dims when it comes to security matters and taxes. I felt betrayed the way he took a dive and screwed Palin with him, but it will probably be for the best of the nation in the long-term. We need to concentrate on finding and pushing some actual conservatives.
There cannot be a second until you have had the first!
The following is taken directly from the Webster's dictionary:
Main Entry: civil war
Function: noun
Date: 15th century
: a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country
Never yet happened in this country.
“Nope. If 0bama punishes Bush, he’ll leave himself open. Remember...he’s keeping many of the Bush policies intact that he could be punished for.”
You are probably correct. Also, I don’t think Obama is very fond of Pelosi, Reid, and a lot of the other big mouths. One other thing, as President, Obama’s eyes will soon be opened to all of the staggering problems Bush had to deal with, so I doubt that he’s going to even want to seek any retribution on Bush.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.