Posted on 01/20/2009 5:14:39 AM PST by PurpleMountains
If I have to fight my countrymen, it will be because they attack me. I will defend what is mine. I will die if necessary to protect my family.
ENOUGH! Stop it! All of this is besides the point.! Half or more of the posts to me have been on this issue.
The guy did not just squeak on by.
The guy has a lot of people behind him right now.
The guy would have tons more if people started talking CW!
The whole point of my original comment was stop with the CW nonsense. It makes us look ridiculous! And all anyone can focus on is my comments about the margin of victory.
Chairman Barry won by the largest number of voters and a decent % as well. More than Dubya did. And all of that is besides the point. I wish I had never raised it now!
The point is conservatives talking about a 2nd CW looks to the vast majority of America as lunatic fringe! If every single conservative in this country subscribed to that philosophy we’d still be out number almost 7 to 3. It’s not going to help us in 2010 or 2012.
Yes there was.
How very honorable. How very dramatic and unnecessary.
What makes you think they will attack you? This was about conservatives starting a CW.
Insanity? Yes. Total insanity? Naw. Not quite yet. Things can get a lot, lot worse. If they are insane enough to think they can get away with some of their garbage, like prosecuting George Bush and others, and giving them the Csar Nicholas II treatment, or send people to reeducation camps, then get ready for the total insanity to break lose...
Wake up.
Oh grow up - and try re-reading the original post. This thread was started by people talking about allying with unsavory characters to start a CW, not defend against one.
FTA: “some of us will be forced to support some violent people we normally shun and despise.”
You tell me FRiend, what the hell does that mean?
“You’re gonna rebel are ya? LOL. I’m sure the Joint Chiefs are quaking in their boots”
When did I ever make reference to rebelling?
“Nice try pinhead. That is not what you meant, and you’re arguments until you were corned proved that.”
I would respectfully disagree;
1st reference- We have always been at war with Oceania
2nd reference- (In response to “Oh, and it’s “Oceania has always been at war with East Asia” or “Eurasia”. If you’re going to try and chastise someone using classic literature, at least get it right.”)
“Actually it is expressed in several forms so as to confuse the populace as to the true enemy, do try and keep up won’t you
3rd reference- (In responce to “Actually, you’re wrong. It was used by the party to confuse those in Oceania. Never once in the entire book are the words “at war with Oceania” written.”)
“Hence the irony, dolt.
“We are war with ourselves”.= Civil War”
Not once did I state that it was written in Orwell’s book as I used it, intentionally to expose you as the rube you are.
You wrote: “Actually it is expressed in several forms so as to confuse the populace as to the true enemy, do try and keep up won’t you"
Oh really? Expressed where? You're trying to tell me you did not mean expressed in the book?
Where, exactly, is it "expressed in several forms"? What population was THAT phrases used to confuse?
I eagerly await the next twist of intellect. Or would not just rather stop digging?
Airstrip One is part of the vast political entity Oceania, which is eternally at war with one of two other vast entities, Eurasia and Eastasia. At any moment, depending upon current alignments, all existing records show either that Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia and allied with Eastasia, or that it has always been at war with Eastasia and allied with Eurasia.
Ergo it has been expressed in “many forms”
Regards,
Superior Intellect
Hey, this beats watching the coronation...
“as of now, we only suffer belittlings, and brayings, nothing to get up in arms over.”
for now.
vigilance is not an unhealthy thing and niether can it be considered dangerous.
IMHO
LOL. When you engage in hyperbole and mistatement of facts, you undermine your case. Obama is a polarizing figure. Civil War may be hyperbole as well, but there is a definite possibility that this country will be Balkanized politically and if an amnesty is passed, along cultural and linguistic lines. Obama has firm control of the levers of power in this country as no President of either party has had since LBJ.
I view Obama as possibly the most divisive President we have ever had, including Lincoln. In a nation with rapidly changing demographics--by 2023 half of the children 18 and under will be minorties and by 2042, half of the country will be minorities--and a growing wealth disparity between rich and poor with Hispanics and blacks being the majority of the poor and non-Hispanic whties and asians the "rich," I can see Obama's populist rhetoric polarizing this country even more. Redistribution of wealth will be achieved thru the ballot box as our democratic institutions are taken over by those who don't pay taxes.
Superior misdirector. Liar and imbecile. Caught and now scrambling. Poorly I might add.
YOU wrote "“Actually it is expressed in several forms so as to confuse the populace as to the true enemy,"
Now, pay attention son.
IT...IS....NEVER...EXPRESSED...THAT...WAY...IN...THE...BOOK.
Ever.
Anywhere.
It is not expressed that way to be ironic, or clever. It is not, as you claimed, "expressed in several forms so as to confuse the populace as to the true enemy,"
It is...NOT expressed.
The phrases used by O'Brien and INGSOC are, and are ONLY, either;
"Oceania is at war with East Asia. Oceania has always been at war with East Asia. Eurasia is our ally. Eurasia has always been or ally"
or, the same phrase with East Asia and Eurasia reversed.
NEVER is it expressed "We are at war with Oceania" which is what YOU wrote.
Your nonsensical warping of what you wrote in some lame attempt to appear clever is a shame. Just admit you made a mistake and stop digging.
“Besides the point”?
You threw out a bogus “statistic” (did you even bother to check it?) and then tell us to “Stop!”.
It only makes your other arguments or “facts” seem questionable.
NO KIDDING DIMWIT, I stated that way as a reference to CIVIL WAR which is what the original post is all about.
ROTFLMAO!
Hyperbole and misstatement of facts???
In the first place, you’re taking on my statemnets about his margin of victory on a thread about STARTING A CIVIL WAR but I am being heperbolic? Good Lord man. That was your priority? Correcting my position on the margin of his victory?
In the second place, my facts were accurate from a popular vote position. I never said % and I admitted that other had won by larger margins % wise.
I’m sorry I started this. Not one person here has bothered to address the fact that this post was about the fact that a “violent and bloody war” will start and that WE may be forced to some of us will be forced to “support some violent people we normally shun and despise.”
But you go ahead. You be pedantic and keep pounding me on whether or not 55% or 53% or %57 is a big victory. On whether on not I was wrong about the margin of Barry’s pounding of McCain.
It was not bogus. I never said %.
If you want to pat yourself on the back about who is right about how big Barry’s way-more-than-big-enough victory was when this whole post was about a “violent, bloody war” starting knock yourself out.
No, I’m not a dim whit. You’re a liar. You are misrepresenting your position. You did not bring up that argument until after I handed it to you and you saw a way out.
Quite correct. If something untoward happened to Obama then a civil war might be at risk of starting in response to emotion-driven riots on the part of the Obama constituency.
I'm hoping he has a nice time for four years and then fades into history. If he's smart this is exactly what he'll do (after all, as Bill Clinton demonstrates, Presidents don't get to cash in their chips until *after* they leave office).
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.