It is a complex and ever shifting subject. THat is why we're sharing our observations and outlook with each other here, in hopes the boulder rolling downhill can be slowed or deflected a bit, if perhaps not entirely halted until it does so of its own weight.
Who are we going to fight,
*We* indicates a point at which both you and I have concluded that it is necessary to do so, and I damned sure don't intend to do so if there's any other viable course- even though I may have tro be making preparations to do so even as I dread the possibility.
I expect if it comes to that, I'll fight against those who my closest family, friends, neighbors, and particularly my fellow veterans view as threats to our future prospects and to the constitution we've sworn to defend...so long as it remains in full effect and is not rendered moot. As in most civil wars, I'd expect that there'll be some of my fellow countrymen among those who I would be facing, whether deserving turncoats and quislings, or just those who simply disagree with me on political matters and will kill me and my family to convince me of the superiority of their views. So since this is a *we* project, who do you figure *we* are going to be up aainst?
what is the fight about,
As with the previous American *civil war* [which technically wasn't one, since the Richmond Confederacy did not wish to institute a regime change in Washington] it's about whether or not there will continue to be a United States of America as we've known it for all our lives. The last one was also about four years long, which might or might not be the case in a second go-'round.
what's going to come of all this,
Way too soon to tell. Hopefully, it'll come before any further bloodletting. But for many, the first shots were fired at Waco in Texas and Ruby Ridge in Idaho, and turn about is fair play. There have also been more selected casualties on the other side.
and when did everyone stop beleiving in the ballot box?
Hopefully, they have not yet, and perhaps that will yet not become the prevailing viewpoint. But the events in Florida did not help, and more than the mob-bought Kennedy victory over Nixon in Chicago's Cook County that wrongfully deprived Richard Nixon of the presidency, and other vote fraud and election funding scandals in Florida and elsewhere, including one in the St Louis area that has yet to reveal the full extent of that iceberg beneath the surface, and which could do for Attorney General Ashcroft what Watergate did for Nixon's Attorney General John Mitchell.
But I suppose you could say Americans began to quit believing in the ballot box when they began believing in the television box. And if voting could really change the face of the American political process, do you think it would be allowed?
-archy-/-
To the best of my knowledge we on the right never stopped believing. If you read Mr. Prager's articles and have a general idea of the comments in this thread I think the problem is clear. The left NEVER believed in the ballot box -- at least not in honest elections that would allow a free people to decide.
Here is just one aspect of the left's duplicity, the courts.
google returned this address for a Freep discussion of Judge Rober Bork's new book, Coercing Virtue: the Worldwide Rule of Judges. Unfortunately it is a very short discussion.
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/982551/posts
"Judge Bork is discussing his new book Coercing Virtue: the Worldwide Rule of Judges on C-Span 2 now for about the next hour - observes that the worst fear of intellectuals is that control in the US might actually fall into the hands of the common man, and that intellectuals on the bench are the method they are trying to use to stop that from happening......."
Using the courts to legislate that which they cannot get at the ballot box started decades ago. Why do you think the left is so militant in opposing President Bush's nominations? They cannot elect who they need and of those they do elect they cannot always get the laws they want through legislatures due to popular opposition.
Recently the activists judges have expanded to include foreign precedents in their decisions. Look at Justice Ginsberg's recent statements.