Posted on 03/01/2019 7:28:55 AM PST by Mariner
At a moment when the country has never seemed angrier, two political commentators from opposite sides of the divide concurred last week on one point, nearly unthinkable until recently: The country is on the verge of "civil war."
First came former U.S. attorney Joseph diGenova, a Fox News regular and ally of President Trump. "We are in a civil war," he said. "The suggestion that there's ever going to be civil discourse in this country for the foreseeable future is over. . . . It's going to be total war."
The next day, Nicolle Wallace, a former Republican operative turned MSNBC commentator and Trump critic, played a clip of diGenova's commentary on her show and agreed with him - although she placed the blame squarely on the president.
Trump, she said, "greenlit a war in this country around race. And if you think about the most dangerous thing he's done, that might be it."
With the report by special counsel Robert Mueller reportedly nearly complete, impeachment talk in the air and the 2020 presidential election ramping up, fears that once existed only in fiction or the fevered dreams of conspiracy theorists have become a regular part of the political debate. These days, there's talk of violence, mayhem and, increasingly, civil war.
A tumultuous couple of weeks in American politics seem to have raised the rhetorical flourishes to a new level and also brought a troubling question to the surface: At what point does all the alarmist talk of civil war actually increase the prospect of violence, riots or domestic terrorism?
Speaking to conservative pundit Laura Ingraham, diGenova summed up his best advice to friends: "I vote, and I buy guns. And that's what you should do."
(Excerpt) Read more at lmtonline.com ...
Indeed.
The devotees of St. Leupold of the Reticle are many.
(He is the patron saint of snipers.)
If you were in Maryland or Kentucky or Missouri or some other places, the American Civil War was very much a civil war.
South Carolinians thought they were making a revolution in 1861, but when being revolutionary came to be seen as a bad thing, they started pushing "The War Between the States" with some holding out for "The War of Northern Aggression."
For the US government it was originally "The War of the Rebellion," but "The Civil War" came to be regarded as more neutral.
For me, there were enough brothers fighting brothers and families torn apart and enough real aggressiveness on both sides to justify calling it a civil war.
Ok, so it was US Army instead of US Navy which literally built the very ground which Ft Sumter stands on.
Doesn’t change my view that the Civil War started because South tried to take land which North owned by creation, not simply possession. “I made this” matters.
I am in favor of setting up liberal cities as small nations like Lichtenstein, San Marino, Monaco, and others. Wall them in and let them live and rule themselves. They will not be able to control the major part of Americs.
Antifarts are not into volunteering to fight for the fascists..........
Back in the involuntary draft days, this might have been a problem.
With silencers.
I’m interested if the UN sends in peacekeepers to confiscate guns. A job that Dems gladly hand over after federal agents get pulverized.
Scalia Shooting,
Thanks.
Oops,
Scalise.
“...Doesn’t change my view that the Civil War started because South tried to take land which North owned by creation, not simply possession...” [ctdonath2, post 103]
Wrong again - both in detail and in concept. Let’s make it a trifecta and concede you are engaging in presentism.
Maj Anderson moved his command from Ft Moultrie to Ft Sumter, judging the latter more defensible. Only after did the leaders of South Carolina announce their state was leaving the Union.
After President Lincoln was officially inaugurated, he called for 75,000 volunteers in a bid to beef up the standing armed forces, with a view to intimidating the Confederate states into returning to the Union. Other War Dept and Navy Dept facilities in the South had already been seized by the states where they were located - or were being sized up for takeover.
The Federal government did not “own” such facilities, infrastructure, and real property - not in the same sense as is commonly understood today. South Carolinians and numerous other Southerners saw it as a provocation when the Union Navy was ordered to break the CSA blockade and resupply Ft Sumter.
The legal climate was quite different before 1865: States were sovereign national entities capable and justified in doing what the Confederacy attempted. Just because the Union subdued the CSA by force of arms doesn’t render the legal arguments about sovereignty less valid: it’s intellectually less than honest to insist we must all bow to the omnipotent Feds, just as it’s less than honest to assert that the CSA was equally wrong in 1861 for refusing to cave in.
Times change. Legal and moral theories change, despite the distress evinced by so many forum members. Pretending it’s all been perfectly understood, therefore the CSA was morally culpable for attempting to break away, is presentism.
It will fracture the military and any foreign entities supplying the leftists, will be ‘dealt’ with, later.
There are 700,000 deer hunters in PA alone, and the numbers in MI, WI and OH are staggering. Like you said, much larger than all standing armies, combined.
“Keep in mind that because many hunters participated in more than one type of hunting, the sum of all the hunters exceeds the total of 13.7 million hunters given above. It probably will come as no surprise that deer hunting is most popular with U.S. hunters, with 10.9 million participants.”
https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=deer+hunters+in+us&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
We have 7 outdoor ranges and 3 FFL Stores here in the southern York County (PA) area, and I’ve never run into one of them, in the last 30yrs I’ve been here, owning/operating my own business.
Where are you?
To close to Kalifornia.
Good idea, but will never happen.
They’re like muslims (SPIT!); infiltrating and taking over at all levels of local/state/fed gov’t, courts, police, academia, religion etc etc etc.
Most states are infested.
Wouldn’t work at all. That’s where we are now, and it’s getting progressively worse.
Their goal is SOCIALISM, FASCISM AND COMMUNISM.
SOCIALISM
You have 2 cows.
The State forces you to give one to your neighbor, shoots the neighbor and forces you
to milk them both, giving all milk back to the state.
The State gives you a cup of sour milk.
MARXISM
You have two cows.
The government takes both and shoots you.
COMMUNISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and gives you nothing.
They shoot your family and put you in a gulag.
DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both, promises more free cows, lets you vote and gives you sour milk.
FASCISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and sells you some milk.
NAZISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and shoots your wife and kids.
CRONY CAPITALISM
You have two cows.
The State takes both, milks, slaughters them, and makes a tidy profit from the sale
of choice meat cuts and fresh milk.
You get some lousy hamburger and a jar of sour milk.
BUREAUCRATISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and then throws the milk away.
GUAMISM
You have two cows.
You never milk them, they just eat the grass, so you don’t have to mow the lawn.
You live on welfare and get food stamps, so you don’t need the milk. (H/T Fai Mao)
LBJ GREAT SOCIETISM
You have two cows.
The president realizes that neighbor wants their own cow, slaughters
your calf every year preventing you from having a cow to sell.
The president takes the slaughtered cow and turns it into hamburger,
has a cook-out so neighbor stops trying to own a cow themselves.
The neighbor spends next 50 years going to presidents cook out and
never gets his own cow. (H/T PCPOET7)
LAISSEZ-FAIRE CAPITALISM
You have two cows. So what? (H/T Celtic Conservative)
TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM
You have two cows.
You sell one and buy a bull.
Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows.
You sell them and retire on the income.
CONTEMPORARY WALL STREETISM
You have two cows.
You sell one, bundle the other with a goat, a mule,
and two dry cows.
You pile into the derivatives market, buy a Gulfstream
and when it all comes down around your ears...
You go to the government for a bailout.
AOC - SPJNK.
+10.
I got your back.
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.