A civil War? - Page 3

hey, they're obviously the loudest... you don't see many moderate democrats chaining themselves to trees..

but I see your point, it's just that being the last 2 years in the Fine Arts department certainly shifts perspective(hardcore liberals being a big loud mouthed group)....

and since when do you need a large group of people to change governmental entities (read: coup d'etat)?

as far as i can say,this civil war is going to be really really nothing
maybe a county going on a rally march
maybe a bunch of dfdsfdsfdsfsdfsf going to attack our forums, have thousands of youtube video with a title Re: Dream Act
maybe some idiots would ask for supreme court review on this act! who knows
but this is 2009, i don't even think people really do anything other than just talk and talk and talk
they just use their mouth
once it is pass, federal owns the damn state and local government
we can sue the county and ban them from kicking our back

I don't see how "hardcore liberals" are "ignorant hippies, ignorant eco-nazis, and ignorant commie-wannabes". The most liberal people in the party (Gore, Leahy, Kerry, Durbin, Shumer, Kennedy, etc) are advocating for things like single-payer health care, comprehensive immigration reform, and CO2 Cap and trade while fighting against institutionalized torture, bank loan sharking, and discrimination.

While these are certainly some of the most liberal policies to ever come out of Washington, I fail to see how any of them makes progressives "ignorant hippies, ignorant eco-nazis, and ignorant commie-wannabes" unless you're talking from the teabagger perspective.

In any case, I agree with Pygmalion. The wingnutters are all talk, no action, particularly when they're in such disarray as a national party. And when the oposition looks like this, I doubt there will be much of a "civil war". You just need to move aside and let them shoot themselves in the foot.

Aww, thanks hun.

if CIR passes, expect a high hate crime rate. and once THAT happens; expect Latinos or immigrant communities marching into the streets. Just remember what happen in 1996 I believe; the riots in L.A. because of a police brutality against an African-American

it would happen anytime
the concern you are right, it would definitely have force some extremists to begin some criminal activities because they hate this CIR thing....

but the number will be small in numbers
there is no way to prevent this to happen
it happens everyday too...

Yes Alex, that will happen, life as we know it destroy in a bloody racial war.

As much as we like to make fun of nativists groups, they are smarter than that. They know that if they go around lynching immigrants, it is going to make them look worst. If there are hate crimes, not only immigrants are going to march, the USA and the world will repudiate them for their hateful ways.

That is the reason why the KKK has not been shut down. So far, no actual member has committed a hate crime. Usually, is people who get their propaganda and are outside their circle. If someone can make a reasonable argument that KKK's propaganda was the reason for any hate crime, then they are in trouble.

Yea, even to be an evil prick, you need to have your act together.

Finally, just because there is a threat of terrorism from these groups, it does not mean that the USA should not go further with CIR or DA. A hateful minority should not be allowed to maintain a status quo that is evil in nature because the majority is afraid of their terrorist tactics.

You are delusional at best if you think they can make a comeback next year.

"We don't need no civil war.........."

Seriously, I think the threat of an actual civil war is nil. Immigration is not nearly as big of an issue as slavery and popular sovereignty/states' rights were back in the 19th century.

Unfortunately, it took a civil war to correct the inherent defect of slavery in the US Constitution.

That defect was there because of a compromise reached over the issue to secure Southern support for the Constitution during its drafting period in 1787.

The US already had its second Civil War a hundred years later in the 1960's, though there was no actual "war" over the Civil Rights Movement and other tectonic cultural shifts. Southern politicians merely looked for loopholes so as not to enforce the laws, or blatantly ignored them, instead of issuing a call to arms.

Wow, as a historian you really fail at history.

Republicans were in power from 1969 until 2009. That’s forty years of the “Southern Strategy” at its best (ask Pat “Stop-the-Brown-Invasion” Buchanan, one of the key architects). You can’t say that Democrats “regained” control just because Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton got elected during that period of time. Carter was elected ONLY because of the Watergate debacle, and Ford’s conspicuous complicity in pardoning Nixon. Bill Clinton won because he campaigned as an old-school Dixiecrat (hence his popularity in the south), minus the racism. He also faced an incumbent president that was perceived by the Republican base (which was actually huge at that time) to have betrayed them on the most important issue to them: taxes. The economic recession that blew up in Bush’s face right before reelection certainly helped Clinton greatly. Furthermore, the Republican base wasn’t satisfied with the results in the Persian Gulf War, since they wanted Saddam’s head (little did they know, Baby Bush would grant them their wish). But perhaps the most important reason why Bill Clinton won was because the conservative vote was split between Bush and Ross Perot.

So yes, when you say:

That’s because Democrats were, in fact, a “minor party”.

Now, you say that Republicans don’t need to pander to anyone and somehow make a comeback next year or in 2012? Ha ha, I’m with lilbawler on this one. Unless you find a way to win an election with 21% of the vote (which is the “pure” base of the party, you know, sans the Specters of the world) I don’t see how that’s humanly possible. And no, cloning is not an option since the wingnuttia opposes that too.

If you look at the polls, Republicans lost ground with every single demographic in the country: College grads, Midwest, middle class, moderates, liberals, males, upper class, white, old people, women, black, etc, etc. THEY EVEN MANAGED TO LOSE CONSERVATIVES! Not since Reagan had there been such a political juggernaut in America. Oh, and by the way, this all happened even before Obama enacts Universal Health Care, or Comprehensive Immigration Reform; policies which will undoubtedly set Democrats on the victory side for at least half a century.

Take a look at my avatar, that’s not a fictional map I pulled out of my wildest dreams. It shows the counties where party identification grew for the last election. As you can see, Democrats managed to significantly expand the party all over the country. Republicans, on the other hand, expanded - in the south... In a modern democracy, galvanizing your tiny base is not the way to win elections. Sorry.

As for French politics, you fail again.

You do know that the PACS (or civil unions) were enacted under Chirac’s presidency, right? You know, the guy from the right-wing RPR party (now UMP). Can you imagine Bush even considering civil unions?

And Sarkozy (also from the UMP), while not supporting same-sex marriage, campaigned on the promise to increase the rights for those in PACS particularly when it came to adoption and tax benefits. He was also very vocal against the Catholic church, and called their position on gays intolerant. He said that he didn’t remember the time when he “chose” to be straight, so the notion that people choose to be gay was preposterous to him.

Also, where you asleep during the G-20 summit? Nicolas Sarkozy threatened that he would not go along with any concessions made unless strict regulation all across was the focus. Again, can you think of any Republican taking that position without getting lynched by the wingnut base?

So like I said, Republicans need to learn from their French Conservative counterpart. If they want to oppose gay marriage. Fine. But they need to offer an alternative that isn’t based on bigoted views of the fringe of the party. They want to support an everything-goes free-market mentality. Okay. But when an economic recession strikes BECAUSE OF DEREGULATION, you learn from your mistakes and work towards a solution that regulates the financial sector accordingly.

Only then will Republicans be able to attract new voters who are moderates and conservative, but still have half a brain cell left. And since the party doesn’t seem to be getting the message (or maybe chooses to ignore it), I doubt they’ll get to compete at the national level any time soon.