What's wrong with this country?

[Manedwolf]

If we continue on the current path we are looking at a civil war in America that will make the last one look like war games.

Based on the venom and anti-patriotic "we all suck, we're the terrorists" self-loathing I saw last time I perused Daily Kos, I'd not disagree with that. But it'll be people who love the country versus the leftist nihilists who just want to watch it burn.

[longeyes]

Exactly my view.

And we are all, whether we know it or not, choosing sides.

Political cries for "unity" mean nothing when an increasing contingent of people in this country despise their own nation and see no problem with ripping asunder its basic values, principles, and legal protections.

Don't think I like coming to this conclusion.  I hate the prospect of what might be on the way.  But I know a lot of "liberals" and I find myself increasing unable to even break bread with many of them without hearing irrational venom directed at everything I believe in.

[The Rabbi]

Let me get this straight, "Rabbi:" you are defending what look to me like treasonable activities by government officials? 

This country has been unified around certain fundamental values and principles.  E plurius UNUM, my friend.  Without that level of basic unity we are not a nation.  That is elementary.

And citing dissident groups really doesn't equate to the creation of a vast class--in the tens of millions--that now feels it is a nation apart.

You can posit all the "doom and gloom" to my messages you wish.  I'm a realist and a pragmatist.  If we continue on the current path we are looking at a civil war in America that will make the last one look like war games.

Since the COnstitution defines what is treasonable and what isn't, please explain what treasonable actions you refer to.
As for "e pluribus unum" I do not think that means every citizen must have the same POV.  I do not think it even refers to individual citizens.
As for your "vast class" this canard is very old.  As old as Ben Franklin who wrote about the aliens destroying this country who could not be assimilated.  He was referring to the Germans living in PA btw.  I guess even the Founders got it wrong sometimes.
You are neither a realist nor a pragmatist.  You are an alarmist.

[longeyes]

Rabbi, I have lived in Los Angeles for a long time.  I've been around the country.  The notion that we have a lot of people hostile to basic American values is, sir, no mere "canard."  I suggest you widen your reading.  Comparing fears of Germans two hundred years ago with an invasion, in the tens of millions, by illegals, mostly from Latin America is rank foolishness and an insult to any rational debate.  The "Reconquista" extremists exist.  So does MS-13.  This is no "canard."  Black people living in Highland Park, near me, have been targeted for assassination--justs because they are black--by militant Mexican gangsters.  That is the subject of a current Federal case here.  No, it's no "canard."

No one said all citizens should have "the same POV."  But they should subscribe to the principles of the Constitution and abide by American law, wouldn't you say?  I mean if you really want a sovereign nation, of course.

If you read the story I posted you know what the potential treason is.  Aiding and abetting enemies of the nation is treason, and that's precisely what's being alleged.

Yes, I'm an "alarmist."  That doesn't mean I don't see possible responses to the dangers we face.  But better to be an alarmist than a Lotus-eater.   I assume you own firearms if you're on this board--does that make you an alarmist or just a realist?

[Len Budney]

Rabbi, I have lived in Los Angeles for a long time.  I've been around the country.  The notion that we have a lot of people hostile to basic American values is, sir, no mere "canard."

I agree. Almost everyone in America is hostile to basic American values. About half of them believe in using government to rob their fellow citizens, and roughly half believe in projecting American military power abroad. There's hardly a soul left alive who believes in "free trade with all, wars and entangling alliances with none."

--Len.

[Brad Johnson]

"free trade with all, wars and entangling alliances with none."

Nice utopian sentiment.  Too bad human nature makes it impossible.

Brad

[Len Budney]

"free trade with all, wars and entangling alliances with none."

Nice utopian sentiment.  Too bad human nature makes it impossible.

What's Utopian about it? Threaten me and I shoot you. Don't threaten me, and I trade with you. Pick a fight with your neighbor, and I'll continue to trade with you--but if you try to drag me into the fight, I'll decline.

Worked for Switzerland for half a thousand years or so.

--Len.

[The Rabbi]

Rabbi, I have lived in Los Angeles for a long time.  I've been around the country.  The notion that we have a lot of people hostile to basic American values is, sir, no mere "canard."  I suggest you widen your reading.  Comparing fears of Germans two hundred years ago with an invasion, in the tens of millions, by illegals, mostly from Latin America is rank foolishness and an insult to any rational debate.  The "Reconquista" extremists exist.  So does MS-13.  This is no "canard."  Black people living in Highland Park, near me, have been targeted for assassination--justs because they are black--by militant Mexican gangsters.  That is the subject of a current Federal case here.  No, it's no "canard."

No one said all citizens should have "the same POV."  But they should subscribe to the principles of the Constitution and abide by American law, wouldn't you say?  I mean if you really want a sovereign nation, of course.

If you read the story I posted you know what the potential treason is.  Aiding and abetting enemies of the nation is treason, and that's precisely what's being alleged.

Yes, I'm an "alarmist."  That doesn't mean I don't see possible responses to the dangers we face.  But better to be an alarmist than a Lotus-eater.   I assume you own firearms if you're on this board--does that make you an alarmist or just a realist?

Of course thousands of Germans 200 years ago is about the same percentage as 10s of millions today.  Of course there are no tens of millions.  The total illegal population is estimated at about 10 million.  If someone assumes that everyone in Latin America is itching to move here and that 10% will actually make it then he'd be right.  Of course he'd also be an idiot because not everyone in Latin America wants to move here.
As for MS 13 and Mexican gangs, yeah.  So what?  So some tiny number as an overall percentage of the population has some weird notion or are criminals.  I don't see that that proves anything.  We have had gangs of criminals here for hundreds of years, all of them with values opposed to the Constitution.  We haven't collapsed yet.  No, the end is not near.

[Brad Johnson]

Worked for Switzerland for half a thousand years or so.

Nope.  What worked for Switzerland is they made themselves an indespensible repository for anonymous money and, when that didn't work, people like us stepped in from time to time and kept them from getting stomped into cheese flavored goo.

Brad

[Len Budney]

Nope.  What worked for Switzerland is they made themselves an indespensible repository for anonymous money and, when that didn't work, people like us stepped in from time to time and kept them from getting stomped into cheese flavored goo.

I look forward to your references on US military intervention in Switzerland.

--Len.

[roo_ster]

IIRC, the percentage of Mexicans who would like to wander over the border and live in the USA was about 40% in a poll taken south of the border. 

The estimates of the number of illegal aliens in the USA range from 8-20million and that roughly 70% of them are Mexican.  Current Mexican population is a little over 108million.  So, 5.2%-13% of Mexico's population is already here in the USA.  These percentages do not take into account legal immigrants or naturalized US citizens who Mexico still considers Mexican citizens.

[The Rabbi]

Nope.  What worked for Switzerland is they made themselves an indespensible repository for anonymous money and, when that didn't work, people like us stepped in from time to time and kept them from getting stomped into cheese flavored goo.

I look forward to your references on US military intervention in Switzerland.

--Len.

That wins the non-sequitur comment of the week award.

[Len Budney]

Nope.  What worked for Switzerland is they made themselves an indespensible repository for anonymous money and, when that didn't work, people like us stepped in from time to time and kept them from getting stomped into cheese flavored goo.

I look forward to your references on US military intervention in Switzerland.

That wins the non-sequitur comment of the week award.

It's a perfect sequitur: he claims that people like us stepped in to keep them from being "stomped into cheese-flavored goo." That's in fact false, as will become obvious as soon as he tries to come up with examples of "people like us stepping in," etc.

--Len.

[Brad Johnson]

That's in fact false, as will become obvious as soon as he tries to come up with examples of "people like us stepping in," etc.

Maybe you should take a history class and get back to us.

Brad

[Len Budney]

That's in fact false, as will become obvious as soon as he tries to come up with examples of "people like us stepping in," etc.

Maybe you should take a history class and get back to us.

Not even one little pointer? That's called "shifting the burden of proof." Hopefully you won't reply by saying, "I'm not doing your homework for you... go back to school." That one has been done to death. The burden of proof rests with you, and you can start by giving one good example.

--Len.

[Brad Johnson]

Not even one little pointer? That's called "shifting the burden of proof." Hopefully you won't reply by saying, "I'm not doing your homework for you... go back to school." That one has been done to death. The burden of proof rests with you, and you can start by giving one good example.

If you're going to belabor something that blatantly obvious, then nothing I or anyone else could say will make any difference.

By the way, what was your handle over at THR?

Brad

[Len Budney]

Not even one little pointer? That's called "shifting the burden of proof." Hopefully you won't reply by saying, "I'm not doing your homework for you... go back to school." That one has been done to death. The burden of proof rests with you, and you can start by giving one good example.

If you're going to belabor something that blatantly obvious, then nothing I or anyone else could say will make any difference.

In other words, you give up. OK, that's OK.

--Len.


As an aside, if you think it's "blatantly obvious," then I'm going to guess that you think the allies somehow "saved" Switzerland in World War II. If so, I can't imagine where you got the idea; Switzerland was not threatened at any point, and no military action was undertaken by the allies in her defense.

[Brad Johnson]

As an aside, if you think it's "blatantly obvious," then I'm going to guess that you think the allies somehow "saved" Switzerland in World War II. If so, I can't imagine where you got the idea; Switzerland was not threatened at any point, and no military action was undertaken by the allies in her defense.

:snicker:

You need to broaden your horizons a bit, buddy.  There's a lot more to history than the few short years of WWII.

And we're still waiting to know who you were over at THR.  Or does the question bring up too many bad memories?

Brad

[Len Budney]

As an aside, if you think it's "blatantly obvious," then I'm going to guess that you think the allies somehow "saved" Switzerland in World War II. If so, I can't imagine where you got the idea; Switzerland was not threatened at any point, and no military action was undertaken by the allies in her defense.

:snicker:

You need to broaden your horizons a bit, buddy.  There's a lot more to history than the few short years of WWII.

Still can't come up with any examples? Not even one? Pity.

And we're still waiting to know who you were over at THR.

Who's "we"? The royal "we"? Are "we" royalty, then? If you're curious, it isn't that tough to guess: my user name was my last name.

--Len.

[Brad Johnson]

Keep stirrin'.

Brad

[Len Budney]

Keep stirrin'.

It's pointless to keep going in circles. You refused the burden of proof, so you lose. It's that simple.

But you're wrong anyway. The last invasion of Switzerland was by Napoleon in 1789. The Swiss resisted, and the French pulled out in 1803. No other nations came to her aid. Before that the Swiss lost the battle of Marignano, but that was fought in Italy and Switzerland was not invaded. Before that, the Duke of Burgundy invaded in 1475; the Swiss were in the end victorious, without help, and have been essentially independent ever since, with the exception of the five years' occupation by Napoleon.

You'll have to help me out here. When was the part where "people like us" rushed to their aid so they wouldn't be squished into a "cheese-like goo"?

--Len.

[Brad Johnson]

You have invasion on the brain today, don't you?  It ever occur to you that might not be the point?

Brad

p.s. - If you came over to APS thinking that this is a win/lose forum like Ell & Pee was getting over at THR, you might want to reconsider your motives.

[Len Budney]

You have invasion on the brain today, don't you?  It ever occur to you that might not be the point?

I have no idea what you mean by "people like us" stepping in to keep them from being "stomped into cheese-flavored goo," since you refuse to tell us. You apparently admit that whatever you're claiming, it has nothing to do with preventing or repelling an invasion of Switzerland, which is certainly a reasonable interpretation of being "stomped into cheese-flavored goo." You also claimed that whatever you're referring to is "blatantly obvious."

You'll have to give an example of "blatantly obvious" stepping in by "people like us" in order to keep Switzerland from being "stomped into cheese-flavored goo." This will be especially interesting since you claim it has nothing to do with any military invasion of Switzerland.

But I'm not going to keep asking; guessing games are pointless.

--Len.

[Brad Johnson]

But I'm not going to keep asking; guessing games are pointless.

Then stop guessing and go do a little research.  You might learn something.

Brad

[jnojr]

If we continue on the current path we are looking at a civil war in America that will make the last one look like war games.

I agree with this to some extent.

Look at American politics today... we have two parties that are bitterly opposed, yet really aren't very different.  Each party is far more interested in demagoguery and one-upsmanship than leading.  Both parties have their rabid supporters who bitterly hate those of the other party.  And neither party really represents most of the country... voter turnout keeps dropping because people are sick and tired at having two choices, neither of which is palatable to them.

So, we have Red America, Blue America, and a whole bunch of people who really don't care and just want to live their lives, but who aren't allowed to because of the first two.  On top of that, a huge and growing population of illegal aliens who have no interest in assimilating into any form of our society... they want to do things just like they do back home.

If only Red and Blue were geographic as well as ideological boundaries... there'd be a civil war, all right, but I think it would get resolved without too terribly much time and bloodshed.  But we simply cannot remain as one country the way we're going.  And, frankly, I don't want to... I don't want to be the subject of a massive, indifferent bureaucracy thousands of miles away that cares nothing for me, except for how much wealth it can extract from me.  I have just as much representation with that distant, foreign government as the Founding Fathers of our country had with England... so what if I get to vote for "representatives", when none of those representatives actually represent me, and their elections are foreordained anyway!

The government in Washington D.C. has no real legitimacy any more.  It has grown and expanded far beyong the limitations that were set on it.  So what if a group of old men made some decision decades before I was born saying that that was OK?  We're supposed to have a government "by the consent of the governed", yet I have never given my consent, nor is there any method which they would recognize by which I could withdraw my consent if I had.  If my consent is not required any more, and if I may not withdraw consent... how am I not a slave?  What difference is there between what we have now, and some random stranger sticking a gun in my face and telling me that I must work for him now?

The tree of liberty must occasionally be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants.  And I doubt that anyone could disagree that that tree is pretty sickly right now.