(February 22, 2017 at 9:34 pm)Minimalist Wrote: The Soviet Bloc did not free itself with armed revolt.  You tea-bagging shits had best remember that.

This. The Founding Fathers didn't get everything right, but Jefferson nailed it when he wrote of government existing by consent of the governed. Once consent is removed, flip the hourglass and watch the sands spill.

(February 22, 2017 at 11:06 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

(February 22, 2017 at 9:57 pm)Kosh Wrote: True, but then they went and subjugated themselves by putting Putin in charge.  It was probably a "Make Russia Great Again" bullshit line that they lapped up.

The Soviet bloc included all of the associated "republics" which Russia swallowed up and could not hold.  East Germany rejoined West Germany.  The Baltic states joined NATO.  Most of the rest joined the EU.  Could Russia overrun Uzbekistan or Turkmenistan if they wanted?  Probably in an afternoon.  Why would they want to?  Muslim populations worked out so well for them in Chechnya.

A number of them have subjugated themselves to Brussels for various reasons; Hungary seeks reunification with Austria, The Slovaks and Czechs fell out with each other and then both joined the EU the Poles moved west en masse then were replaced by the Romanians so went back.
Serbia and Bosnia remain conspicuously outside, Serbia still has a hangover from the Balkan wars, I suspect Bosnia will never be accepted into the EU in much the same manner as Turkey.

(February 21, 2017 at 4:32 pm)Secular Elf Wrote: In light of how divided American politics are right now, it seems to me that there is no longer any room for compromise or in the least opposing sides listening to one another any more.  Everyone seems to be entrenched in their own views or living in bubbles.  My question is this: are we all on the road to another civil war?  If this is your recognition of what is going on in America then what do you feel should be done to prepare for it?  Or do you think these rising tensions will blow over and there is nothing ever to be worried about or to prepare for?

Were too fat dumb lazy and stupid. Only a few of us actually see both sides as being just as bad and evil.
While the other 2 sides are like YEAH MURICA FOR THE REPUBLIC. Then the other side is like yeah America
were free and lets accept everyone and give up or rights and weapons. Both sides republican and democrat they are
the same just both fucking let downs and people really think both sides have their interest in mind.

(February 23, 2017 at 3:44 am)dyresand Wrote: Were too fat dumb lazy and stupid.

That's an interesting statement coming from someone that can't even use basic punctuation.

The last time the us rebelled as a contiguous unit the stupidity or largess of the separatists didn't seem to be a problem.  In significant parts, they both contributed to it.  It took a real idiot to believe in the resistance to the sugar and stamp acts, and later the tea duties.  It took a relatively plumped person to be angry with the latter, specifically, which made tea even -cheaper- for the colonists.  OFC, many colonists did not seem to notice that they were being played by an oligarchy against a monarchy in order to protect the status of the former against a perceived threat from the latter.  

OTOH, they didn't have much to do at the time but shoot at furriners....economic slump and all.

Murica!

The same exercise can be repeated with the civil war, wherein poor southerners who were very likely themselves to be at the bottom rung of a stultifying social order fought to protect the disproportionate legislative ability wielded by the southern gentry, in their time..the educated elites, lol-and again, whole lot of furriner shootin went down.

(February 23, 2017 at 11:09 am)Faith No More Wrote:

(February 23, 2017 at 3:44 am)dyresand Wrote: Were too fat dumb lazy and stupid.

That's an interesting statement coming from someone that  can't even use basic punctuation.

My school didn't teach me good

KUSA Wrote:

Mister Agenda Wrote:About 40% of registered Democrats are gun owners, so guns come to mind.

Bolt action deer rifles and two boxes of Remington Core Lokts aren't very good for waging war, especially against someone that has assault rifles with copious amounts of ammo.

The vast majority of those 'assault rifles' are just rifles shaped like assault rifles. Many sports AR-15s take 5-round magazines. At close range two 9 mils with 15 rounds do just as good a job as an AR-15 type rifle with a 30-round magazine. If it doesn't have automatic fire capability, it's not an assault rifle by definition, although there has been some legalize written to broaden the definition for purposes of controlling the sale and use of weapons that can take a high-capacity magazine. Weapons with automatic fire capability are illegal without a special license that the ATF does not hand out readily. Conversion to automatic fire is not nearly as easy as it's often made out to be.

And there's absolutely zero reason to assume that Democrats primarily own weapons for hunting rather than defense. Even a nerd can geek out over a Calico M-950 with a 50 or 100-round capacity that looks like it belongs in a Star Wars movie, classified as a semiautomatic pistol. Perfect for holding off zombies.

No one broadened the definition of an assualt rifle, they simply invented a new set of terms to define.  First, "assault style rifles" and then, the scarier sounding "assault weapons".  The latter -includes- a number of deer rifles and squirrel guns.  So...something is amiss.  Either the deer rifles and squirrel guns -are- weapons of war (lol) or they aren't.

Personally, I;d rather have some jackass with an ar-15 popping off his little bb's at me than deal with some stone cold neck in a treestand with a deer rifle, if I were a jack-booted thug of the state intent on suppressing an insurgency.

(February 23, 2017 at 11:49 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: The vast majority of those 'assault rifles' are just rifles shaped like assault rifles. Many sports AR-15s take 5-round magazines.

In liberal states such as California and NY.

Quote:At close range two 9 mils with 15 rounds do just as good a job as an AR-15 type rifle with a 30-round magazine.

That's just pure horse shit. The terminal ballistics on flesh are quite different. Also, the AR is much easier to get and keep on target especially with rapid fire.

Quote:If it doesn't have automatic fire capability, it's not an assault rifle by definition, although there has been some legalize written to broaden the definition for purposes of controlling the sale and use of weapons that can take a high-capacity magazine. Weapons with automatic fire capability are illegal without a special license that the ATF does not hand out readily. Conversion to automatic fire is not nearly as easy as it's often made out to be.

I agree. I was just using liberal friendly terms.

Quote:And there's absolutely zero reason to assume that Democrats primarily own weapons for hunting rather than defense. Even a nerd can geek out over a Calico M-950 with a 50 or 100-round capacity that looks like it belongs in a Star Wars movie, classified as a semiautomatic pistol. Perfect for holding off zombies.

I doubt that the hard core liberal that believes in gun bans will own the type of weaponry that I own.

Looks like gun sales are climbing for African Americans and Democrats, as is liberal membership in gun clubs.

Not that I think there will be an actual widespread outbreak of violence between libs and pubs, or that the trend will continue.

I wonder how many publicans would switch to Dem if Dems were more pro-gun ownership?